Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 2011

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
saket
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 03:19

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby saket » 27 Dec 2011 00:21

A_Gupta wrote:
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.


Counting punches is not really important, the only measure of any relevance is -
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.
Any reasonable definition of "Indian interests" will have to include justice for the victims of pakistans covert war, as long as India can afford the costs of delivering this justice.
I can understand the argument that war is too costly an option. But there is a range of options between war and peace, like downgrading ties, halting trade, covert action, suspending the IWT etc.
I cannot accept that the paki nukes or the US can force GoI to refrain from exercising these intermediate options, and the only explanation for the GoIs current embrace of pakis is cowardice.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Sanku » 27 Dec 2011 00:40

It is not correct to say that a overall goal for Pakistan in Indian interest does not have a nearly unequivocal support -- "Give peace a chance, destroy Pakistan"

The questions of tactics may differ a bit, but the goal as described on BRF is clear and is quite at odds with official Indian position.

Therefore, GoI must take steps to punish Pakistan in a way that the overall (BRF) goal is met.

I would call for target assassination (using anything from a hit squad to a Brahmos) of people who hold the Keys of Pakistani unity. Politicians, army brass, or lynch pins of the civilian Jehadi architecture.

Anything that makes them think that their sorry asses will be saved better if the ship jumping nincompoops can find a dingy to get away from the sinking toilet that is Pakistan.

Its okay to have different view about tactics though, or even have multiple approaches. There is nothing written in a book about how we must behave.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby RajeshA » 27 Dec 2011 00:41

A_Gupta wrote:
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.


Counting punches is not really important, the only measure of any relevance is -
Are Indian interests being served?

A_Gupta ji,

I disagree here strongly. I understand that sometimes one has to let go of tactical wins in order to secure strategic gains.

That said, the most important asset of any power is the impression it invokes in others. Any and every punch that we take we need to return with interest, no matter how long it takes. That has to be made an underlying feature of Bharat. We can analyze the threat, we can look for our culprits, we can game our responses, but at the end of the day we have to retaliate and do it with force, and we have to let the others know for what we have punished them.

This is not simply to scare off the enemy not to attack us again, but to also send a message to all others powers. That is what establishes the contours of one's power projection.

Never forget, never forgive! Every punch needs to be returned! Punches count!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby RajeshA » 27 Dec 2011 00:47

Sanku wrote:Its okay to have different view about tactics though, or even have multiple approaches. There is nothing written in a book about how we must behave.


We must attack the culprit at multiple levels - his person, his family, his organization, his community, his country and his ideology. All need to feel the brunt of our punishment. Everybody needs to be told why somebody was punished.

Of course one can give the attacking entity a certain duration to do justice, and thus to escape retaliation, but if they don't deliver on it, then they should all taste retaliation as complicit in the act.

Narad
BRFite
Posts: 854
Joined: 04 Jan 2010 15:15

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Narad » 27 Dec 2011 01:43

partha wrote:I expect a "reports are baseless" statement from Gilani.


Subhanalla Mian Parthuddin. 8) These poakbaric pigs are so predictable.

Gilani rebuffs Kayani, Pasha removal rumours

http://www.Yawn.com/2011/12/26/gilani-r ... mours.html
Last edited by Narad on 27 Dec 2011 01:49, edited 1 time in total.

Venkarl
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Venkarl » 27 Dec 2011 01:47

People, Like I've mentioned before, sniping HS's a$$ off or poisoning DI is not a big challenge/task for raa/eyebee. The orders have to come from PMO/HM. But we all know that, India, though it has a young population, with aged elected representatives, behaves like an old man. What will an old man in his 60s or 70s do when he is heckled or pushed by a rough rowdy in a public place? protest by words, curse/swear him, fall for him or run the fk away from there. If he is lucky, Gentlemen around him might be of his rescue. India has no Gentlemen on the world stage for its rescue. The 2 possibilities are: Advice some rest to the old man and his son do the job or wait till the old man dies. All the while, remember and count each punch like RajeshA has suggested.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6959
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Anujan » 27 Dec 2011 02:49

Brad Goodman wrote: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.


More remarkable was Sardar Patel, son of a poor mustard farmer. In fact, Nehru's contemporaries had diverse background -- From Subhash Chandra bose, the son of an advocate to Patel, who rose up from a family of few privileges and was largely self educated.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6959
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Anujan » 27 Dec 2011 03:13

Suppiah wrote: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..


He was referring to the GUBO he gets periodically. :mrgreen:

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Dec 2011 03:26

RajeshA, suppose one replied to a war of a thousand cuts with a decapitation - would the number of punches matter?

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Dec 2011 03:33

In contrasting 1971 with today, one key point is that there was likely a clearer goal and consensus than there is today. As I said "punish Pakistan" is a vague goal - it doesn't say what to do. I don't know how to set up a poll, but if we did, it could include, for instance

1. Elimination (by incarceration or death) of anti-Indian jihadi leaders such as Hafiz Saeed.

That is a specific goal. If it turns out there is no consensus on BRF itself, then there will be little point in blaming the larger society.

---

A second key point is that India skillfully used the competition among world powers to create space for its goal in Bangladesh. That competition is not available today. This constrains India's options.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Katare » 27 Dec 2011 03:49

Anujan wrote:
Brad Goodman wrote: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.


More remarkable was Sardar Patel, son of a poor mustard farmer. In fact, Nehru's contemporaries had diverse background -- From Subhash Chandra bose, the son of an advocate to Patel, who rose up from a family of few privileges and was largely self educated.


Like rest of the barristers of his era (Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnaha etc) patelji too went to Englistan for degree and also sent his brother before him. He topped his class too...

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby RamaY » 27 Dec 2011 03:57

Elimination of snakes like HS should be the goal of elementary RAW officer grade, not at the level of PMO/MHA. Imagine a scenario where a local RAW agents sets things on roll that will lead to the assassination of HS. Would PMO/MHA undo that agent? The issue IMO is funds, which is controlled by babudom to the extent that even a truth brush purchase by a local agent can be traced by a babu in Hastina. This has to change.

The goals of GoI should not be individual based, instead it should be organizational and environment level. Like what kind of political and social environment should be allowed in enemy camps, how to undermine the organizations that are inimical to Indian interests.

Instead current UPA disposition is more worried about the internal political environment and internal non-INC organizations and is individual based when it comes to external enemies.

This is what happens when a thief is the queen, a slave is the king, psychophancy is the ministerial palace and so on...


A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Dec 2011 04:08

SSridhar wrote:
Brad Goodman wrote:Any one seen this video?

Brad, that must be one of his 'Aapas ki Baat' programmes. These can be found at the TFT site.

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.


The Aapas ki Baat December 14, 2011 program has it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faXldROcQso
http://youtu.be/_EbOqj9-9u0

The second youtube at around 21:30 has the relevant portion.

To some claims of Yasser Latif Hamdani, I have replies:
http://observingliberalpakistan.blogspo ... nment.html
http://observingliberalpakistan.blogspo ... owers.html

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Dec 2011 04:49

I'm scanning through Alan Campbell Johnson's "Mission with Mountbatten". Mountbatten gave a (pre-recorded) speech on the second V.J. (UK's Victory over Japan) Day - August 15, 1947 - where he said "Bitter experience has taught us that it is often easier to win a war than to achieve a war aim...", and I thought it applicable to this thread.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6805
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby CRamS » 27 Dec 2011 05:17

A_Gupta wrote:In contrasting 1971 with today, one key point is that there was likely a clearer goal and consensus than there is today. As I said "punish Pakistan" is a vague goal - it doesn't say what to do. I don't know how to set up a poll, but if we did, it could include, for instance

1. Elimination (by incarceration or death) of anti-Indian jihadi leaders such as Hafiz Saeed.



With all due respect, cut the crap. What you are doing is justifying cowardice, inaction, and terror appeasement by India. Yes, a specific goal, which I and others have repeated ad nauseum is no talks until terror benchmarks are met. And this includes either the elimination of scum like HS & Dawood by India, or TSP hands them over. Elimination of HS by India would be a huge moral sinker for TSP. He is the ultimate fish in TSP's terror arsenal against India. India has to deliver visible punches to TSPA/ISI, or else TSP/US demands from India will only increase. India has to establish a return to status quo scenario, which it failed to do post 26/11i.e., TSP stops terror, and India stops the retaliation. Right now its TSP stops terror for composite dialogue including Kashmir. Is this not shameful? Hang your head in shame as I do. And talking abut space, what more did India need after 26/11, and worse TSP taunting India with any evidence it provided. And BTW, I am not advocating full scale war, just some retaliatory steps to put TSP and US/China on notice.

Venkarl
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Venkarl » 27 Dec 2011 07:14

RamaY wrote:Elimination of snakes like HS should be the goal of elementary RAW officer grade, not at the level of PMO/MHA. Imagine a scenario where a local RAW agents sets things on roll that will lead to the assassination of HS. Would PMO/MHA undo that agent? The issue IMO is funds, which is controlled by babudom to the extent that even a truth brush purchase by a local agent can be traced by a babu in Hastina. This has to change...


RamaY Garu, you know that the "Go" has to come from Minister's Office. NSAs and Intel Chiefs just present facts and options about what can be done, the ultimate call has to be taken by Minister-in-charge to which NSAs/Intel Chiefs adhere to. And HS/DI are not some around the corner targets for any agint. These old duds-in-charge worry too much about repercussions of a hit job on HS/DI.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6805
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby CRamS » 27 Dec 2011 07:27

Another hallmark of cowards, just declare victory knowing that nobody among DDM will challenge this sophistry.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed ... 87489.aspx


In a year when the Singh government found passing simple legislation all but impossible, this foreign policy record is not bad. New Delhi has also chalked up some success with Pakistan



I cannot believe that this is the prevailing wisdom in India. India surrenders to TSP on 26/11, agrees to discuss Kashmir; in other words comes to the negotiating table as TSP demands, and in return, temporary respite from pigLeTs, and this worthy declares that a success. Ack Thoo.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby shiv » 27 Dec 2011 07:35

abhijitm wrote:
shiv wrote:The more India threatens Pakistan, the easier America finds it to get Pakis to do their bidding.

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.


It was never devil and the deep blue sea for Pakistan until 2004 or so.

From the 1950s right up to 2004 the USA cheerfully accepted that Pakistan's "national interest" was in maintaining a force of army+terrorists against India and the US national interest was served by supporting Pakistan in their endeavour.

You know that very well yourself, but seem to have forgotten that when you made your post.

After 2004, the US started discovering that they were being taken for a ride by Pakistan - but it took them a full 7 years before they started reluctantly acknowledging that in public. BRF knows that well, but our minds are attuned to believing that India is weak, and the US righteous and strong. We will not budge from that viewpoint because of the cognitive dissonance we will get if we tray and cgange that opinion based on observed facts.

And Pakistan perfidy against the US became clear when India failed to respond to provocations (2001 to 2008) and failed to live up to the "fear of India" that Pakistan has depended on for US aid.

svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby svenkat » 27 Dec 2011 07:54

CRSji,
Talks-No talks are non-issues in the big picture.These are pinpricks.As an Indian,you must be aware of family situations,when we swallow our pride for not aggravating an issue,but we are not conceding any ground.We can verbally retaliate,but we chose to ignore for multiple reasons like respect for elders etc.

Young people are angry but are restrained/counselled by elders.Dr MMS too is from Rawalpindi.He knows first hand the 'culture' of pakbarians.Yet he has to 'run a society which has problems like Telengana-Andhra,KKNPP,Mullaiperiyar,EJ infiltration'.Escalation without a clear endgame will hurt us.The Congress for all its faults,has a world view that is inclusive and is committed to economic betterment.At this stage,we need co-operation with US on muliple fronts particularly in high technology and capital investment.

Just as so many bright people here have chosen the west for better prospects,the GOI too wants good relations with the greatest TFTA power in the world for economic betterment.Dr MMS has the unenviable task of walking the tight rope.US wants India to engage pakhanastan to bringe a corpse back to life.The corpse cannot come back to life,the job is insulate ourselves from its toxicity.And inspite of our genuine anguish,India is doing well to protect status quo.

Infact for the first time the toxic corpse is threatening Amirkhan in two ways.The Americans are mired in Afghanistan,without any easy escape route.Secondly,the threat to West from Pakistani nuclear arsenal is real.
The smelly,'swarthy' SDREs by their patience and endurance have 'turned the tables'.The Amirkhans are at their wits end as they are unable to come to terms with the reality.Their simplistic world view has broken down and one sees this in the tension between the DOD and the SD which is barely concealed now.
I would say this is no mean achievement by SDREs.

Anindya
BRFite
Posts: 1539
Joined: 02 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Anindya » 27 Dec 2011 08:21

When the PM of nation of 1 billion people can be shooed away from one end of the speaking podium to another by a lowly Pakistani official (at Thimphu) - I dont think we're going to take retaliatory action against any kind of attack by Pakistanis.

In any case, after 26/11 our navy and air force seemed to be prepared for action - but our army felt they were unprepared - although, its not clear that we had the political will to act.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Dec 2011 08:54

Svenkat, ++.

PS: as per tweeter sonaliranade, $100 billion in foreign loans is due next year. If true, then the terms on which India will refinance these has to enter strategic and tactical considerations.
Last edited by A_Gupta on 27 Dec 2011 08:59, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby shiv » 27 Dec 2011 08:54

US policy in Pakistan has hinged around an "alliance" where one ally helps the other and vice versa. Pakistan helped the US fight its enemies and the US helped Pakistan fight its enemies.

The USSR was the US's enemy in an earlier era, and India was Pakistan's enemy

In the modern era. "Al Qaeda" was the US's enemy and India remained Pakistan's enemy. Pakistan helped the US fight "Al Qaeda" and the US paid and armed Pakistan against India. In this connection my gratitude goes out to one resident white American in BRF a nice chap whose name I cannot recall - who left after 9-11 shortly before TS Jones came. He left with an anguished message saying that the US would now arm Pakistan and screw India. To me it appears that the US no longer needs resident white Americans for the job. They have been replaced by desis who stand up for America. But I digress.

Anyone who spends time recalling how the "white western world" sees India and Pakistan will realise that the press and leaders see them as 2 third world nations ".. who have fought 3 wars over Kashmir and are always itching for a fight".

If war had occurred in 2001 it would only have proved the attitude that the west had developed. The west did not care that Pakistan started earlier wars. IndaPakistan were equalequal. Even the parliament attack was referred to as an event for which "India blames Pakistan, Pakistan denies the charge". Operation Parakram showed to India that India will have to hoodwink the US as well as Pakistan in the next war as we did in 1998. If we ignore wet dreams of "punishing Pakistan" and take a brief look at what the Pakistan army felt about war with India it shows that they too have some plans (the fact that they have plans should be evident from how they have screwed and played the sooperdooperpower). The Paki army knows that they cannot fight for more than 2-3 weeks, they are certain to call for UN intervention and call for a ceasefire within that time. That means that the Pakistani army only has to resist an Indian invasion for two weeks. If India cannot solve the Pakistan problem in 2 weeks, Pakistan lives to fight another day with renewed proof that an aggressive India is out to break Pakistan. This is a dangerous gamble, but the Paki army are good at it. They have little to lose. Especially with the Americans who swallow the Paki line to the extent that American citizens can ask on BRF "What has the US got to do with India's response to Pakistan?"

It was only when India repeatedly behaved cowardly and failed to attack Pakistan that Pakistan's accusations of a hostile India began to sound hollow. Pakistan failed to keep its end of the bargain with a dumb USA citing the "india threat". The US finally had a "duh" moment and understood that it was being milked. And after that the US realised that it was too weak to actually punish or fight Pakistan. The US is not cowardly like India. It is only dumb but knows its weaknesses. When the US avoids a fight it is out of wisdom, not cowardice. India avoids fights out of cowardice. Not wisdom. But the fight is avoided either way. On here, Americans call the Indian action of not fighting as "cowardice" but the US action of not fighting as "Wisdom. Self Interest' Strength". A rose by any other name... :)

The US is not going to fight Pakistan. India is not going to fight Pakistan, especially with the US still hoping to get one more night of Paki love. It is the US that needs to get out of Pakistan.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Dec 2011 09:00

Shiv ++

Also the point of the Mountbatten quote. India can come out the victor in a 2 week war with Pakistan and yet not achieve its war aim.

----

PS: Perhaps the big prize now to 2014 is Afghanistan. India wants a sustainable India-friendly government there. In particular, Pakistan should not be able to shift the bases of its jihadis to Afghanistan - if that happens, Pakistan will once again be able to sponsor jihad with little self-damage. The US's primary goal is to be able to leave with H&D intact. How should India play this chess game?

Anindya
BRFite
Posts: 1539
Joined: 02 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Anindya » 27 Dec 2011 09:27

why does it have to be war - there're other alternatives between war and pusillanimity.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby shiv » 27 Dec 2011 09:37

Anindya wrote:why does it have to be war - there're other alternatives between war and pusillanimity.

Anindya I think that is being too clever by half. Using that standard Pakistan is not fighting a war with India at all and is magnificently failing to take India down. Why would India want to use tit for tat pinpricks on Pakistan that do not deconstruct the state? To what end other than making people like you feel that it is not pusillanimity and not war. Sounds like an ego boost would be enough rather than a solution.

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Airavat » 27 Dec 2011 09:39

Pakistan urged to share Durand Line map

The head of the U.S. Central Command is urging Pakistan to share a map of its facilities and installations near the Afghan border to help avert episodes like the one that killed 24 Pakistani forces last month. Mattis directed Allen, commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force, to seek full disclosure of all facilities and installations on both sides of the frontier as soon as possible. This should include "systematic updates based on a common data base and map, and incorporating periodic reciprocal coordination visits," he said.

The U.S. investigators said a climate of deep mutual distrust was partly to blame for the incident. Pakistan did not participate in the U.S. investigation and rejected its findings as "short on facts," as Major General Athar Abbas, an Army spokesman, put it on Thursday.

Anindya
BRFite
Posts: 1539
Joined: 02 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Anindya » 27 Dec 2011 09:43

Why would India want to use tit for tat pinpricks on Pakistan that do not deconstruct the state?


Strawman bashing does not help - and neither does that "edge" in your posts.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Dec 2011 09:47

The US Central Command's report on the Salah incident:
http://www.centcom.mil/press-releases/r ... ion-report


MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (December 26, 2011) — The U.S. Central Command investigation into the Nov. 25-26 engagement between U.S. and Pakistan Military Forces near Salala Checkpoint, Khas Kunar Province, Afghanistan is complete. The report can be found by clicking here. The Table of Contents can be found by clicking here. Click here for Annexes: A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J. Click here for Brig. Gen. Clark's Appointment Letter.

(all links to PDF documents)

The New York Times reports:
The full report alters and expands upon the impression of the inquiry’s findings created by General Clark’s briefing, which had emphasized how checks on both sides failed. Among the reason the checks failed, he said, were because American officials did not trust Pakistan enough to give it detailed information about American troop locations in Afghanistan, and Pakistan had not informed NATO of the locations of its new border posts.

The details released Monday add to those failures unexplained delays and a lack of urgency by NATO officers in notifying their superiors of the unfolding late-night debacle that has plunged relations between the two countries to new lows.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/world ... elays.html

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6959
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Anujan » 27 Dec 2011 10:41

The memo issue is becoming a bizzarre case of Army fighting the Civilian government in the Supreme Court!! Such things can happen only in Pakistan!

I wonder under what constitutional basis can the Army sue the Government or even ask the Supreme Court to adjudicate the matter? In any modern country, the rule is simple: The Executive, through the legislature ORDERS the Army to do stuff. The Army can give its opinion, but cannot disobey, much less sue the Government in court! The Government and the Army are acting like business rivals! But then this is Pakistan we are talking about:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/312239/memogate-pasha-stepped-beyond-jurisdiction-when-he-briefed-kayani/

Rajdeep
BRFite
Posts: 491
Joined: 23 Aug 2010 20:48

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Rajdeep » 27 Dec 2011 10:59

President of transgender association to contest elections

Code: Select all

http://tribune.com.pk/story/312257/president-of-transgender-association-to-contest-elections/


MULTAN: Shahana Abbas Shani, President of She-male Association, has announced that she will contest elections as an independent candidate for Muzaffargarh PP-254 constituency of provincial assembly.

Protesters burnt US President Barack Obama’s effigies and raised slogans against the US and expressed solidarity with the armed forces of Pakistan.

“We will fight at our country’s borders if the forces need us,” Shani said. :rotfl:


Doesnt He/She know that they are already represented in the PA ? :twisted:

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Pranav » 27 Dec 2011 11:57

shiv wrote:Why would India want to use tit for tat pinpricks on Pakistan that do not deconstruct the state?


So then you suggest an all-out war?

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Pranav » 27 Dec 2011 12:10

RajeshA wrote:Everybody needs to be told why somebody was punished.


Why? To make us feel better? Will the other rage boys be suitably chastised after that? On the other hand, what if Saeed was punished by someone even more pious?

Sudip
BRFite
Posts: 378
Joined: 28 Oct 2008 05:42
Location: Paikhana

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Sudip » 27 Dec 2011 12:35

Fight for Food & Cake in PML-N program for Quaid-e-Azam day & Nawaz Sharif Birthday


jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby jrjrao » 27 Dec 2011 12:50

AssPhuck Kiyani, and Pasha, his oily toady, have, today, together yanked on the joysticks, and have commissioned the prominent DC lobbying firm of Locke Lord to send a letter straight to the US CongressFolks:

CNN: Pakistan disputes U.S. findings on deadly airstrike
Washington (CNN) -- Pakistan's government has formally disputed the findings of a U.S. investigation into a November airstrike that killed 24 Pakistanis, saying the bombardment went on long after it reported its troops were under fire.

In a letter to the U.S. Congress, Pakistan said its troops came under fire at well-identified border posts and that NATO commanders knew helicopter gunships were firing on Pakistani forces "within the first fifteen minutes" -- yet the attack continued for more than another hour.

"This attack was the most recent example of the losses Pakistan has suffered fighting alongside the United States to combat terrorism and extremism," the letter states. The strike has strained ties between Washington and a key ally in the region, and "an apology by the U.S. Department of Defense to the people of Pakistan would not be inappropriate," the letter states.

...in its letter to Congress, Pakistan said the incident "has raised suspicions in the rank and file of the Pakistan Army that it was a premeditated attack and was conducted to undermine the sovereignty and stature of Pakistan."

Pakistan's response was sent to U.S. lawmakers via the lobbying firm of Locke Lord Strategies, which acts as an agent for the Pakistani government in Washington.

So, here is Kiyani and Pasha, writing their own fresh "memo", through an expensive lobby firm paid by the aam abdul of Pakistan, saying that the Obama apology, being not forthcoming, is not necessary after all, but instead, that one soon to be coming from the Pentagon would do just fine.

Moreover, there is significance in this being so openly and directly directed to the US Congress. Recall that the NY Times reported 24 hours earlier that the big aid spigot to the Pakis is threatened to go bye bye. And so, here are Kiyani and Pasha, not even 24 hours later, whimpering, on all fours, to the US congress, playing the usual Paki victim card.

Give us moolah, moolah, is what Kiyano and Pasha are begging now.

The Paki economic situation is that so very desperate.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6959
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Anujan » 27 Dec 2011 12:51

^^^^^
Did anyone from Paki-land apologize for OBL being found there?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17016
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Rahul M » 27 Dec 2011 13:08

shiv wrote:
Anindya wrote:why does it have to be war - there're other alternatives between war and pusillanimity.

Anindya I think that is being too clever by half. Using that standard Pakistan is not fighting a war with India at all and is magnificently failing to take India down. Why would India want to use tit for tat pinpricks on Pakistan that do not deconstruct the state? To what end other than making people like you feel that it is not pusillanimity and not war. Sounds like an ego boost would be enough rather than a solution.

we did use alternatives that lie in between to counter paki support for khalistan. and it worked.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Sanku » 27 Dec 2011 13:09

shiv wrote:
Anindya wrote:why does it have to be war - there're other alternatives between war and pusillanimity.

Anindya I think that is being too clever by half. Using that standard Pakistan is not fighting a war with India at all and is magnificently failing to take India down. Why would India want to use tit for tat pinpricks on Pakistan that do not deconstruct the state? To what end other than making people like you feel that it is not pusillanimity and not war. Sounds like an ego boost would be enough rather than a solution.


Pranav wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Everybody needs to be told why somebody was punished.


Why? To make us feel better? Will the other rage boys be suitably chastised after that? On the other hand, what if Saeed was punished by someone even more pious?


Sigh does one have to really spell out the basics!! Even in Pisko games. :(

1) Punishment is not only about revenge, yes also about revenge, but not only. There is more.

2) Decapitation of Pakistan is not going to happen one fine morning, with Lord Kalki paying us a visit. Pakistan has to be worked on in a visible manner for it to happen. Case in point is what we did to East Bengal, we supported the Mukti Bahini for years. Sheltered the refugees, promoted suitable political forces. Everything, visibly. In the end a suitable war ground was ready.

3) Comparing the salami slicing by India == Pin pricks by Pakistan is so boring "==" technique which has such a positive impression on BRF junta. Specially given its infamy by Shiv himself. Pakistan has hurt India by its constant war which is not overt war, no getting away from that. However when the morons across the borders do that, it is too clever by half. In our case it will be legacy of Chanakyaa.

Just because two pilots fly the same a/c they will have the same performance.

4) Add more here....

Seriously folks, sure US is not great shakes, yet MMS is also a wimp and India can do more, even with US around. There is no tie up.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby RajeshA » 27 Dec 2011 13:45

A_Gupta wrote:RajeshA, suppose one replied to a war of a thousand cuts with a decapitation - would the number of punches matter?

Number of punches are counted by the victim only if he intends

"Number of Punches" brings in a lot of political maths. Let's say that we do believe in the principle of "sau sunaar ki to ek lauhar ki" (Single hit by a blacksmith is equivalent to a hundred hits by a goldsmith)! How does that function in reality?

There is a lobby in India which does not want war between India and Pakistan, be it because of concerns relating to business environment, or relating to inter-communal relations inside India, or relating to some personal interests, or genuine fear of war and its toll on human life, or ideological reasons, etc.

There can be a lobby which holds an opposite view. These would be the Indian nationalists who would opt for a retaliation for the terror acts. Then there can be politicians, who could genuinely benefit from anti-Pakistani mood in India. Thirdly it is the military-industrial complex of a country which is eager to have war. For some reason or another, I don't see Indian politicians trying to milk a post-terror anti-Pakistan mood in India to make political hay. It is as if the anesthesia is strong enough for Indians to not feel too much discomfort even if India's teeth are broken through repeated punching. So politicians don't make much of an issue out of it. Neither does India have an entrenched MIC. It is all public sector. As far as Indian nationalists are concerned the Internet offers some respite and one can vent out one's frustration and anger, without much changing the status quo.

Under such circumstances, the 'Peace Lobby' is far stronger, and can ultimately fashion India's response.

Now we come to the number game, and some questions arise!

  1. How many terror acts from Pakistan are needed before the Lauhar goes and gets his hammer?
  2. Who would count Pakistan's terror acts?
  3. So even as Pakistan adds to its list of terror acts against India, wouldn't the 'Peace Lobby' try to use a rubber at the other end, and start wiping off those terror acts from Indian public's memory,
    1. By overemphasizing how the city and community is getting back on its feet
    2. By directing the anger inwards towards the failure of own intelligence and security forces in the various marches, rather than at the perpetrator.
    3. By keeping the survivors and families of the victims as faceless
    4. By not commemorating the anniversaries
      1. through TV programs on the terror act
      2. by revisiting the survivors and the families of victims and their anguish
      3. by not making it an issue of how the government has delivered on justice for some terror act
      4. by not having country-wide 2 minute silence
      5. by not making the history of terror against the country a part of the education curriculum
      6. by instead bringing out "Aman ki Asha" campaigns instead
  4. Many would dispute that some terror acts were even from Pakistan, and hence cannot be 'counted'.

The system is hardwired not to respond to the many acts of terror against the country. There is no guarantee that at the end there would be an Indian response. So even if there are a thousand or two thousand cuts, it will never add to a sufficient number to declare war against Pakistan or to do a decapitation. It is not as if a new terror attack adds to a preexisting anger among us. The old anger has been sufficiently cooled in the meantime before the next terror attack takes place.

Secondly 'decapitation' sounds good only in theory. Jihadism is a multi-headed monster. It is somewhat incredulous to think that a single reprisal would bring us the total 'decapitation'.

All that counts is that the Terrorist can space its attacks appropriately; can keep the threshold of its last attack below a certain level, behind the red line; and can manipulate Indian politics directly or indirectly to not retaliate. This game the terrorist can play indefinitely, as no counting of terror attacks take place.

The only solution is to respond to each and every terror act individually. If one does that properly, there is not going to be a thousand cuts. The lesson would reach home. The retaliation should be limited in duration - say 2-3 days, it should be surgical and it should be comprehensive on the terrorist's person, his family, his organization, his community, his country and his ideology. The retaliation should be granular. It should be the Michael Corleone way - synchronous, and thus granular! In the intervening period we collect intelligence for the next retaliation.

Such a pattern of retaliation is important, because we don't want to be in a state of constant war, only in a state of constant preparation for war. Constant war only helps India's enemies to consolidate their position within their communities and ideology.

Pranav wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Everybody needs to be told why somebody was punished.


Why? To make us feel better? Will the other rage boys be suitably chastised after that? On the other hand, what if Saeed was punished by someone even more pious?

This "to make us feel better" is getting boring! It is piskologising ourselves to a paralysis!

I am in favor of painting the Pakistan's Breakup Painting using broad brushes of such strategies - letting more pious carve up the less pious. But this should not go too far.

When Hafiz Saeed masterminded Mumbai 26/11, he branded his ass with "India"! His ass belongs to us! It would be a folly to let him die in any other way than by India's hand! In fact we should kill anybody else who takes him down before we get the chance to do so! He belongs to us!

Now the piskological brigade would start jumping up and down, telling me that that is only because I want to feel better. But that is not the whole story. That is kshatriya dharma, as I see it, and we have to do that dharma justice. Sure a hyena can wait till the lion has made his kill, get some of the leftovers and lick its tongue in contentment. But that is not how we want to be seen - as a hyena. A world power needs to be seen as a lion! We have to make our own kill.

Now of course GoI can say, they didn't have anything to do with the retaliation, as far as assassinations go or collective punishment goes, but there should be sufficient rumor in the mills to point out in our direction without there being conclusive proof.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12133
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 06 Dec 201

Postby Aditya_V » 27 Dec 2011 13:46

In a way it is the Pin Pricks by Pakis that have kept our Elite and Media from burying the True misdeeds of Pakis. Otherwise, the genocide of 1947 and vast misdeeds of Pakis were buried until the internet has brought these up for the Indian Public to see.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avinash Rav, chandrasekaran, Pingale, TKiran, vijayk and 38 guests