VikramS wrote:Gwadar is a project on hold. It will remain on hold as long as the US is in control.
I don't see any US hand.
Maram wrote:CONCLUSION :-
1. Pakisatan falls bang in middle of 3 vectors, Amir Khan, Chipanda and House of Saud. Since 2 of the 3 vectors fall towards American control, It is my opinion that Amir Khan will retain that control for the forseable future.
2. No one controls/understands mullahs/Taliban completely. But via wahhabi/deobandhi madrassas funded by the Saudis, America will retain some control albeit indirectly.
The House of Saud has a lot of investments in the UK/US to ignore their requests.
3. Burgeoning population,lack of strong civilian control,rising illiteracy and poor employment( along with no country wanting any more talibunnies to come to their country). All this points to civilian unrest at some point in the near future.
4. At some stage, the cost of maintaining/propping pakisatan will more than the gain they achieve, so Chipanda and Amirkhan might balkanise Pakisatan to make it more fundable and manageable.
Pakistan: The leader of the Pakistani political party Pakistan Tehrik-Insaaf (PTI), Imran Khan, said his party will take to the streets if US agent Raymond Davis is freed - on bail or otherwise -- or the price of petroleum products and other commodities rise, The News reported on 28 February.
Khan called upon the people, especially the young, to save Pakistan from corrupt leaders with a revolution for change. He said the current regime took money from foreigners who are allowed to kill innocents in drone attacks and operate secret agents like Davis that kill innocents on the roads in broad daylight. He added if the Egyptians, who are more oppressed than Pakistanis, can have a revolution and change, then Pakistan should be able to as well.
Comment: One significant part of Khan's rant is the call to anti-American activism directed at the youth. A second point is the linkage to increased fuel and commodity prices. Khan created a link that otherwise does not exist ,but which implicilty blames the US for higher prices for basic necessities and other ills. The link is rhetorical, not based in economics.
Regardless, Pakistan has not experienced the political convulsions that cell phone technology and social media have enabled in the Middle East. Pakistan's turn is coming - there are just too many grievances against the Gilani government. Imran Khan, who is a famous retired cricket champion who has gone into politics, has not helped the cause of internal stability.
ManuT wrote:I think it might be time to ask this question.
What if, wrt TSP the following situation to gets played on India, where GOI cannot remain passive but (again) has to be reactive. That IA will need to get a move on with 'what it has' is not the question, how should the response shape up?
As TSP is about to go under after the tipping point in failure to rein in 'Pakistani Taliban' by TSPA, the PPP-PML come together and decide to accede to the Union of India?
We have the example of Sikkim 1976 where the Legislature acceded to the Union of India. Hari Singh himself acceded in not very dissimilar circumstances to the one mentioned above.
What would GOI appropriate response be,
(A) should it now send in IA to fight side by side with TSPA elements loyal to the govt of TSP and against the rest of TSPA-ISI-Taliban combine OR
(B) Ignore it, let TSP sink in the hole they have been trying to dig for India. In this case will GOI be accused of missing a golden chance at rolling back the partition.
From my POV, MMS gets blamed either way.
(Also, will ask similar question about Tibet in the Tibet thread.)
surinder wrote:RajeshA, such a strategy would then invite a counter strategy of TSP'ians printing fake Rs and doing the same supari on Indian leaders. The Hamid Gul thing always has been, regardless of who hits us, we hit India. What are we going to do about that?
Lalmohan wrote:removing the instruments of power may be insufficient to bring about transformational change in the former pakistan federation (FPF). societal change - weaning away from jehad and ghazwa-e-hind... that is only going to come about if there is a cataclysmic event within pakistan - economic collapse, famine, cyclone, floods, all out civil war. i.e. something bigger and badder than anything that has happened so far...
otherwise we will not see a shift in the bedrock (of sustained knee jerk hatred of india)
US has a very good idea as to what it is doing in Pak-land. it is sowing the seeds of chaos. the basic geopolitical tenet of Britain and now America, is to spread chaos and disorder on the Eurasian land mass. in Europe, this process is done with much care for the image of the Anglo order. in non-European Eurasia, it is done without any regard, in a classic cloak-and-dagger process via secret channels and intelligence operations spanned over years and decades. generally speaking, if there is chaos, anarchy, disorder, civil war, etc in a major power center of Eurasia, that event is considered very auspicious for American power. easy to play the role of the Globo-cop if shit is hitting the fan!
VikasRaina wrote:RajeshA, Complete paradigm shift if Indian Leadership follows your course of action. Of course it will require some fine tuning too and it also does involve risk of losing few of our own leaders but then what are the odds that they will not be blown in some bomb blast as TSP continues to grows cajuns.
VikasRaina wrote:Rajesha ji, Why do we Indians in the end somehow end up sympathizing with the enemy.
The problem that I have is - Why offer the snakes and vipers asylum in our country. You can never have Pro-India lobby in Pakistan. They might do taqqiyya for the time being but will come back to bite us at the very first opportunity.
They are the ones responsible for death of so many Indians. I have nothing but loathe for them. If possible we should catch these fleeing pest and hand them over to Islam pasand forces for Islamic justice.
OPED | Wednesday, March 9, 2011 |
Deathly silence prevails in PakistanMarch 09, 2011 5:28:32 AM
While the people of Arab states are overthrowing dictators, Pakistan is sinking deeper into intolerant Islamic extremism. Emboldened by the meek response of the people to the assassinations of Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti, Islamist vigilantes will now become more brutal.
At least with a dictatorship, you know where you are — and if you know where you are, you may be able to find your way out. In Pakistan, it is not so simple.
While brave Arab protesters are overthrowing deeply entrenched autocratic regimes, often without even resorting to violence, Pakistan, a democratic country, is sinking into a sea of violence, intolerance and extremism. The world’s second-biggest Muslim country (185 million people) has effectively been silenced by ruthless Islamist fanatics who murder anyone who dares to defy them.
What the fanatics want, of course, is power, but the issue on which they have chosen to fight is Pakistan’s laws against blasphemy. They not only hunt down and kill people who fall afoul of these laws, should the courts see fit to free them. They have also begun killing anybody who publicly advocates changing the laws.
Salman Taseer, the governor of the Punjab, Pakistan’s richest and most populous Province, was murdered by his own bodyguard in January because he criticised the blasphemy laws and wanted to change them. He said that he would go on fighting them even if he was the last man standing — and in a very short time he was no longer standing. But one man still was: Shahbaz Bhatti.
Shahbaz Bhatti was shot down last Wednesday. The four men who ambushed his car and filled him with bullets left a note saying: “In your fight against Allah, you have become so bold that you act in favour of and support those who insult the Prophet... And now, with the grace of Allah, the warriors of Islam will pick you out one by one and send you to hell.”
Shahbaz Bhatti was not a rich and powerful man like Salman Taseer, nor even a major power in the ruling Pakistan People’s Party that they both belonged to. He was the only Christian member of the Cabinet, mainly as a token representative of the country’s three million Christians, but he had hardly any influence outside that community. Nevertheless, he refused to stop criticising the blasphemy laws even after Salman Taseer’s murder, so they killed him too.
That leaves only Sherry Rehman, the last woman standing. A flamboyant member of Parliament whose mere appearance enrages the beards, she has been a bold and relentless critic of the blasphemy laws — and since Salman Taseer’s murder she has lived in hiding, moving every few days. But she will not shut up until they shut her up.
And that’s it. The rest of the country’s political and cultural elite have gone silent, or pander openly to the fanatics and the bigots. The PPP was committed to changing the blasphemy laws only six months ago, but after Salman Taseer was killed President Asif Ali Zardari assured a gathering of Islamic dignitaries that he had no intention of reviewing the blasphemy laws. Although they are very bad laws.
In 1984 General Zia ul-Haq, the dictator who ruled Pakistan from 1977 to 1988, made it a criminal offence for members of the Ahmadi sect, now some five million strong, to claim that they were Muslims. In 1986 he instituted the death penalty for blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad. No subsequent Government has dared to repeal these laws, which are widely used to victimise the Ahmadi and Christian religious minorities.
Ahmadis and Christians account for at most five per cent of Pakistan’s population, but almost half of the thousand people charged under this law since 1986 belonged to those communities. Most accusations were false, arising from disputes over land, but once made they could be a death sentence.
Higher courts generally dismissed blasphemy charges, recognising that they were a tactic commonly used against Christians and Ahmadis in local disputes over land, but 32 people who were freed by the courts were subsequently killed by Islamist vigilantes — as were two of the judges who freed them.
The current crisis arose when a Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, was sentenced to death last November, allegedly for blaspheming against the Prophet Muhammad. Pakistan’s liberals mobilised against the blasphemy law and discovered that they were an endangered species.
The murders of Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti were bad, but even worse was the way that the political class and the bulk of the mass media responded. A majority of the population fully supports the blasphemy law, making it very costly for politicians to act against it even if the fanatics don’t kill them. Political cowardice reigns supreme, and so Pakistan falls slowly under the thrall of the extremists.
Being a democracy is no help, it turns out, because democracy requires people to have the courage of their convictions. Very few educated Pakistanis believe that people should be executed because of a blasphemy charge arising out of some trivial village dispute, but they no longer dare to say so. Including the President.
“We will not be intimidated nor will we retreat,” said Mr Zardari on March 3, but he has already promised the beards that the blasphemy laws will not be touched. Nor is it very likely that the murderers of Salman Taseer or Shahbaz Bhatti will be tracked down and punished. You could get killed trying to do that.
-- Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist.
shyamd wrote:ramana wrote:ShyamD, You need to elaborate on the pressures and demands on TSPA which make it weak and overstretched. Not many know this aspect.
Sure. Its simple. They are deployed in the northern borders, fighting Af-Pak under cover, internal security duties in Balochistan plus foot troops in Kashmir and then they have to watch Indian border etc. You have your boss/financier (KSA et al) who want you to help them out against Iran or any internal unrest. You have TSP top guns who are part of the navy/air force in the middle east. With all these internal troubles and now possible Iran war looming, many TSPA troops are not even sitting in TSP, they are in the arab peninsula. MI6 walla's landing in Pindi are not talking about India border, they are talking about NWFP and Arabian peninsula issues - which just goes to back up what I am saying.
Then on top of that, if lets say a war between India and Pak take place, whats Kayani going to say to his boss/financier in KSA? Sheikhji can I bring back my troops, India is preparing for war. KSA is gonna say, listen birather, if you take your troops back to TSP, you are breaking our agreement and we can no longer provide aid for you as you are jeopardizing sunni islam, the land of the 2 holy mosques as Iran can give us a lot of trouble etc etc.
So KSA spy chief is landing in Delhi not for chai-biskoot but saying to us, lay off TSP, we'll give you good deals. US is nodding in the background saying yes, we want you to have peaaceee onlee so that the US can give TSPA a kick in the backside to do some operations chasing taliban up and down NWFP/FATA.
TSPA chief is saying come lets have some CBM, lay off us and we wont do anything. Now as Gaganji has rightly pointed out, as soon as all this lovey dovey CBM stuff is over and US pull out, TSPA regains its influence in Gandhaara. He's going to have a lot of abduls on his hands with AK47s and not a lot to do. These abduls could further take over parts of Pak and go gung ho for Islamabad. Or Kayani/ISI could choose to re-direct energies to Kaafir India.
So, in a few years time, ISI is going to be issuing orders to conduct a super major strike in India that will kick off a war. 26/11 failed to start the war that they soo badly wanted. So this time ISI has to think of something bigger. This is when the Jihadi with nukes scenario is going to come into play.
To summarise: Iran is not going to go nuklear until 2015 at the earliest. So, at some point US/GCC/Israel has to defang Iran or teach it a lesson. I see a safe Kashmir, India (apart from a few small terror strikes here or there) for the next few years until TSP get released from their Af-Pak duties and GCC duties.
What does India need to do?
The options are quite limited, India should get the US to stay in Afghanistan, as Kashmiri terrorist don't want to fight yindu soldiers but they are after the big power - the US (the dajjal/the higher caste kaafir). US doesn't have the economic appetite to stay the course in Afghanistan.
Next option is arm the Tajik's/old school Northern Alliance guys and open a significant front. Or you hope for the Iranians to get stronger and make the KSA even more scared of Iran. So, KSA forces TSP to deploy more assets in the GCC coupled with a drawn out Northern Alliance v Taleb war.
This might be the ideal situation where KSA is forced to economically support India (which is what our west asia ties are about) in return for keeping the Indo Pak border safe (which is also what we want). It buys time for us to clear out the militancy. Pak is overstretched and is fighting in the northern front, as well as having significant numbers deployed on the peninsula. India grows economically, safe border, room for options, our resources can be deployed to the navy etc etc.
This is just the skeleton of what I think will happen. There is still lots to talk about such as the PRC/Russia role in all of this, Iraq etc etc.
Just my 2 pence.
Published on Mar 21, 2011
Prince and parliamentarian: Such Gup - The Friday Times
Code: Select all
"As reported in the press, a delegation of khakis from Al-King’s realm came to visit our boys at their headquarters recently. There’s a neat little story that might serve as an illuminating backgrounder to the visit. A few years ago, in the time of Mush, a young parliamentarian from Pakistan had the opportunity to converse with a prince of Al-King’s realm, a scion of the great House, who had something to do with foreign affairs. Our parliamentarian and the prince struck up a friendship, and during the course of the conference they were both attending in a lovely European capital, had occasion to break bread and more importantly, imbibe some uplifting spirits. During the latter period, with both in merry mood, the parliamentarian asked the prince about their khaki formations and how many men under arms they had. The prince replied candidly that the Kingdom had learnt from Al-Bakistan’s experience – why build up a mighty fauj only to have it do coups d’etat against the royal House? And especially, went on Al-Prince, when there was always Al-Bakistan’s brotherly khaki machine to rely upon in an emergency. When the parliamentarian looked askance at Al-Prince, he pointed to the late unlamented Tyrant Terry Thomas’ highly efficient role in quelling a Palestinian rebellion against King Hussein of Jordan in the 1970s. Will our khakis be called upon once again to quell popular revolts in the Lands of Sand? This is an important question during these trying times for Middle Eastern tyrants with people’s power threatening once unshakeable thrones.""
^This confirms what ShyamD was stating in the previous page...
RajeshA wrote:Now how about India making the KSA less dependent on Pakistan for its security?! If we want to chip away Pakistan 3.5 friends away from Pakistan, then one way is for India to make an offer to the KSA, that India would be willing to provide security to KSA and the Saudi Royal Family, thereby "taking over much of the burden" that America carries, as well substituting Pakistan, as Pakistan becomes a failure and less reliable due to its own Qadriization trend!
Now how about India making the KSA less dependent on Pakistan for its security?! If we want to chip away Pakistan 3.5 friends away from Pakistan, then one way is for India to make an offer to the KSA, that India would be willing to provide security to KSA and the Saudi Royal Family, thereby "taking over much of the burden" that America carries, as well substituting Pakistan, as Pakistan becomes a failure and less reliable due to its own Qadriization trend!
Pakistan maintains close military ties with Saudi Arabia, providing extensive support, arms and training for the Military of Saudi Arabia. Pakistan has provided military aid and expertise to the kingdom for decades. It helped the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) to build and pilot its first jet fighters in the 1960s. Pakistani Air Force (PAF) pilots flew RSAF Lightnings that repulsed a South Yemeni incursion into the kingdom’s southern border in 1969. In the 1970s and 1980s up to 15,000 Pakistani troops were stationed in the kingdom, some in a brigade combat force near the Israeli-Jordanian-Saudi border. The close ties continue between the militaries today. Saudi Arabia has negotiated the purchase of Pakistani ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have had a deep strategic military relationship for decades and today have an unacknowledged nuclear partnership to provide the kingdom with a nuclear deterrent on short notice if ever needed. It is also speculated that Saudi Arabia secretly funded Pakistan's nuclear programme and seeks to purchase atomic weapons from Pakistan to enable it to counteract possible threats from arsenals of the weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iran, Iraq and Israel.
Economic and military ties are matched by close intelligence and security relations. During the 1980s, the Saudis financed more than half of the jihad to support the Afghan insurgency against the Soviet 40th Army in Afghanistan and worked more closely than anyone else with the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI, to support the war effort. Those ties continued in the 1990s when the Saudis and Pakistanis assisted the Taliban for a time.
With religious approval granted, Saudi forces launched frontal assaults on three of the main gates. The assaulting force was repulsed, and never even got close to breaking through the insurgents' defenses. Snipers continued to pick off soldiers who showed themselves. The mosque's public address system was used to broadcast the insurgents' message throughout the streets of Mecca. Confusion reigned at the field command, where several senior princes, the heads of the armed forces and military attachés from Pakistan gave advice. Pakistan Army infantry and armoured units deployed in Saudi Arabia were mobilized immediately. Pakistani SSG commandos were rushed to Mecca from Pakistan at the Saudi Government's request.
The Commandant of the Pakistan SSG, Brigadier Tariq Mehmood, asked for permission to end the siege by flooding the mosque and then dropping a high-voltage electric cable to electrocute all present. This proposal was deemed unacceptable by Saudi authorities. They then used tanks to ram the doors of the mosque and Pakistani Commandos Black Storks then resorted to spraying the mosque with non-lethal gases in order to subdue the occupiers, and dropped grenades into the chambers through holes drilled in the mosque courtyard. The Pakistani commandos stormed the mosque, and used the least amount of force possible to avoid damage to the mosque. They killed most of the insurgents, and managed to force the surrender of the survivors.
The battle had lasted more than two weeks, and had officially left "255 pilgrims, troops and fanatics" killed "another 560 injured ... although diplomats suggested the toll was higher." Military casualties were 127 dead and 451 injured.
Pakistanis serving in Bahrain’s security forces were reportedly involved in a crackdown on protestors in Manama in February in which seven people were killed and hundreds injured. Some injured protestors told the media that the police who beat them up spoke Urdu.
“They are uneducated, don’t speak Arabic and are difficult to communicate with,” said Maryam alKhawaja, the head of the Foreign Relations Office at the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, about the Pakistanis serving in the anti-riot police.
“Mostly they are Baloch. One story I heard from a witness was that a Baloch refused to shoot a protestor at close range, despite orders from his superior, because he was saying Allah o Akbar. The high-ranking officer, who was Bahraini, took the Baloch’s weapons, beat him and then shot the protestor himself.
According to Reuters, opposition activists estimate that up to half of Bahrain’s approximately 20,000-strong national security apparatus is made up of Sunnis from Pakistan, Jordan and Yemen.
Recruiting security personnel from these countries and any moves to naturalise them is viewed by the opposition as a way to increase the Sunni demographic, given that at least 70 per cent of Bahrain’s population is Shia. Thousands protested in Manama earlier this week against any move to give citizenship to Sunnis serving in the military.
“We can’t tell whether there has been an increase in Pakistanis (in the security forces) since the government refuses to give us any numbers on political naturalisation,” said alKhwaja.
It would be good to know the exact numbers and dispositions of Paki military component maintained on Saudi soil on a permanent basis. I am not sure that the Pakis would be maintained in significantly large numbers with arms and in military formations [not low level security and riot breakers] on Saudi soil on a very long term basis. Joint exercises are carried out, mercenaries are employed to a certain extent, but beyond that how far and how deep and how reliable are Pakis to the Sauds? [After Talebs is not the same as before Talebs and joint French commando - Pak raid to relieve "Kaaba". Post Taleb world should legitimately raise serious fears in the monarchy of the dangers of maintaining a large Paki unit close to heart.]
brihaspati wrote:. My curiosity is about whether or not the Saudi elite would be free of the nagging doubts about Paki jarnails after the rise of the Taleban. Especially after their full fledged manifestation post AFG. Like say the case of bodyguards taking out their protectee because of some inagined infraction of ideological commitment. Given the apparent soft-pedalling with Israel, what if a Paki bodyguard or mercenary opens up his AK against a Saud?
Users browsing this forum: sooraj and 41 guests