Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 8, 2011

sum · Post by **sum** » 15 May 2011 10:11

^^ Wow, are the Pakis really thinking that going after CIA folks will not invite the warth of the Khan or is it that they are in a nothing-to-loose position and going for broke?

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 15 May 2011 10:33

10 hurt, railway track damaged in Thul blast

SUKKUR: A remote-controlled bomb blast at a railway track in Thul caused derailment of three bogies of the Khuskhal Khan Khattak Express besides injuring 10 people on Saturday.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 May 2011 11:14

^^^ Richard Clarke on Pakistanis: "They are such pathological liars that they don't know when they are lying any more."

arun · Post by **arun** » 15 May 2011 11:32

jrjrao wrote:In the Toronto Globe and Mail of Saturday, this report by Graeme Smith is a compelling read. I am saving it to hard disk:

REPUBLIC OF FABLES---
Pakistan's reaction to Osama's killing shows it's a country of contradictions

{Snipped}

link

The Canadian Media is really dishing it out to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Op-Ed in the financial section of the Canadian newspaper the National Post by Lawrence Soloman advocates that the way to deal “with this duplicitous, faction-ridden country” is to break it up:

Break It Up :Pakistan would be a more stable and peaceful place if its four component nations were unstitched from one another

Op-Ed echoes Lt. Col (Retd) Ralph Peters solution mooted in the US Armed Forces Journal back in 2006. (Blood Borders)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 May 2011 11:34

jrjrao wrote:In the Toronto Globe and Mail of Saturday, this report by Graeme Smith is a compelling read. I am saving it to hard disk:

This is the salve that now comforts millions of Pakistanis at a time of fundamental crisis. They choose the magical world of conspiracy.

It's a remedy for what psychologists would call cognitive dissonance, the discomfort of holding two conflicting views at the same time. Pakistan fights terrorism; Pakistan helps terrorists.
link

Hah!

Piskology bites Pakistan as anticipated!

arun · Post by **arun** » 15 May 2011 11:38

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ Richard Clarke on Pakistanis: "They are such pathological liars that they don't know when they are lying any more."

Late Pakistani Military Dictator Gen. Zia Ul Haq : “Muslims have the right to lie in a good cause.”

arun · Post by **arun** » 15 May 2011 11:54

X Posted from the Pakistan Arms Sales, Ops, Doctrine etc. thread.

Michael Krepon at Arms Control Wonk:

Pakistan’s Nuclear Requirements

By krepon | 10 May 2011 | 32 Comments

Why is Pakistan building so many nuclear weapons and blocking the start of fissile material cutoff negotiations? There are many reasons. One is that Pakistani military officers who establish nuclear requirements read what Indians have to say. They have read Kautilya, the Indian version of Machiavelli, who wrote Arthasastra around 300 BCE. Great shoebox quotes: “Agreements of peace shall be made with equal and superior kings; an inferior king shall be attacked.” And “Whoever goes to wage war with a superior king will be reduced to the same condition as that of a foot soldier opposing an elephant.” …………………………..

ACW

arun · Post by **arun** » 15 May 2011 12:54

X Posted from the Mumbai Terroist Attack thread.

Extract from a Washington Post article that claims to detail “a circular debate in which the United States repeatedly said it had irrefutable proof of ties between Pakistani military and intelligence officials and the Afghan Taliban and other insurgents, and warned that Pakistani refusal to act against them would exact a cost”:

In a series of December 2008 meetings following the terrorist attack in Mumbai that left nearly 200 people dead — including six Americans — top Bush administration officials told Pakistan there was “irrefutable” intelligence proof that the Pakistani group Lashkar-i-Taiba was responsible.

A written communication delivered to Pakistan said that “it is clear to us that [Lashkar-i-Taiba] is responsible . . . we know that it continues to receive support, including operational support, from the Pakistani military intelligence service.”

Read it all:

Obama administration is divided over future of U.S.-Pakistan relationship

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 15 May 2011 14:31

What Holbrooke Knew - Op Ed by Kristoff in NYT

But he died in December, and Marton and some of his friends (me included) believe it’s time to lift the cone of silence and share his private views.

As for Pakistan, Holbrooke told me and others that because of its size and nuclear weaponry, it was center stage; Afghanistan was a sideshow.

“A stable Afghanistan is not essential; a stable Pakistan is essential,” he noted, in the musings he left behind. He believed that a crucial step to reducing radicalism in Pakistan was to ease the Kashmir dispute with India, and he favored more pressure on India to achieve that.

Holbrooke was frustrated by Islamabad’s duplicity. But he also realized that Pakistan sheltered the Afghan Taliban because it distrusted the United States, particularly after the United States walked away in 1989 after the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan. And renewed threats of abandonment won’t build trust.

Rather, Holbrooke poured his soul into building a relationship not only with Pakistani generals but also with the Pakistani people, and there were modest dividends. He helped improve C.I.A. access to Pakistan, which may have helped with the raid on the Bin Laden compound. And he soothed opposition to drone attacks, Nasr noted.

“He was treating them as a serious player, not as if you’re just having a one-night stand but as if there might actually be marriage at the end of the relationship,” Marton said.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 May 2011 14:40

^ Good riddance! That is why he had those "scheduling problems" in 2009.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 May 2011 14:52

It should be pointed out that Pakistan is indeed one of the most stable countries in the world. Coups, genocides, terror attacks, wars, drones, floods, Dawoods, terror groups, Paki's been bombed, sanctioned, given ultimatums ..yet it has held stable.

It cause for stability is one single reason: Hatred of India. That unites this nation state only. Nothing else. Thus a Stable and United Pakistan means perpetual and sustained Hatred of India. It means continued attempts to weaken India by war, terror, FICN, allying with China whatever. This uniting bond of Hatred can never be weakened. Thats why this 'Stable Pakistan can be achieved is Bogus.

A Stable United Pakistan is bane for India for ever. This is not about Kashmir, it is about Mughalistan. Those scholars who buy this Stability in Pakistan line must be discredited.

Added later: This hatred single mindedly unites the nation into something stable. However the 3.5 do their bit in keeping the glue from cracking up. So in a way Paki stability is indeed Hatred of India and 3.5 largesse. Thus the largesse by 3.5 keeps afloat hatred of India. This must be made clear to the 'we need to support Pakistan' crowd.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 15 May 2011 15:14

harbans, the hatred against India and the unstinting support of the 3½ Friends are the two reasons, I would say. Islam did not unite, rather it divided ferociously. What Islam could not do, the other two did.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 May 2011 15:20

Sridhar Ji, indeed 3.5 friend factor cannot be ruled out. I should amend the message a bit i guess.

Now who said Paki's are not participating in IPL..

LAHORE: Fined in a match-fixing inquiry 11 years ago, former Pakistan Test cricketer and umpire Akram Raza has been arrested along with six alleged bookies, who were taking bets on the ongoing Indian Premier League.

"We arrested seven men from a plaza in Liberty area in Gulberg today and one of them has been identified as Akram Raza a former Pakistan player," a senior police officer at the Gulberg police station said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/spor ... 336358.cms

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 15 May 2011 16:22

May be the realization dawned in the state dept that a covert war has to be launched against TSP army and ISI and weaken these institutions. MAy be... We can only hope....

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 15 May 2011 16:22

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/us/po ... l?_r=1&hpw#
As Rift Deepens, Kerry Has a Warning for Pakistan
WASHINGTON — The United States and Pakistan are veering toward a deeper clash, with Pakistan’s Parliament demanding a permanent halt to all drone strikes just as the most senior American official since the killing of Osama bin Laden is to arrive with a stern message that the country has only months to show it is committed to rooting out Al Qaeda and associated groups.
Enjoy,
Gautam
PS No body, but no body does KLPD to Sher Khan! People that tried that such as Saddam and Gaddafi had oil resources and still they perished. Pakistan has nothing but a begging bowl. Khan may not even have to bomb it back to stone age as promised. But it knows where all the General's money are hidden and in which account. Tattas can be squeezed at will. Drone attacks will go on, as will the NATO supplies to Afghanistan.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 15 May 2011 16:50

It is understood by the parties that matter that a pre-emptive nuclear strike to end Pakistan is preferable to another partition of India. They understand our mindset well. We will only go so far, and no further. They learned this after Shakti I and II.

BTW, the Brits are again today playing the same dirty game of 1947 behind the scenes, and making a (limited) effort through the media as well. They are doing their utmost to keep the Pakistan of Caroe alive and kicking, mistakenly and by great strategic miscalculation. They have overlooked the fact that geography may be destiny still but technology is destiny by a greater magnitude. Nevertheless, it is not so easy for them now. The Americans have a much better understanding of the situation at present than they did then. And India now is not the India of the 1940s. We will not let slide the perfidy of Britain now in play. It is a mistake with greater potential consequences for them, than for us.

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 15 May 2011 16:59

General Retd Mirza Aslam Beg, the former Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan, makes an earnest effort to tell us why the Pakis are so very screwed up, and why they are so very beyond repair:

...the 2/5 episode was a hoax and a big lie, the same as the 9/11 episode was a big lie for an excuse to launch a crusade against the Muslim world.

Osama’s look-alike prisoner from Bagram was picked up and brought to Abbottabad and killed in cold blood in front of his family members, who were living there. In fact, OBL had been killed in Afghanistan some time back and his body may still be lying in a mortuary in Afghanistan. They showed a bullet-ridden picture of Osama, which was two years old, and another photo that had no resemblance with him. His body was dumped into the sea to hide the crime committed in such a clumsy manner. The 2/5 episode was the finale of the 9/11 lies...

Our national sovereignty has been debased and humiliated by one and all who mattered in Pakistan, exactly in the same manner as Mukhtaran Mai, the helpless Pakistani woman, lost her honour in broad daylight.

Nutty Nation Link

arun · Post by **arun** » 15 May 2011 16:59

SSridhar wrote:What Holbrooke Knew - Op Ed by Kristoff in NYT

As for Pakistan, Holbrooke told me and others that because of its size and nuclear weaponry, it was center stage; Afghanistan was a sideshow.

“A stable Afghanistan is not essential; a stable Pakistan is essential,” he noted, in the musings he left behind. He believed that a crucial step to reducing radicalism in Pakistan was to ease the Kashmir dispute with India, and he favored more pressure on India to achieve that.

Confirmation that India’s suspicion of Richard Holbrooke was well founded and it was wise to apply diplomatic pressure to clip his wings as mentioned in this January 2009 article:

India’s stealth lobbying against Holbrooke's brief

It must have stuck in his craw to have had to make to this comment to a journalist from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir back in December 2009.:

QUESTION: (Inaudible) and my question is about Kashmir. I asked you this question a couple of years ago at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. We all know deep down that there is no solution of Afghanistan and South Asian problem without resolving the Kashmir issue that is controlled by the Indian Government. Are you serious to appoint any advisor to resolve this issue? I asked this question to Fareed Zakaria because he wrote a book and he exaggerated (inaudible) and he told me my question based on racism, but somehow that we South Asian are unable to resolve our problem. I told him that we wouldn't resolve for last 60 years, and God willing, we would keep fighting for next 60 years about Kashmir unless someone from the U.S. help us.

And my second question is about --

MODERATOR: No, no, just one question. (Laughter.)

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Let me be very clear. I am not working on that problem. (Laughter.)

MODERATOR: I think that answered that. Rick.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I don’t even mention the problem I’m not working on. It’s a game in – when I go to India, and I go to India frequently and I look forward to going back soon, because we keep the Indians very closely informed of our efforts because India is a hugely important factor here. But whenever that question comes up, your Indian journalistic colleagues try to get me to mention the K-word, and I won’t do it because everybody keeps saying that either I’m secretly working on it or I ought to be working on it. Well, they’re wrong on both counts. I’m not working on that problem. The President addressed it very clearly, as did the Secretary of State in recent interviews, and my job is to work on the civilian side of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We all know how important that issue is. Everyone knows it, and it’s a long, tortured history. But it is not what I do and it is not what the countries in the region expect me to do. And I think I understand why you ask it, but that’s the simple fact.

US State Department

arun · Post by **arun** » 15 May 2011 17:02

Reuters article which should give GHQ Rawalpindi something to think about regards the security of its prized “strategic assets“:

Pakistan’s nuclear weapons no defence against a forceful America

May 14, 2011 23:50 EDT

In conducting a raid deep inside Pakistan to take out Osama bin Laden, the United States pushed the boundaries of military operations, inter-state ties and international law, all of which are the subject of a raging debate in the region and beyond.

One of less talked-about issues is that the boots-on-ground operation by the U.S. Special Forces also blows a hole in a long-held argument that states which have nuclear weapons, legitimately or otherwise, face a lower chance of a foreign strike or invasion than those without them. ……………………..

the May 2 raid in a compound in a Pakistani garrison town tests that logic and shows the limits of nuclear deterrence, as Elbridge Colby, who served recently in the office of the U.S. Secretar of Defense on START negotiations wrote in Real Clear World’s Compass blog. Pakistan has a powerful nuclear arsenal, growing at a rate that will make it the fourth-largest in a decade behind only the United States, Russia and China. It has the delivery systems, both missiles and aircraft, to fire these weapons and a huge professional army to support the nuclear programme. Yet all that nuclear infrastructure did not stop the United States from breaching its air space, inserting soldiers in the ground right under the Pakistani military’s nose, hunting down bin Laden and his associates in the house and flying away with his body. All without Islamabad’s consent, according to the version put out by both sides. ………………..

Reuters

sum · Post by **sum** » 15 May 2011 17:56

BTW, the Brits are again today playing the same dirty game of 1947 behind the scenes, and making a (limited) effort through the media as well. They are doing their utmost to keep the Pakistan of Caroe alive and kicking, mistakenly and by great strategic miscalculation.

Is this why UK-stan is getting the ungli from Desh and hardly figures in any of our foreign policy related announcements?

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 15 May 2011 18:22

The last few two mins of that Richard Clarke HBO clip is probably the best that somebody ever said the truth on American mainstream media.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 15 May 2011 19:18

Disturbing evidence against Pakistan: Kerry

KABUL: US Senator John Kerry says the US relationship with Pakistan is at a “critical moment” because of the killing of Osama bin Laden.
...
He said that there was some evidence of Pakistani knowledge of Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan, a finding that he called disturbing.

But he also said that bin Laden’s death may present a new opportunity for reconciliation with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Kerry is expected to continue on to Pakistan later today.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 May 2011 19:30

arun wrote:Obama administration is divided over future of U.S.-Pakistan relationship

My Comment in Washington Post to a comment on the article:

I wrote:
Naptowner2010 wrote:We must strengthen our ties to Pakistan...I visited Pakistan in 2003 and was hosted...for a variety of reasons by Gen Musharraf...his then Prime Minister...and the Deputy Commander of the Army. The discussion with the Deputy Commander was the most free wheeling ...and he reminded me repeatedly that ....given the vagaries of the bi-lateral relationship over time...all of his staff had lived and trained in the USA...but no one below that level had ever been...We reap what we sow...and right now we are paying a dear price for the posturing of the late last Century...as those same young officers ascend to control the Army and the country...These arte things we can control...Trying to tinker with Pakistani politics is a fools errand
I must say, the American gullibility is befuddling.

I guess the Americans never really learned to understand Pakistan. Now why would some Deputy Commander be saying those things? Of course, it is to get more American support! You don't have to be a genius to understand that! The Pakistanis are known to fawn over their guests from the big superpowers. You will be treated like a Pasha! But should that treatment be a reason, that your country should pay billions to get their sons killed.

Pakistanis would make you believe, that it is some sort of struggle between the moderates, the whiskey swirling generals and bearded Islamists, and if America does not support the ones without beards, soon the beards would take over. What America does not understand is that the biggest Islamists in Pakistan don't carry beards, and they drink the most whiskey. In order to survive in Pakistan with an affluent lifestyle, the generals have to show their support to the Islamist cause elsewhere! A bearded Islamist knowing Quran has much less to prove than a clean shaven Pakistani general. That is what makes clean-shaven Pakistani Generals far more dangerous.

Also the clean-shaven generals want to give the impression that it is written in stone that Pakistan would fall to Islamists with nukes. The news is that it did so the day they got the first nuke, for Islamists have always been at the helm. Why else would the Pakistanis be sheltering Al Qaeda's top gun Osama bin Laden?

90,000 Pakistani troops laid down their arms in Bangladesh in front of Indian troops without much fighting! They have a bigger bark than their bite!

What Pakistanis need is their Army being bombed to the stone age for sheltering Osama bin Laden and for screwing America in Afghanistan despite taking 21 billion USD.

The Pakistani scare Americans with "Aprés moi, le déluge" warnings, and the gullible Americans just lap it up!

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 15 May 2011 19:57

Got this in mail.
Pakistan: Public Enemy Number One

Spies, Lies and Terrorists In (Not Much) Disguise
Ralph Peters

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer (and former enlisted man), and an author. The latest of his 26 books, The Officers’ Club, a novel set in the post-Vietnam Army, will be published on January 18th.

Pakistan has done the impossible: It’s bumped Saudi Arabia from the top slot as America’s number-one enemy. Al Qaeda is, at most, sixth or seventh on the list, a symptom, not a cause. Without Saudi money and Pakistani protection, al Qaeda would be about as relevant as VHS cassettes. Pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI) and its military leadership have managed to hide Osama bin Laden since he fled Tora Bora; continue to harbor and support the leadership of the Afghan Taliban; collude with the savage Haqqani terror network; and nurture a range of anti-Indian terror organizations the ISI created. Iran plays in the terrorist bush leagues compared to our Pakistani “ally.”

Meanwhile, Washington continues to do the implausible: Kid itself that Pakistan, the world’s leading terror sponsor and haven, will ultimately reform and give up its vast investments in terrorism if only we send more money to Islamabad. One administration after another in D.C. convinces itself that we can break a junkie’s heroin habit by providing the addict with an endless supply of heroin.

There is no way that Osama bin Laden could have lived in an eyesore mega-compound in the shadow of multiple military installations in a key garrison town without anyone in the Pakistani security establishment knowing who was living there. On the contrary, the compound appears to have been custom built for bin Laden as a gilded cage: The deal would have been that the key insider Pakistani generals (who run the ISI, as well as the military) would protect him and allow him to continue to provide al Qaeda with strategic direction through couriers—but bin Laden would have to play by ISI rules, keeping them informed about his orders to his terrorists; remaining within the compound; and, essentially, staying on ice until the Pakistanis felt they could unleash him to their advantage. Meanwhile, an alive but undetected bin Laden guaranteed that billions in military and civilian aid programs would continue to flow from the USA to Pakistan. For the men who really run Pakistan, whether or not the military is formally in power, this was the perfect self-licking ice-cream cone.

Now the Pakistanis have been caught out with their salwar-khameez trousers around their ankles. And Washington, which has been oh so shocked by this massive betrayal, appears determined to help the Pakistanis get those trousers back up around their national waist as soon as possible. Yeah, we’re “demanding” explanations. But we’ll accept any Pakistani lies that allow this “important relationship” to go forward.

After all, the entire relationship with Pakistan has been built on lies and our enthusiastic self-delusion. The most recent whopper was the administration’s claim that the SEALs destroyed the helicopter that suffered mechanical problems so the top-secret technologies on board “wouldn’t fall into the hands of al Qaeda.” That’s pure bull. The al Qaeda thugs on that compound were dead or had become prisoners. We destroyed our helicopter—thoroughly—because we didn’t want the Pakistanis to grab the assorted black boxes, communication devices and night-flying avionics. We knew the Pakistanis would share anything they got with their real friends, the Chinese.

What do you do with an “ally” that hides your most-wanted enemy from you; actively helps kill your troops in Afghanistan; uses terrorists to attack the world’s largest democracy (India); tries to convince the Afghan government you’ve erected to boot you out and line up with Beijing, instead; and views terror as an essential tool of strategy and statecraft? Washington’s answer is to send billions more in aid.

Even as I write, the State Department and various members of Congress solemnly warn that cutting off aid to Pakistan could have dire results.

Really? Exactly how could this relationship get any worse? They were hiding Osama bin Laden from us, for Heaven’s sake.

The Pakistanis do have one practical hold over us: Idiotically, our Afghan strategy relies heavily on extended supply lines through Pakistan to support our troops. This is, and long has been, absolutely nuts. But you want it bad, you get it bad.

And bloated blusterers whine that “Pakistan has nuclear weapons! What if they fall into the hands of terrorists?” As if the current government in Islamabad would miss the right chance…

In the short term, if our special-operations forces can pull off a brilliant black op deep inside a hostile country such as Pakistan once, we can do it again. And again. And next time there could be devastating air cover at the ready, in case Pakistan’s punk military gets any ideas.

But that’s short-term operational stuff. We need to deal in imaginative strategies. And the clear way to cope with Pakistan’s nukes comes down to one word: “India.” Instead of supporting a nut-case, treacherous, Islamist-infiltrated regime that helps kill our troops, we should cut all aid—and all ties—with Pakistan. We need to remove most (not all) of our troops from the brainless boondoggle in Afghanistan anyway (the only reason any U.S. service member should stay in Afghanistan is to keep killing terrorists in Pakistan—forget trying to break the death-grip of extremist Islam by teaching Afghan villagers better hygiene). We should not have one more soldier or system in Afghanistan than we can resupply or evacuate by air in an emergency (crazily, our back-up supply lines run through Russia—yeah, we’re strategic geniuses, all right). Then we should close our consulates in Pakistan and the embassy in Islamabad. Treat Pakistan as exactly what it is: A lawless rogue state.

Simultaneously, throw all of our support, military and diplomatic, behind India. India’s democracy may be flawed—our own isn’t exactly perfect--but it has proven robust for over six decades (with one brief hiccup under Indira Gandhi). And India is a country of the future with vast potential, a natural long-term ally for the U.S. (we’re both worried about China, too). Pakistan has only a wretched past that repeats itself in a deteriorating cycle.

India could deal with Pakistan’s nuclear “threat” just fine. As it is, Pakistan launches terror attacks on India, confident that, before India can retaliate, we’ll jump in and prevent New Delhi from taking action—making us complicit in Pakistan’s terrorism. Think the Pakistanis would continue their provocations if we weren’t there to protect them from India’s outrage? Think the Pakistanis, with their 175-million anti-American Muslims, believe they can take on 1.3 billion Indians in a nuclear exchange? Pakistan would be a cinder…

But don’t hold your breath. Our “strategic thinkers” in Washington still live in the Cold War, when we “needed” Pakistan. Perhaps, in twenty or thirty years, when someone on the Potomac notices that we’re living in the 21st-century and that, uh, the Congress of Vienna isn’t especially relevant, we might get an initial glimmer of strategic innovation. For now, though, you can bet your life that the aid dollars will still flow to Pakistan; we’ll avidly accept Islamabad’s promises to be really, really good; and we’ll go back to pretending that the Pakistani whore can be reformed for a successful strategic marriage.

Osama bin Laden is dead, no thanks to the Pakistanis. The only qualifying note I can offer is that it’s quite possible that President Zardari, who’s regarded as a buffoon by his own security services, was never read in on the secret that Pakistan’s generals had cut a deal to protect bin Laden. But the man who knows all is the army chief of staff, General Ashfaq Kayani, for whom many of us initially had some hope. General Kiyani’s previous job was as head of the ISI. And it’s utter nonsense to pretend that bin Laden might have been shielded all this time—and in the garrison city of Abbottabad (which translates, loosely, as “Heeeeyyyy Abbottttt!)—by “rogue elements within the ISI.” It beggars belief that renegade operatives in the tightly controlled ISI could shield bin Laden; support anti-India terrorists; protect and aid the Afghan Taliban; and collaborate with the Haqqani network without a succession of ISI chiefs knowing what was going on and signing off on the activities. Just not possible.

Oh, and our old buddy, General Pervez Musharraf, former chief of staff and Pakistani president, had to know, too.

But Washington will go on playing pretend. It’s a whole lot easier than thinking.

Meanwhile, we’ve lost the only man in Pakistan we could trust: Osama bin Laden. He, at least, meant what he said.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 May 2011 19:59

Nothing special really..Paki's doing what they do best:

Florida Imams arrested for aiding Pakistani Taliban

MIAMI: The Imam of a Florida mosque and his two sons, one also a Muslim spiritual leader, were arrested on Saturday on charges of financing and supporting the Pakistani Taliban, US officials said.

The three Pakistan-born US citizens were among six charged in a U.S. indictment that accused them of "supporting acts of murder, kidnapping and maiming in Pakistan and elsewhere" carried out by the Pakistani Taliban, which Washington calls a terrorist organization.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 345461.cms

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 15 May 2011 20:13

Taking extreme military or economic action against pakis means giving up a strategic asset for US. For them it is as difficult (impossible?) as for pakis to give up support to terrorism.

krithivas · Post by **krithivas** » 15 May 2011 20:25

RIP and Thank you to the Indian soldier and sympathies to his family.

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BN ... 78951.html

SRINAGAR, India - An Indian soldier was killed when Pakistani snipers allegedly shot across the sensitive border in divided Kashmir, an Indian paramilitary official said Sunday, leading to a gunfight.

The incident occurred late Saturday in Indian Kashmir's Suchetgarh region, a Border Security Force (BSF) official said after the shooting shattered more than a year of calm along the militarised border in the Himalayan region.

"Pakistani snipers fired when a BSF party was on patrolling duty," said the Indian officer, who did not wish to be named.

The Paki non-state-sissies have started this ... sniping from underneath the burqa. With their H&D crushed and slapped and trampled, the animals are now seething to provoking an Indian response. No flag meetings or dossiers or registering protests. 10 to 1 response when the time comes.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 May 2011 20:28

I like the way some Americans have begun to think..however, notice how some of them assume India is being kept on a leash or something. That if the Americans step back India will go after the Paki's. They've assumed Indians are aggressive folk. When they realize that our IK Gujrals and MMS wqith their pappi jhappi diplomacy, can't do anything else, they'll realize in horror they've got to do the dirty work on Pakistan themselves. Specially the dismantling the nukes part..or breaking it up to more manageable elements. So far they are assuming India too is aggressive like them, but once they realize it's a pappi jhappi country..check out the brickbats that will follow. They'll regret they 'pressured' India to talk..make peace..compromise etc.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 May 2011 20:55

RajeshA wrote:I must say, the American gullibility is befuddling.

I guess the Americans never really learned to understand Pakistan. Now why would some Deputy Commander be saying those things? Of course, it is to get more American support! You don't have to be a genius to understand that! The Pakistanis are known to fawn over their guests from the big superpowers. You will be treated like a Pasha! But should that treatment be a reason, that your country should pay billions to get their sons killed.

Pakistanis would make you believe, that it is some sort of struggle between the moderates, the whiskey swirling generals and bearded Islamists, and if America does not support the ones without beards, soon the beards would take over. What America does not understand is that the biggest Islamists in Pakistan don't carry beards, and they drink the most whiskey. In order to survive in Pakistan with an affluent lifestyle, the generals have to show their support to the Islamist cause elsewhere! A bearded Islamist knowing Quran has much less to prove than a clean shaven Pakistani general. That is what makes clean-shaven Pakistani Generals far more dangerous.

Also the clean-shaven generals want to give the impression that it is written in stone that Pakistan would fall to Islamists with nukes. The news is that it did so the day they got the first nuke, for Islamists have always been at the helm. Why else would the Pakistanis be sheltering Al Qaeda's top gun Osama bin Laden?

90,000 Pakistani troops laid down their arms in Bangladesh in front of Indian troops without much fighting! They have a bigger bark than their bite!

What Pakistanis need is their Army being bombed to the stone age for sheltering Osama bin Laden and for screwing America in Afghanistan despite taking 21 billion USD.

The Pakistani scare Americans with "Aprés moi, le déluge" warnings, and the gullible Americans just lap it up!

Great letter!

Anantha · Post by **Anantha** » 15 May 2011 21:00

arun wrote:
Break It Up :Pakistan would be a more stable and peaceful place if its four component nations were unstitched from one another

Op-Ed echoes Lt. Col (Retd) Ralph Peters solution mooted in the US Armed Forces Journal back in 2006. (Blood Borders)

The Financial Post article looks like a cut paste job from BR threads on TSP. There is nothing in the article that I have not read here before.
Allright!!! BR fundoos are mainstream

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 15 May 2011 21:02

Apologies if posted earlier, but this is one hell of a read. A long article...

The double game

Eliminating, or sharply reducing, military aid to Pakistan would have consequences, but they may not be the ones we fear. Diminishing the power of the military class would open up more room for civilian rule. Many Pakistanis are in favor of less U.S. aid; their slogan is “trade not aid.” In particular, Pakistani businessmen have long sought U.S. tax breaks for their textiles, which American manufacturers have resisted. Such a move would empower the civilian middle class. India would no doubt welcome a reduction in military aid to Pakistan, and the U.S. could use this as leverage to pressure India to allow the Kashmiris to vote on their future, which would very likely be a vote for independence. These two actions might do far more to enhance Pakistan’s stability, and to insure its friendship, than the billions of dollars that America now pays like a ransom.

There will be sticks and there will be carrot for pakistan. Earlier I thought the carrot will be afghanistan, but slowly it is turning to be Kashmir. must stop MMS.

also:

Within the I.S.I., there is a secret organization known as the S Wing, which is largely composed of supposedly retired military and I.S.I. officers. “It doesn’t exist on paper,” a source close to the I.S.I. told me. The S Wing handles relations with radical elements. “If something happens, then they have deniability,” the source explained. If any group within the Pakistani military helped hide bin Laden, it was likely S Wing.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 May 2011 21:08

harbans wrote:I like the way some Americans have begun to think..however, notice how some of them assume India is being kept on a leash or something. That if the Americans step back India will go after the Paki's. They've assumed Indians are aggressive folk. When they realize that our IK Gujrals and MMS wqith their pappi jhappi diplomacy, can't do anything else, they'll realize in horror they've got to do the dirty work on Pakistan themselves. Specially the dismantling the nukes part..or breaking it up to more manageable elements. So far they are assuming India too is aggressive like them, but once they realize it's a pappi jhappi country..check out the brickbats that will follow. They'll regret they 'pressured' India to talk..make peace..compromise etc.

I have an OT response to this here
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1090935

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 May 2011 21:12

chaanakya wrote:Got this in mail.
Pakistan: Public Enemy Number One

Now the Pakistanis have been caught out with their salwar-khameez trousers around their ankles. And Washington, which has been oh so shocked by this massive betrayal, appears determined to help the Pakistanis get those trousers back up around their national waist as soon as possible.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 May 2011 21:14

^^^

India would no doubt welcome a reduction in military aid to Pakistan, and the U.S. could use this as leverage to pressure India to allow the Kashmiris to vote on their future...

I don't know how stupid people can get. The pressure on India would be if the US said - we're going to double and quadruple military aid to Pakistan unless you yield on Kashmir. As it is the Uncle Sam situation is - "we want to reduce military aid to Pakistan, yield on Kashmir" - how that puts any pressure on India is beyond me.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 15 May 2011 21:23

A_Gupta wrote:I don't know how stupid people can get. The pressure on India would be if the US said - we're going to double and quadruple military aid to Pakistan unless you yield on Kashmir. As it is the Uncle Sam situation is - "we want to reduce military aid to Pakistan, yield on Kashmir" - how that puts any pressure on India is beyond me.

It could be like cutting a deal with GoI, an agreement on a roadmap. Can't predict such things. We have already mutely accepted LOC as actual border.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 May 2011 21:32

Gupta Ji well noted, however it does work both ways. However i don't see how he assumes a vote on Kashmir will bring about Independence. He hasn't read the Gadaffi sponsored studies by Oxford University on the same. If the choice of Independence is added to voting for India or Pakistan then INdia is going to win hands down in a plebiscite. The problem is not India not wanting a plebiscite, but in conducting one fairly amongst the natives of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladhak and LEh. That possibility was washed away really in 47 itself when Paki tribals and PA invaded Kashmir. That was why the Simla agreement came in too. The possibility of holding a fair vote was lost. But even now if still conducted, studies show it won't be independence. It will go to India.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 15 May 2011 21:34

India should absolutely refuse to have anything to do with TSP. Cashmere or military cut or trade or whatever. Just concentrate on pesti-shaheeding the piglets. Let unkil and his munna sort out their problems between themselves.

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 15 May 2011 21:35

Pasha's bhasha

Inter-Services Intelligence's (ISI) powerful chief Lt Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha has warned India that any Abbottabad-like attack by it would invite a befitting response from Pakistan as targets inside the country "had already been identified" and "rehearsal" carried out.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 15 May 2011 21:49

Another good read. Again sorry if posted earlier...please point out and I will remove this post.

Our strange dance with pakistan

I met Afghan Taliban who’d tried to make a deal with the Afghan government to get back to a life without fighting. One told me he was then arrested by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, the ISI, and blackmailed—they would release him if he would resume fighting and dispense with notions of reconciliation

Another young Afghan Taliban I met in Peshawar was involved in the production and distribution of propaganda and recruiting DVDs—beheadings, inspirational music videos, and killings of American soldiers, all set to Pashtun war songs. But after spending hours and hours with him, I noticed his anti-infidel rhetoric beginning to subside, and when the subject of the ISI’s operatives came up, his whole demeanor changed. “Snakes,” he called them. Their first offense, he said, was trying to oust Mullah Omar and create a more obedient Taliban leader—like Jalaluddin Haqqani

hmmm, Mullah Omar IS next.

Then he said:

I told you that we burn schools because they’re teaching Christianity, but actually, most of the Taliban don’t like this burning of schools or destroying of roads and bridges, because the Taliban, too, could use them. Those acts were being done under ISI orders. They don’t want progress in Afghanistan.

He told me about ISI orders to behead an Indian engineer who was captured (and these orders were later corroborated). “People are not telling the story, because no one can trust anyone,” he told me. “And if the ISI knew I told you, I’d be fked.”

In 2010, I had the chance to ask Secretary of Defense Robert Gates about the US relationship with Pakistan. He’d just been to the country to urge its generals to go after the jihadists, the Taliban, and the Haqqani network. I asked Gates how he could possibly consider Afshaq Kayani, the chief of the Pakistani army, an ally. “It’s frustrating,” Gates told me. I waited for more, but nothing came. Your silence says a lot, I said. “Well, I was very specific in a couple of my meetings in looking at them point-blank and saying, ‘Haqqani and his people are killing my troops. I’ve got a problem with that,’” Gates responded. And what did they say, I asked. Gates is all control, but he cracked a small smile as he said: “They listened.”

US officials maintain they don’t think that Kayani or ISI chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha had direct knowledge themselves about bin Laden. But even before Sunday’s assassination of bin Laden, a friend of mine told me that when he recently saw Mullen the admiral seemed puzzled by the breakdown of the relationship. “What relationship?” my friend asked. “[Kayani] was never on your side.”

Of course at the heart of the problem lies Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. We’d rather our Pakistani army enemy controls it than our Pakistani Taliban enemy. But will we ever know who is who, and can we tell them apart?

arun · Post by **arun** » 15 May 2011 22:11

shiv wrote:
chaanakya wrote:Got this in mail.
Pakistan: Public Enemy Number One

Now the Pakistanis have been caught out with their salwar-khameez trousers around their ankles. And Washington, which has been oh so shocked by this massive betrayal, appears determined to help the Pakistanis get those trousers back up around their national waist as soon as possible.

Speaking of Lt. Col Ralph Peters, an excerpt from an interview by the Pittsburg Tribune Review dating back to May 7, 2011. Note references to India in the second answer posted below:

Q: You've called Pakistan the world's safest haven for terrorists. Is this Ralph Peters' shining moment?

A: Yeah, but you know, everybody forgets. I worked briefly with the Pakistanis and their army and some of their intelligence guys in the '90s, and I think I know them pretty well. It was clear, for me, there was no way bin Laden could have been holed up in Pakistan without the ISI knowing because the ISI has its fingers in all the terrorist movements and supports many of them actively.

And then in the last year to two years, I've been trying to convince people that it was probably worse. I said -- it was in my personal view, no evidence but in my personal view -- (bin Laden) was being held in an ISI compound, protected in an ISI compound somewhere. Well it turns out not only that, the ISI built him a compound.

It's possible that President (Asif Ali) Zardari did not know, but Ashfaq Kayani, the chief of staff, had to know because the ISI in that country answers to the chief of staff. The most senior generals in the Pakistani military, which we insist is our ally, knew bin Laden was there. I would bet my life on it.

Q: So how do we look at Pakistan now?

A: Through the eyes of India. There is no imagination in Washington. We are supporting Pakistan with billions of dollars every year. Pakistan runs terrorist operations against India. It protects al-Qaida. And we've known it was protecting the Afghan Taliban, protecting the Haqqani network. We still think we can reform the alcoholic or the drug addict. We think we can convince the heroin addict to stop while we are giving them free heroin. It's just crazy.

The number-one stumbling block to a healthier relationship with India is our support for Pakistan, which attacks India. And every time that Pakistani terrorists attack India, we step in to prevent India from retaliating in the name of peace.

Washington has such a dearth of strategic imagination, it's appalling. It's like they think it's still the Cold War and we still need Pakistan or Pakistan may turn to the Soviet Union and go communist. I mean, this is so nuts.

Clicky