Any one seen this video?Earlier this month, Pakistani journalist Najam Sethi sketched his thesis on why the army dominated Pakistan. He explained it in historical and cultural terms. He cited Jinnah’s aggregation of power, the Muslim League’s unconstitutional approach (referring to the violence of Direct Action Day) in getting what it wanted, the army’s cultural connections with rural society and so on.
He showed also how, correspondingly, in India the situation was different, because its leaders had always been constitutionally minded. The Congress party had a democratic history going back to 1885, and Nehru represented its third generation of leaders.
Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 2011
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2426
- Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Why Pakistan’s army is more popular than its politicians
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Brad, that must be one of his 'Aapas ki Baat' programmes. These can be found at the TFT site.Brad Goodman wrote:Any one seen this video?
I am glad that at last somebody has torn that 'stickler for constitution' facade of Jinnah. This has angered that Yasir Latif Hamdani guy who is trotting out justifications for Jinnah's behaviour in the DT. He is peddling lies and half-truths in dollops.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
CRamS that is a specious statement.CRamS wrote:I don't understand what US does or does not do of any consequence to India's surrender to TSP, including on 26/11.
You see a lot of my friends and family hold views similar to yours and it is very difficlt to say what I am going to say now in print without the body and facial language that I use with them when they speak to me with view such as yours.
There is a double allegiance being shown there. The love of India manifests as "shame" at Indian surrender, but allegiance to adopted country America evokes pride. With these two conflicting emotions, one of shame and the other of pride it becomes difficult to admit that the US has played a role in screwing India via Pakistan. India's surrender to TSP has a US endorsement on it at least in part and on some occasions. But your pride in America will make you stand up for America on selected occasions, while you spend some of your time doing "equal equal" with us so "we both" hang our heads in shame on India's behalf. (we both suffer terrorism no?) When things get too shameful you abandon India and you lift your head in pride as an American. I am unable to lift my head with pride on behalf of America and I detest it when you do that here. You are actually screwing us without realizing it and imagine that you are doing a great India loving thing. Your loyalty is not and cannot be wholly Indian when you do this and I must point that out. You and others close to me inadvertently display a split allegiance where you mourn with Indians and rah rah with USA and conveniently sideline those inconvenient parts where the USA has stood side by side with Pakistan in screwing India. To that extent your views are exactly opposed to the Indian viewpoint even as you cheerfully say that we must "both hang our heads in shame". Actually it is shameful for you to do what you are doing.
If you can admit that the US has screwed India time and again then there would be no need to say what you have said - I quote again:
How dare you say that on here. Please withdraw that statement or stop claiming that we both must hang our heads in shame. I don't feel shame for what you are doing.CRamS wrote:I don't understand what US does or does not do of any consequence to India's surrender to TSP, including on 26/11.
Naturally you can't understand it. It is the American in you talking. But when you say that "we have to hang our heads in shame" your Indian half peeps out. You are ashamed for India and proud for America. I have an entire thread devoted to Indians who talk and feel this way. And we have millions, not just you alone - starting from the boxwallahs created by the Brits 150 years ago.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
It is easy to wag one's tongue and therefore I will wag it too.
If India prepares for war with Pakistan India has to make military moves that Pakistan does not anticipate. If, theoretically, the US, with its surveillance capability spots the Indian movement and just sends a message via the ambassador "We see that you are moving ### Corps in this area indicating xyz intent. Unless you stop, we will be constrained to warn the Pakistanis of your intent"
None of this needs to reach the public - but it effectively screws India.
Now we have a person coming on here saying:
If India prepares for war with Pakistan India has to make military moves that Pakistan does not anticipate. If, theoretically, the US, with its surveillance capability spots the Indian movement and just sends a message via the ambassador "We see that you are moving ### Corps in this area indicating xyz intent. Unless you stop, we will be constrained to warn the Pakistanis of your intent"
None of this needs to reach the public - but it effectively screws India.
Now we have a person coming on here saying:
Do you seriously expect me to sit back and swallow that without saying how idiotic that statement is? Get a life.I don't understand what US does or does not do of any consequence to India's surrender to TSP, including on 26/11.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Pakistan planning to sack Kayani & Pasha: Report
Pakistan government is seriously contemplating the removal of powerful army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and ISI head Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha against the backdrop of a standoff on a memo alleging an army plot to seize power, according to a media report on Monday.
The government's "extreme unhappiness" with Kayani, currently on a three-year extension, and Pasha, who received a one-year extension in service last year, is an "open secret", The News daily quoted its sources as saying.
The two generals have been held responsible for forcing Pakistan to adopt an "extremely harsh stance" towards the US after last month's NATO air strike, the report said.
They also "adopted a diabolically opposing stance to that of the government" on the alleged memo that sought US help to stave off a possible military coup in Pakistan in May.
The Memogate scandal could cause "extremely serious problems" for the ruling Pakistan People's Party and some top leaders in their individual capacity if it is properly investigated, the report said.
"Saner voices in the inner most circles of the President and the Prime Minister" have advocated "restraint and caution" as recent events, including the serious divergence of opinion on matters of national security, have created the impression that the entire security establishment is "under attack from its own political leadership", the report added.
Commenting on the possible response of the security establishment if the two generals were fired, a source told the daily: "Nobody knows and hopefully nobody will have to find the answer to this troubling question. In fact, were such an action to take place and even if the concerned officers accepted the decision and went home, nobody knows how the institution will react."
The source contended that serious national security issues were at stake and this "consideration can easily outweigh other priorities and restraints, regardless of future judicial or constitutional repercussions of any such forced retaliatory action" by the military.
Speculation about the possible removal of the generals began doing the rounds after Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani criticised the army last week, saying it was unacceptable for the force to act as a "state within a state".
Gilani also questioned the military's failure to detect Osama bin Laden's presence in Pakistan for six years.
The report claimed key players involved in framing US foreign and military policy were playing an "active role in encouraging Islamabad into taking" the decision to sack the two generals.
Former CIA official Bruce Riedel and former National Security Advisor James Jones are among those influencing both the US intelligence and military to support Pakistan in such a move, it said.
The Pakistani political leadership had been assured by US leaders of full financial and diplomatic support by Washington were it to order the removal of the two generals, the report claimed.
Meanwhile, The Express Tribune quoted a military source as saying that if Kayani or Pasha were sacked, the army might approach the Supreme Court.
It reported that the army chief had held a series of consultations with top commanders in recent days to discuss tensions with the government and "possible options to deal with the situation if things go from bad to worse".
There was consensus in the army that there would be no direct military intervention if the government decides to sack the army and intelligence chiefs, the source said.
Instead, the military has decided to challenge such a move in the apex court, the source said.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 265
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
The question is why? Weren't the lower rank PAs having Jehadi outlooks? Now when the top level are hitting against the US, why are they asking for democratic means? Its indirect help of Zardari!! Is the report bullshit or Uncle has that much leverage?SSridhar wrote:
There was consensus in the army that there would be no direct military intervention if the government decides to sack the army and intelligence chiefs, the source said.
Instead, the military has decided to challenge such a move in the apex court, the source said.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
I expect a "reports are baseless" statement from Gilani.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
It is possible that Mr. Duspercenti Gadari gets a lampost treatment like his father in law.
I hope GHQ Khaki, due to private Chinese backing and reports of China rising and USA being weak push this too far from the point of return.
I hope GHQ Khaki, due to private Chinese backing and reports of China rising and USA being weak push this too far from the point of return.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
India, Pak meeting on nuclear and conventional CBMs begins
During the NDA days there was always talk of a secret RSS agenda by the NDTV types, but I am really afraid of the secret agenda of unnecessary friendliness to a nation so hostile to us.
WTF is this?? we should publically through out any such thoughts entertained by the Pakis.In an apparent bid to strengthen its case for access to civil nuclear technology, Pakistan has been pressing the issue of civil nuclear cooperation with India, including a proposal to discuss measures to cope with a Fukushima-like situation, the sources said.
The 10-member Indian delegation includes diplomats who handle issues related to Pakistan and disarmament. D Bala Verma, Director General (disarmament and international security affairs) is leading the group on nuclear CBMs while Yashwant K Sinha, Joint Secretary (Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran) heads the group on conventional CBMs. The Pakistani side is led by Additional Secretary Munawar Saeed Bhatti.
During the NDA days there was always talk of a secret RSS agenda by the NDTV types, but I am really afraid of the secret agenda of unnecessary friendliness to a nation so hostile to us.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
It is gonna be interesting to watch which one comes first..Unkil delivering a crate of mangoes as farewell gift to Kiyanahin or Kiyanahins opening the sunroof lever for dus%...
Whichever way it goes, it going to be fun watching our barbaric animal neighbours. Because both ways the raging abduls are going to be left in rage..
Whichever way it goes, it going to be fun watching our barbaric animal neighbours. Because both ways the raging abduls are going to be left in rage..
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 9373
- Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
- Location: University of Trantor
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
^^ It'll be both hopefully. Simultaneously too. Made to look like the bad taliban did it too...LOL...
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Joke of the century....Groper 'satisfied' with the performance of Kiyanahin and Bad-shah
http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/26/gilani-r ... mours.html
I guess he is not going to remove Obama too since he is satisfied with Obama's performance..
http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/26/gilani-r ... mours.html
I guess he is not going to remove Obama too since he is satisfied with Obama's performance..
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
I guess by now you have gotten enough feedback so don't need more from me!CRamS wrote:Yes I do. I rely on hard facts, and insight based on years of experience with US govt, its people, and foreign policy. Yes, I have read BR archives, and to me, US is much culpable as TSP is for 9/11 if one wants to really, really introspect. I am of course referring to the skeletons in the closet that both US and TSP have from the time Afghan jihad was launched to fight Soviets. And I know all about that money transfers to Atta etc. I know US well, and believe me, if there was such a direct link between TSP and 9/11, TSP would have been nuked post 9/11, such was the atmosphere for revenge.Dipanker wrote:
OMG You seriously believe what you wrote here?? It may be good idea for you to read BRF archives!
My last try to set aside emotions and see US strategy for what it is. US has lost stomach for fighting after all the initial rambo style attitude with which it went in. Recall even US jingoistic reporters, football players wanted to get OBL; all of them looking for great rewards, went to Afghanistan, and came back dead or like a bunch of losers after experiencing reality. Right now, US wants to cut & run, having realized that pretty much their mission is accomplished when looked at through lens of hard-nosed pragmatism. Taliban, under the tutelage of TSP RAPE is not going to attack US, they are reserved for attacking us SDREs. "Mighty" Al Queda has been annihilated. US has enough peeping tom toys installed worldwide, and humInt to watch the shadow of every Muslim even remotely connected to terror against whites including Israel. Bay area and other torture camps run by CIA is overflowing with with Muslim terror suspects.
Bottom line: as far as AfPak end game is concerned, its a question of how much US is willing to give TSP, and at what point TSP will settle so US can claim "victory". And of course, the wild card is India, we know what TSP wants visa vi India. But how much US is demanding from India, and to what extent MMS can maneuver opposition in India and loyally obey US orders is what remains to be seen. But make no mistake about it, TSP has lived to fight another day with India. And in this, I am with you. US has actually rewarded a terrorist abomination, but where you and I disagree is that US has done so strategically, not out of cowardice as you & DocJi and others seem to imply.
But let me just stress one thing no matter how much you spin you can't convince me that it has been in US "strategic" interest to have in the last 10 years approx. 2000 of its soldiers killed in AfPak by the Paki who to begin with perpetrated 9/11 on them, and still cough up billions of $$.
Who are you kidding here?
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Just aggressive howling won't cut it DocJi. Tell me, is there nothing India could have done, short of this shameful surrender by MMS on 26/11? I have to keep rubbing this in, because 26/11 was an act of war, and we are ending up making love to the very perpetrators. If US is such a weakling as you claim, why did MMS buckle under US actions: be it their appeasement of TSP or pressure on India? Please address my question: why did MMS surrender on 26/11? Thats the only issue I am interested in. Nothing else, no other piskology.shiv wrote:
Do you seriously expect me to sit back and swallow that without saying how idiotic that statement is? Get a life.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
CRSji,
MMS had no choice because of the fvcking Amirkhan barbarians,who have chosen to fatten/sustain pakhanastan and ignore pakibarism because of their cold machinations,strategic world view inspired in part by white christism and part by realpolitik and contempt for SDRE preachiness.
MMS had no choice because of the fvcking Amirkhan barbarians,who have chosen to fatten/sustain pakhanastan and ignore pakibarism because of their cold machinations,strategic world view inspired in part by white christism and part by realpolitik and contempt for SDRE preachiness.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Al-Qaida leadership almost wiped out in Pakistan, British officials believe
So many senior members of the organisation have been killed in an intense campaign of air strikes involving missiles launched from unmanned drones that "only a handful of the key players" remain alive, one official said.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Its easy to blame others for your own weakness. We, not MMS, we Indians chose, and I repeat again, we chose, not to punish pakistan for 26/11. US did put tremendous pressure on us in 1971 didn't it? but we, we Indians, we chose to rebuff. And then on 26/11/2008 we chose to succumb. I don't know mate what's happened, but somewhere we have forgotten about something deep inside our heart...or its paki nuke that we are afraid of...svenkat wrote:CRSji,
MMS had no choice because of the fvcking Amirkhan barbarians
Last edited by abhijitm on 26 Dec 2011 21:46, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
The difference is nuclear weapons,as everyone knows.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
^^ coincidently I added the same statement in my post
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
^^^ 1971 there was a specific, clear, achievable goal. Name such a goal for post 26/11.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
But there is another dimension. If pak can get away with terrorist attack, why can't RAW create even a bigger mess in the mess pak is already in? Who stops us there?
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
^^^^
How would one differentiate a mess created by RAA from the mess already permeating there? Short of taking out their entire Crore-pati Commanders, nothing a RAA ajint does would have have discernible impact. Doing so would come with its own set of consequences, which going by CAG reports, there is no guarantee that we're going to come on top
How would one differentiate a mess created by RAA from the mess already permeating there? Short of taking out their entire Crore-pati Commanders, nothing a RAA ajint does would have have discernible impact. Doing so would come with its own set of consequences, which going by CAG reports, there is no guarantee that we're going to come on top
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
I have to ask a counter question, if thats the case, then does it mean that there is no response to TSP's terror provocations, and India has to acquiesce to TSP demands: "talks" over Kashmir to hand over valley?A_Gupta wrote:^^^ 1971 there was a specific, clear, achievable goal. Name such a goal for post 26/11.
Its shameful that you are even asking if there are any goals. Simple: no talks, nada zilch until TSP hands over the perpetrators of 26/11 for a start. Add Dawood and sundry other scum to the list. And this should have been the message to the whites too when they come with this crap about "legal process". TSP had no such niceties in handing over Al Queda suspects to the whites. Why should there be a double standard
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Why, punishing pakistan cannot be a goal? If your neighbor makes an indecent pass at your wife then what will be your clear, achievable goal for him?A_Gupta wrote:^^^ 1971 there was a specific, clear, achievable goal. Name such a goal for post 26/11.
I am still of the opinion that direct military action against paki army post 26/11 was not advisable. However I firmly believe that you need a different set of aggressive methodology to punish such country. Our goal is to keep the status quo viz-a-viz pakistan, and you cannot maintain it by taking blows and do nothing about it. Its like a football match. If you are playing for draw then you cannot just sit back and defend. That would bring down your team's moral and at some point you will be at great risk of conceding goal. Hence it is important for a team to counter attack whenever get a chance just to indicate the opponent that you can also be a risk. Hence we had to punish pakistan by covert operations. Even a failed attempt to kill Hafiz Saeed could have boasted the moral. Pakistan definitely wouldn't have started nuke war if HS was killed. And if we don't have capable intelligence to do so then we must systematically build, and demonstrate to our adversaries and even most importantly fellow Indians. I don't know if our political class has any such appetite.
What Indian leadership did after 26/11 was highly demotivative for common Indians. A prime responsibility for any leadership is that in an extremely adverse condition keep the team's moral up. Indian leadership failed just to do that. Entire political class was all over the place. What do you expect from a common man? Helplessly watching 26/11 for three days had already brought the overall moral of the country to the bottom rock. Towards the end I was just covering my face and praying this to get over. It got over, finally.
I am not afraid of attacks, what torturous is to do nothing about it.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
This might have something to do with the fact that RAW isn't exactly capable of carrying out Active measures like that in Pak or anywhere is our near abroad. And these aren't just terrorist attacks anymore, they are part of long list of blatant acts of war.abhijitm wrote:But there is another dimension. If pak can get away with terrorist attack, why can't RAW create even a bigger mess in the mess pak is already in? Who stops us there?
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Has unkil understood atlast? the root cause of all that ails him??? Or Zardari and PPP have a poll strategy where they almost are inviting Army to take over... Sympathy votes whenever the next elections happens... or may be when mid term elections happen.... with their performance they can't hope to get elected...SSridhar wrote:Pakistan planning to sack Kayani & Pasha: Report
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
CRS - you cannot take on the street rowdy without taking on the area dada. the area dada himself may have different dealings with street rowdy...unless you are ready to replace street rowdy, or have enough 'dum' to take on the dada himself, we just have to take the body blows and plan accordingly. rantings like 'oh we are not like the dada..look how the dada kicks the rowdy ass'..is not going anywhere
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Because both Pakistan and America have worked against India. America is buckling with just Pakistan working against it. I know you don't like it. You are already hanging your head in shame playing to the India gallery and need the America kick to make you feel better. But America is only able to handle Pakistan because Pakistan is more scared of taking on India than America - and keeps running back to America.CRamS wrote:If US is such a weakling as you claim, why did MMS buckle under US actions:shiv wrote:
Do you seriously expect me to sit back and swallow that without saying how idiotic that statement is? Get a life.
The more India threatens Pakistan, the easier America finds it to get Pakis to do their bidding. India has actually preserved itself against the America-Pakistan combination by not taking action on some occasions, by getting hit and staying hit. But anyhow it was fun getting a reaction from you. One can curse India as much as one wants, but you wont react. One derisive laugh at America's current pathetic downhill ski brings you out with sword flailing - protecting American echandee.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
It is not specific or clear and without that it is not achievable. Even in the limited arena of BRF, I have not seen any consensus on what "punishing Pakistan" means in practice.abhijitm wrote:Why, punishing pakistan cannot be a goal?A_Gupta wrote:^^^ 1971 there was a specific, clear, achievable goal. Name such a goal for post 26/11.
PS: I am not trying to be argumentative. The point is that "punishing Pakistan" as a foreign policy plan is as precise as "making money" as a business plan. Before attributing to Indians qualities of character like cowardice, etc., consider the simpler hypothesis that while all may want to "punish Pakistan" there is no agreement on what that might mean, and whether a proposed action (e.g., assassinate Hafiz Saeed) would constitute punishment enough, etc.
PPS: 1971 means to the goal of setting up Bangladesh included to get the world to not intervene during the crucial period of conflict - which meant using the USSR-US cold war rivalry to advantage. There is no such shield now - as far as Pakistan is concerned, the two pre-eminent powers, US and China are on the same side.
Last edited by A_Gupta on 26 Dec 2011 23:24, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Pakistan will go down only when America goes down. The US will support Pakistan against anyone and an anti US sentiment in Pakistan is good for India.
A Pakistan that gets no help from America will be that much weaker against India, and Pakistan that does not support America makes the US that much weaker in the region.
Ultimately the US needs to be kicked out of the region all the way back to where they came from. It is a stupid error to imagine that "Pakistan is holding India back". Pakistan, aided by America has held India back. Kick American ass by subterfuge if we can't do it directly and Pakistan will fall into place. In fact I suspect China would prefer America in Pakistan rather that out of it. They cannot take over.
Get America out and things will start getting better.
A Pakistan that gets no help from America will be that much weaker against India, and Pakistan that does not support America makes the US that much weaker in the region.
Ultimately the US needs to be kicked out of the region all the way back to where they came from. It is a stupid error to imagine that "Pakistan is holding India back". Pakistan, aided by America has held India back. Kick American ass by subterfuge if we can't do it directly and Pakistan will fall into place. In fact I suspect China would prefer America in Pakistan rather that out of it. They cannot take over.
Get America out and things will start getting better.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
There are ways to punish such a rogue country. You start thinking and you will come up with many ways.A_Gupta wrote:It is not specific or clear and without that it is not achievable. Even in the limited arena of BRF, I have not seen any consensus on what "punishing Pakistan" means in practice.abhijitm wrote:Why, punishing pakistan cannot be a goal?
Last edited by abhijitm on 26 Dec 2011 23:06, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
A_Gupta, HS is a very imp, closely guarded asset of pakistan. An attempt to kill HS will be a serious warning, and his elimination will be a serious punishment to pakistan.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
TSPA will now deliver ALQ#2 to keep their jobs.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
I am just a lurker but I am distressed at how an attempt it made out to justify the cowardice shown by the GoI.
In this tripartite game, only India is coming out as the gutless player refusing to even land any kicks. At least the US (on being kicked by pakis) is kicking back, and the pakis are kicking both the US and India. Only India is content to swallow the punches.
In this tripartite game, only India is coming out as the gutless player refusing to even land any kicks. At least the US (on being kicked by pakis) is kicking back, and the pakis are kicking both the US and India. Only India is content to swallow the punches.
Last edited by saket on 26 Dec 2011 23:22, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Post OBL, that game is over no? Also per recent reports AQ is shifting base to North Africa.ramana wrote:TSPA will now deliver ALQ#2 to keep their jobs.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
what to do we are SDRE onlee.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
But Shiv, wouldn't it 'between the devil and the deep blue sea' like situation for pakistan? What's wrong forcing pakis in that? anyway they will be screwed.shiv wrote:The more India threatens Pakistan, the easier America finds it to get Pakis to do their bidding.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Is there at least a BRF consensus on this?abhijitm wrote:A_Gupta, HS is a very imp, closely guarded asset of pakistan. An attempt to kill HS will be a serious warning, and his elimination will be a serious punishment to pakistan.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
Counting punches is not really important, the only measure of any relevance is -saket wrote:I am just a lurker but I am distressed at how an attempt it made out to justify the cowardice shown by the GoI.
In this tripartite game, only India is coming out as the gutless player refusing to even land any kicks. At least the US (on being kicked by pakis) is kicking back, and the pakis are kicking both the US and India. Only India is content to swallow the punches.
Are Indian interests being served?
which leads to the question - What is the Indian interest? and the subsidiary one -
How do I demonstrate that my opinion of what the Indian interest ought to be is indeed the right one?
I have seen no consensus on this score among just the scores of people who post on BRF.
It is possible there is such a consensus at the national level but BRFers are generally speaking, unhappy with that consensus.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201
I remember arguing here with not much effect, post 26-11, that India needed to be consistent in it's approach and ask the Paki's to do something doable and stick to that, come what may.which leads to the question - What is the Indian interest?
India's 1st priority which it has failed post 26-11, Kargil, 93 Blasts has been consistency of approach. On 2 aspects we could have maintained complete consistency and pressured the US to increase pressure on the same for the Paki;s. A) Bringing the PA/ISI explicitly under the Civilian dispensation. B ) Bringing out the core list of terrorists that Paki's have been hiding. Not some 100 names but core leaders of which some turned out to be in India. Just that in return for composite talks to begin with.
We messed up on both counts. The reason is well known here. SeS syndrome or the Pappi Jhappi syndrome. We have certainly failed in approaching terrorism emanating from Pakistan with some level of consistency and consequently ended delinking talks and terror.
IF we didn't think it was practical to launch commando style raids or covert missions inside Pakistan, we at the minimum must have been consistent on some really doable things. We failed at that certainly. And now the confusion is clearly showing on this board itself.