« Lord Prescott tells the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War he was nervous about the limited nature of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons | Main | Hillary Clinton announces that Middle East peace talks will resume next month »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61a053ef0134860a7935970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference President Zardari blames the media for stoking up the row over David Cameron's comments about Pakistan "exporting terror" :
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
We have an anti government media lead by a left wing dominated BBC organised by New Labour over the past 13 years.
Posted by: robert | August 07, 2010 at 08:01 AM
Daniel Pipes,who knows a thing or two about islamic terrorism,recons that British based terrorists have assaulted 28 different countries. Pot,kettle and black come to mind
Posted by: Paris Claims | August 07, 2010 at 09:49 AM
"Daniel Pipes,who knows a thing or two about islamic terrorism,recons that British based terrorists have assaulted 28 different countries. Pot,kettle and black come to mind."
The key difference is there is no credible suggestion that our security services aid terrorist groups or direct their operations against other countries, as Pakistan's ISI is accused of aiding the Afghan Taliban against the Afghan government and NATO forces, or Lashkar-e-Toiba in attacks against India such as the Mumbai rampage.
We should definitely be tougher against terror groups and their supporters based in the UK, but actually aiding and directing them is a much graver accusation.
Posted by: Ed | August 07, 2010 at 07:23 PM
Almost since independence in 1947, a significant section of the institutions in Pakistan seem to have regarded military government as the `default setting` for their national administration. Civilian governments have tried to run the country from time to time, but almost inevitably their efforts have been brought to a close by military coup. One of the outcomes has been an apparent feeling of independence within certain groups (ISI in particular) and a detachment from governmental control. So whatever the current President or Prime Minister might feel, they will almost certainly not have complete control over these influential and powerful interests. This in turn will make it difficult, but not impossible, for civilian government to assert its authority. They need the support now of international allies to achieve it; and it is in the long-term interests of Pakistan as well as of regional stability that this should happen.
Provision of aid to those now afflicted by the monsoon floods will be a telling factor in our regaining political goodwill and influence and we should get moving much more quickly than seems to be the case at the moment.
If Pakistan is abandoned, we will have to pay close attention to the instability that will surely follow and the price of which is likely to be a great deal higher than the efforts required of us now.
Posted by: john parkes | August 12, 2010 at 12:25 PM