US lists Pakistan among countries that provide ‘safe haven’ to terrorists - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14825081
Hindustan Times wrote:
The US report said Pakistan did not take sufficient action against terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad in 2016.

Image

The US on Wednesday listed Pakistan among the nations and regions providing “safe havens” to terrorists, saying terror groups like the LeT and JeM continue to operate, train, organise and fundraise inside the country in 2016.

In its annual ‘Country Report on Terrorism’, as mandated by the Congress, the State Department said that Pakistani military and security forces undertook operations against groups that conducted attacks within Pakistan such as Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan.

“Pakistan did not take substantial action against the Afghan Taliban or Haqqani, or substantially limit their ability to threaten US interests in Afghanistan, although Pakistan supported efforts to bring both groups into an Afghan-led peace process,” the State Department said.

“Pakistan did not take sufficient action against other externally focused groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) in 2016, which continued to operate, train, organise, and fundraise in Pakistan,” the report said.

India, it said continued to experience attacks, “including by Maoist insurgents and Pakistan-based terrorists”.

Indian authorities continued to blame Pakistan for cross-border attacks in Jammu and Kashmir, it said.

“In January, India experienced a terrorist attack against an Indian military facility in Pathankot, Punjab, which was blamed by authorities on JeM. Over the course of 2016, the Government of India sought to deepen counterterrorism cooperation and information sharing with the United States,” the State Department said.

The Indian government continued to closely monitor the domestic threat from transnational terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS), which made threats against India in their terrorist propaganda. A number of individuals were arrested for Islamic State-affiliated recruitment and attack plotting within India, the report said.

In a separate chapter, the State Department listed Pakistan as one of the safe havens of terrorism.

The State Department said that numerous terrorist groups, including the Haqqani Network (HQN), the LeT and JeM continued to operate from Pakistani soil in 2016.

“Although LeT is banned in Pakistan, LeT’s wings Jamaat- ud-Dawa (JuD) and Falah-i-Insaniat Foundation (FiF) were able to openly engage in fundraising, including in the capital,” it said.

Read | US looks to cut aid to Pakistan, other client nations in coming budget

“LeT’s chief Hafiz Saeed (a UN-designated terrorist) continued to address large rallies, although in February 2017, Pakistan proscribed him under relevant provisions of Schedule Four of the Anti-Terrorism Act, thus severely restricting his freedom of movement,” it noted.

The 2015 ban on media coverage of Saeed, JuD, and FiF continued and was generally followed by broadcast and print media, it said.

According to the State Department, the Pakistani government did not publicly reverse its December 2015 declaration that neither JuD nor FiF is banned in Pakistan, despite their listing under UN sanctions regimes, although in January 2017, Pakistan placed both organisations “under observation” pursuant to Schedule Two of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

While not a ban, keeping the outfits under observation allows the government to closely scrutinise the activities of both organisations.

On November 11, Pakistan’s National Counterterrorism Authority published its own list of banned organisations that placed JuD in a separate section for groups that are “under observation” but not banned.

Pakistan continued military operations to eradicate terrorist safe havens in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, although their impact on all terrorist groups was uneven, it said.

In its report to the Congress, the State Department said in 2016 that India and the United States pledged to strengthen cooperation against terrorist threats from groups, including al-Qaeda, the ISIS, JeM, LeT and D-Company (Dawood Ibrahim’s group), through greater collaboration on designations at the UN.

Indian and US leaders directed officials to identify new areas of collaboration through the July US-India Counterterrorism Joint Working Group, applauded finalisation of a bilateral arrangement to facilitate the sharing of terrorism screening information, and called upon Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of terrorist attacks against India to justice, the report said.

The United States and India worked together to designate JeM leader Maulana Masood Azhar, although the listing was blocked in the UN 1267 Committee, the State Department said.

Other areas mentioned in the report as safe havens are Afghanistan, Somalia, the Trans-Sahara, Sulu/Sulawesi Seas Littoral, Southern Philippines, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, Columbia and Venezuela.




So "I love you but I hate you but I love you" relations is ending on I hate you note? Interesting times ahead in Asia it seems, just a reminder historically and during cold war Pakistan was a staunch and very close ally of USA and their alliance was crucial in defeat of USSR in Afghanistan but it seems times are changing rapidly.

And yet I think given the strategic location US can't really afford to lose Pakistan as it would simply mean giving Pakistan completely to China.
#14825092
And not to mention the Iran-Pakistan relations.
Though Pakistan is mainly Sunni, many Persian tribes have historically colonized areas in Pakistan and Northern India and though many retreated with the Brits coming along some branches remain in Pakistan.
If i remember correctly, there are around 15-20 or so million people of Persian decent in Pakistan and many more mixed.
That played a major role in shaping the relations of both countries making them economic partners in general and military partners in times of need.
If the US-Pakistan took a downturn, that would push Pakistan to the Iran led axis in the middle east and central Asia.

On the other hand, you have the internal factions in Pakistan and Iran.
The Roujam and Hashmiri tribes mainly in Iran and extending into Pakistan during the colonization period have been arming up rapidly inside of Iran post the Iraq war. This has led to several collisions between those tribes and the Balochis and Kurds in Iran during the past couple of decades as they're not exactly small. With the clerics tolerating it and rarely paying attention to it as the major Persian tribes possesses the largest manpower and wealth and they can provide heavy protection to the nation in general and boost its dominance in the greater middle east and central Asia region as well as its influence beyond them.
However their pursuit to rebuild their armies have been limited to some areas and branches as other branches, mainly in Pakistan, have been under US watch.

A breakdown in US-Pakistan relations or even a slight downturn would mean their efforts would be on much wider scale and the Pakistani authorities working along side them to insure support and protection in one hand as well as economic boost and investments in case of heavy sanctions on the other hand.

It would be a mistake for the US to make an enemy of Pakistan.

Notes;
Do not mistake the Persian tribes with those of northern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan, the Pashtun.
#14825097
I like your posts generally @anasawad but I think your Iranian nationalism blinds you many times as I don't see any chance of a Iran led block of Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries in near future at least as long as middle east remains divided on religious sectarian lines and Iran remains in control of clerics.

But yeah interesting times are ahead in the region and as per Iranian tribes in Pakistan, well Balochis have been suppressed in various joint operations conducted by both Iran and Pakistan.

On the other hand Iran has the distinction of being very friendly to both India and Pakistan even though during cold war it was more supportive of Pakistan against India but that's not the case right now. India has invested heavily in Iran, for example in building of Chabahar port probably as a response to Chinese built port in Pakistan.

The point is if US-Pakistan alliance topples over this US will really lose a great strategic place to look over central asia and Iran. I don't really see any rational logic from US pov.
#14825104
I like your posts generally @anasawad but I think your Iranian nationalism blinds you many times as I don't see any chance of a Iran led block of Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries in near future at least as long as middle east remains divided on religious sectarian lines and Iran remains in control of clerics.


True, i do view many things in politics from Iranian perspective. But its not always bad. :p

For the topic, Iran is already in alliance and have significant influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and the central Asian countries. This doesn't necessarily mean that those countries should be stable or militarily strong. It just means that Iran has influence in them and can push things its way in those countries even if in some cases it led to internal consequences for the given country.
This is why it can have proxy wars. It doesn't need strong stable countries, just ones or groups in ones that follow its orders.
And a break down in US-Pakistan relations would give Iran that ability inside of Pakistan.


Also, though Iran general politics is controlled by the clerics currently, its foreign influence in many cases is pushed by those tribes, since as you said, the sectarian lines in the region limits the clerics ability to spread influence.

Take Lebanon and Hezbollah for example.
The clerics in Iran have influence over the Shia population in Lebanon but not the other sects. And while they do control Hezbollah, they don't have the means to prop it up to its current strength.
If they tried sending weapons directly to it, those would be taken out by Israel before it reaches it as seen many times before.
The only way the clerics can prop up Hezbollah and move things in Lebanon is through the Hazzar tribe in northeast of Iran which has several branches in Baalbak Lebanon (My clan is one of those :p ).
This means that the clerics have to compromise to us to give them what they want. So for example in 2014-2015 the clerics tried to push us to criminalize and stop weed and opium trade and usage in our areas in Iran specially the ones bordering Turkmenistan. After some problems with our refusal and their constant demands. It evolved to us cutting off supplies and funding from Hezbollah as a pressure card which is why Hezbollah ran into problems in those years. Until the clerics backed off and funding returned to Hezbollah.
Same applies for other countries in the middle east and central Asia.

The point is if US-Pakistan alliance topples over this US will really lose a great strategic place to look over central asia and Iran. I don't really see any rational logic from US pov.

I would say the US is already fading out in central Asia as China, Russia and Iran have the greatest influence there.

Balochis have been suppressed in various joint operations conducted by both Iran and Pakistan.

It is likely to see the Balochi insurgent groups being rooted out in the coming years in Iran as well as Pakistan. Specially with the Roujamis expanding over their expense and the Iranian government looking the other way. Pakistan is a different case, but the minute the Roujam tribe starts building up in Pakistan, prospects for the Balochis aren't looking very well.


Sorry for not mentioning, not sure why its not working here.
#14825117
anasawad wrote:And not to mention the Iran-Pakistan relations.
Though Pakistan is mainly Sunni, many Persian tribes have historically colonized areas in Pakistan and Northern India and though many retreated with the Brits coming along some branches remain in Pakistan.
If i remember correctly, there are around 15-20 or so million people of Persian decent in Pakistan and many more mixed.
That played a major role in shaping the relations of both countries making them economic partners in general and military partners in times of need.
If the US-Pakistan took a downturn, that would push Pakistan to the Iran led axis in the middle east and central Asia.

On the other hand, you have the internal factions in Pakistan and Iran.
The Roujam and Hashmiri tribes mainly in Iran and extending into Pakistan during the colonization period have been arming up rapidly inside of Iran post the Iraq war. This has led to several collisions between those tribes and the Balochis and Kurds in Iran during the past couple of decades as they're not exactly small. With the clerics tolerating it and rarely paying attention to it as the major Persian tribes possesses the largest manpower and wealth and they can provide heavy protection to the nation in general and boost its dominance in the greater middle east and central Asia region as well as its influence beyond them.
However their pursuit to rebuild their armies have been limited to some areas and branches as other branches, mainly in Pakistan, have been under US watch.

A breakdown in US-Pakistan relations or even a slight downturn would mean their efforts would be on much wider scale and the Pakistani authorities working along side them to insure support and protection in one hand as well as economic boost and investments in case of heavy sanctions on the other hand.

It would be a mistake for the US to make an enemy of Pakistan.

Notes;
Do not mistake the Persian tribes with those of northern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan, the Pashtun.
'

You need to stop making stuff up. There is no way that 15-20 million Pakistanis have Persian ancestry from Iran. Most Pakistanis are Indic Muslims with the exception of Pashtuns, Balochs and pockets of minorities like Pamiris in areas such as Chitral. The main source of Persianization in South Asia was the region of Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The empires which spread Perso-Islamic culture to South Asia were either Tajik, Pashtun or Turkic--Ghurids, Ghaznawids, Delhi Sultanate, Suris, Lodis, Mughals, etc. Some Mughal nobles had ancestry from Shiraz and some Qizilbash from Afghanistan fled Amir Abdur Rahman Khan and settled in Pakistan. That is not enough to account for 15-20 million Indic Pakistanis with Persian ancestry!

Iran has better relations with Afghanistan and India than Pakistan as evident in the Chabahar port project. Pakistan supports extremist Baloch factions in Iran which continues to be a source of tension between the two countries. And Pakistan is a staunch ally of Saudi Arabia..their military is even considering aiding Saudi military operations in Yemen. Pakistan is the main source of extremism in the region and must be stopped!
#14825133
Barmakid wrote:There is no way that 15-20 million Pakistanis have Persian ancestry from Iran.

Pakistan has been part of the Persian world for centuries ( or north of Pakistan more accurately). Most people in Pakistan are mixed with Persian blood as the colonization and intermixing lasted since before BC.
I would say over half the population there can either track their ancestry to the Persian tribes or atleast find a connection to the Persian tribes in their ancestry.

By ancestry doesn't mean they're second or third generation immigrants. When you say they are of Persian ancestry that means they've moved to the land and settled their centuries ago while maintaining connection to their leaders.


The main source of Persianization in South Asia was the region of Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan

Or more accurately, the main source of counter persianization of the region were those groups since most of the rebellions against Persians came from those. Even though they were forced to adopt the language and their languages rooted out over the centuries in case of the Afghan and Tajik.

The empires which spread Perso-Islamic culture to South Asia were either Tajik, Pashtun or Turkic--Ghurids, Ghaznawids, Delhi Sultanate, Suris, Lodis, Mughals, etc. Some Mughal nobles had ancestry from Shiraz and some Qizilbash from Afghanistan fled Amir Abdur Rahman Khan and settled in Pakistan. That is not enough to account for 15-20 million Indic Pakistanis with Persian ancestry!

You're literally mentioning the groups that actively fought against the Persian expansion in the past centuries. The only ones who were hand in hand with the Persians are Turkic tribes currently North east of Iran and those played a major role in the conquest of most other groups south of the Persian mainland.

Iran has better relations with Afghanistan and India than Pakistan as evident in the Chabahar port project.

Iran and Pakistan have been allied since the 60s.
Iran stood side by side with Pakistan against India and Pakistan did the same with Iran against Iraq and the Arabs which includes Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan supports extremist Baloch factions in Iran which continues to be a source of tension between the two countries.

Pakistan actively works with Iran to suppress the Balochi tribes and groups since they're trying to gain independence from both countries.

And Pakistan is a staunch ally of Saudi Arabia..their military is even considering aiding Saudi military operations in Yemen. Pakistan is the main source of extremism in the region and must be stopped!

Pakistan so far maintained neutrality in the current cold war and has previously allied with Iran against Saudi Arabia during the Iraq war and following events.
There are multiple entities at play in Pakistan currently with the only functional institution in the central government being the military and its fighting to maintain order. However it is not as easy as it seems. And the outbreak of a civil war and the break up of the country have been a voice of alarm in the region and in international affairs in the past 2 decades, particularly due to this which includes Islamists extremists.
#14825166
I doubt the US will dump Pakistan anytime soon, the US has been a strong supported of Islamic extremism for decades and ending this support would be a huge change in US foreign policy, they got rid of Afghanistan's Soviet backed secular government and gave the country to their Taliban buddies, they destroyed Saddam's secular republic in Iraq and gave the country to jihadists, they have been doing their best to do the same in Syria. I just don't see any reason that the US would do such a big uturn right now. They even kept on their knees and kept sucking for the Saudis in the aftermath of the sabotage of the world trade centre for fucks sake nothing the jihadists do seems to elicit anything from the US government but more assistance.
#14825178
fuser wrote:So "I love you but I hate you but I love you" relations is ending on I hate you note? Interesting times ahead in Asia it seems, just a reminder historically and during cold war Pakistan was a staunch and very close ally of USA and their alliance was crucial in defeat of USSR in Afghanistan but it seems times are changing rapidly.

And yet I think given the strategic location US can't really afford to lose Pakistan as it would simply mean giving Pakistan completely to China.

Our military has known about this for a long time. Obama just did not want to admit it publicly.

Pakistani leaders knew Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan, says former defense minister

By Ishaan Tharoor By Ishaan Tharoor October 14, 2015

A former Pakistani defense minister appeared to confirm on Indian television on Tuesday that both his country's senior military and civilian leadership knew of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's presence in their country at the time of his death in 2011. Bin Laden was killed after his compound in the environs of Islamabad was raided by U.S. Navy SEALs.

It's an open secret that elements within Pakistan's military and political establishment must have been aware of bin Laden's location and perhaps even helped him to safe haven in the years after the United States launched its invasion of Afghanistan and global war against al-Qaeda.

In the months and years since, though, Pakistani officials have remain largely tight-lipped about how bin Laden could have ended up finding such cozy sanctuary on Pakistani soil. Some have denied any knowledge whatsoever of his movements. But there have been tacit admissions.

[Pakistan likely knew of Osama bin Laden's presence, says former spy chief]
Earlier this year, Lt. Gen. Asad Durrani, a former Pakistani spy chief, said it was "probable" that the country's main military intelligence organization, known as the ISI, knew of bin Laden's whereabouts and was possibly keeping him as leverage for future dealings with Washington.

And this week, Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, Pakistan's defense minister between 2008 and 2012, told Indian TV station CNN-IBN that they knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... -minister/
#14825234
Safe havens, or countries where the government will not ask too many questions include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia. There are others. Why? Because they are predominantly Muslim, and Muslims don't see what the West calls terrorism as criminal. It is the manifestation of the Prophet's instructions in the Koran. In fact, it is not militancy, terrorism, extremism, or anything else other that religious fanaticism. Western politicians and journalist of all stripes know this, but they are afraid to say it because . . . they think it might upset the Muslims. You cannot defeat an enemy you are afraid to name.
#14825239
neopagan wrote:Safe havens, or countries where the government will not ask too many questions include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia. There are others. Why? Because they are predominantly Muslim, and Muslims don't see what the West calls terrorism as criminal. It is the manifestation of the Prophet's instructions in the Koran. In fact, it is not militancy, terrorism, extremism, or anything else other that religious fanaticism. Western politicians and journalist of all stripes know this, but they are afraid to say it because . . . they think it might upset the Muslims. You cannot defeat an enemy you are afraid to name.


I can't type more bullshit if I tried consciously to write bullshit. Let's take neopagan's one example i.e. Bangladesh.

The year is 1971 while west is busy arming and funding the worst of Islamic Terrorists, Bangladeshi people were actually fighting for secularism and socialism. Even after the victory of Bangladesh in the war, west didn't stopped and the pro soviet government was toppled not without the help of this west.

Bangladesh has managed to once again take back the control of this country from the western backed Islamic terrorists and is severely punishing those terrorists and meanwhile neopagan is lecturing about Bangladesh's support of terrorism and west's fight against it, laughable.

Its pathetic to see how much of a fantasy world the right has build up in recent years where ground is literally sky and sky is ground.
#14825253
anasawad wrote:^ bullshit.
Iran and Lebanon have been taking key roles in fighting terrorism in the world.
And ofcourse there is the other fact that you call groups resisting occupying or aggressive armies terror groups. Which is even more bullshit from people like you.


Saying Iran is fighting terrorism is like saying Hitler was fighting fascism :lol:
#14825259
anasawad wrote:You're the ones allied with Saudi Arabia and treating Al-qaeda members in your hospitals.
While Iran is the one killing all those extremists off.
Enough said.


Iran's influence in Iraq/Syria is the primary reason for the conflict in the first place. The end of ISIS is unlikely to be the end of Sunni terrorism, though I don't really care as long as they focus on the ME and not on the West.
#14825263
anasawad wrote:@Zionist Nationalist
You're the ones allied with Saudi Arabia and treating Al-qaeda members in your hospitals.
While Iran is the one killing all those extremists off.
Enough said.


just dont pretend like Iran is fighting ISIS because they are some saints.

they just do it to protect Assad regime

and Iran is supporting terrorists around the middle east including Yemen Iraq Lebanon and lets not forget their support for Hamas the guys who hide behind civilians and attack civilians
#14825266
@Rugoz
The primary reason for the conflict in Syria is Saudi Arabia and Qatar with Cooperation with Turkey trying to control Syria to pass a pipeline towards Europe so European countries can reduce dependency on Russia in Fossil fuels and Gas in particular.
Iran came to Syria's aid after the war already begun.
And the primary reason for the rise of Islamists is 1- The US constant support for them, starting in Afghanistan against the soviets and even in the Syrian war where the US admitted to give heavy weapons to the "rebels" who turned out to be Islamists and many joined ISIS.
2- Is Saudi Arabia which is an Islamist cult that conquered Arabia with help of the British empire and now exporting Islamists all over.

So you can cut the bullshit and try to read your history.

Iran did play a role in the conflict, but no where near that of countries like Saudi Arabia or the US. And their governments aren't even hiding it. They admit to their actions in public knowing full well that their populations are too dumb to understand what's being said or whats actually going on.


@Zionist Nationalist
Lets see the list.
Hamas, a group that is fighting an Israeli aggression and occupation against their people. Those are somehow terrorists.

Hezbollah in Lebanon which also rose to fight Israeli occupation and aggression against Lebanon.

In Yemen you must mean the rebels, whom rebelled against a long ruling dictator. Only for that dictator to run to Saudi Arabia and then after a new government was elected. Saudi Arabia, along with the US and other gulf states teamed up with Al-qaeda (yes actual Al-qaeda) and armed it up to retake control over the country and remove the democratically elected new government.
Those rebels somehow became terrorists, and Iran for starting sending them supplies and arms to fight back after Saudi Arabia and its allies started killing people in masses and causing a man-made famine with siege. Iran is now supporting terrorism there. Not the Saudis and Americans who are teaming up with Al-qaeda to re-instate a dictator.

Then finally Iraq. By terrorists in Iraq 'm assuming you mean the Shia government who was elected because, and its a shocker, Shias are the majority. Along side with the Kurdish regional government which again fighting terrorism not the other way around. Both of those are terrorists and Iran by supporting them is sponsoring terrorism according to you, yes ?


For Assad. Iranian high officials stated back in 2015 that Assad can not stay in power after the war.
However at the current time, as long as Islamists have armies attacking Syria with Saudi funding and American weapons. He's the only option other than having groups like ISIS, or Al-nusra front (the ones whom you hosted in your hospitals and armed multiple times, you remember those right ? ), or the Islamic front, or maybe the most peaceful one of them all, the army of conquest (jaish Al-fateh).


And just a little note. Really about Hamas. They're the ones attacking and killing civilians ?
Last i recall, it was your "brave heros" who were committing the massacres whether it was against the Palestinians or Lebanese people.
Trump Takes on NFL

I can't believe the Americans elected such a pussy[…]

The worse atrocity? Comparing the two. Japanese […]

This was predicted. The status quoted establishmen[…]

But you're leaving out some of the right wingers i[…]