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

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 13 Dec 2011 20:49

RamaY: No worries. do sakshast to Johneeji. Come home now. All is forgiven. see OT dhaga "conspiracies R us"

Bhima · Post by **Bhima** » 13 Dec 2011 21:05

jrjrao wrote:Today's silly from Gropin' Gilly:

Pakistan wants equality in relations with Nato, Isaf: PM Gilani
We are a proud nation and we want equality in all aspects. Therefore, if US has cut $700 million in aid to us, we have also decided to cut $700 million in aid to the US and NATO.
Okay, I made up the quote, but that is only because gropin' gilly's creative brain circuits are not advanced as mine.

It's worse - Pakis are planning to tax Nato trucks and tankers:

US and Pakistan move to impose financial penalties on one another

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 13 Dec 2011 21:27

Y.Kanan: That problem was supposed to be solved with the Swedish Bofors guns of scandal fame.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Dec 2011 21:33

Actually I think the IA punished the Pakis pretty severely in those days. Pakis *never* complain about deaths caused by Indians because they know that

Indians will not give a shit about Paki dead
They lose face and echandee by admitting deaths.

On the other hand they know damn well that the US can be suckered into paying dollahs for deaths and they can appeal to US media for "rights violations" etc. So they highlight deaths on the Afghan front.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Dec 2011 22:23

devesh wrote:lot of expressions of angst and sorrow about the Afghan bombing. simple question. Why?

You reap what you sow. while I was looking at that picture, I felt sorry for the human loss, but then I was reminded of the tragedies inflicted by this very population for the last few centuries, in the name of their god and religion. and I find myself wondering why the he** are so many people of BRF falling over their heels to express their dismay and utmost and sincerest sorrow at this?

is it b/c somehow "Pakis" were responsible that makes us sympathize? they are all Pakis. in a green-on-green fight, you and I are still Kafirs worthy of slaughter. when I looked at that picture, I was reminded of similar scenes of massacres that must have occurred to Hindus multiplied by a 1000 times. I feel no sympathy for them. they are reaping the product of their own centuries long karma.

AoA!!!

devesh ji,

Pakis and Afghans are not the same! What makes them different? It is certainly not their religion of peace! It is our strategic prism! And our prism says that Afghans are our dear friends and Pakis are decadent barbarians!

If some day, Pakjab becomes Dharmic (say using a magic wand), that day our prism could change! But till then, I would feel sorrow for every Afghan death, especially those brought about by Pakistani terror!

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 13 Dec 2011 22:58

RajeshA ji,

I would not count a single Islamic country as a "friend". nope, none of them are friends. Afghanis are not friends. if a Jihad on kafirs were declared with promised loot, Afghanis will be among the foremost of the Ghazis. I only feel "safe" from any Islamic country if India's interaction with it sufficiently neuters the Islamist influence that could seep into India from that country, or if directly India is promoting social and cultural forces in that country which will weaken and neuter Islam in the long term. India is not doing this. Indians, especially the bureaucrats, remain completely blind to such possibilities. therefore, I see no reason to feel safe when dealing with any Islamic country.

Paranoia and fear of their destructive influence on Bharat are the guiding lights of my "agenda" when it comes to Islam. yes, I do fear Islam. and my fear in turn fuels me to look for every possible way to undermine and destroy this stone age theology of the desert.

and as for Afghanis, they are reaping what they sowed. the era since 1947 has "isolated" Afghanis, but before that they perpetrated numerous atrocities on Hindus, Sikhs, and other non-Muslim indigenous tribes and cultures surrounding them.

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 13 Dec 2011 23:08

India, Pakistan to smoothen trade and train travel

Customs officials of India and Pakistan are to clear the backlog of trucks stranded on both sides of the land border by allowing trading activities to start on Sundays. They have also operationalized a hotline between Attari and Wagah railway stations.
The decision for opening cargo movement was taken on Sunday in a meeting of officials of two departments at Lahore, said deputy commissioner (customs) R K Duggal upon his return from Pakistan. “This was done keeping in view problems faced by traders due to long queues of trucks and to promote trade,” he added.

Truck operators are relieved as at present they have to wait two or three days for unloading goods at the border. Gurnam Singh, a driver from Ludhiana, who has been waiting for clearance of his truck for past two days, said, “It is an admirable decision which would benefit both drivers and traders.”

Talking about the railway hotline, Duggal said, “The telephone connect would help smoothen movement of Samjhauta Express.”

Hotline contact for Attari and Wagah road link is already operational, he added. He stated that Indian side had given a proposal to set up hotline contact between rail cargo customs officials of Amritsar and Lahore to regulate movement of goods wagons between the two countries.

Meanwhile, in reply to a question over the reports of smuggling through Attari road, customs commissioner Ranjit Singh said he had ordered an inquiry to verify the reports. “It is a question of detailed examination since there are many agencies operating from border,” added Duggal.

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 13 Dec 2011 23:11

More pragmatism Devesh ji.
If we can get the pious as temporary allies to fight the pious whats the harm.
Reverse Islamic ideology onlee.
Afghans aren exactly our brothers but right now they are very anti-pakis and so we ought to feel bad if they get hurt.
My two paise onlee
Regards

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 13 Dec 2011 23:13

I have no problem with "pragmatism". I fully understand the need for reverse taqyia when dealing with Islamists. simply saying that the "feeling bad" should be confined to appropriate levels. no need to drink our own koolaid. we are already "philosophically compromised" with all the Gandhian/Nehruvian nonsense of the past century. no need to further delude ourselves by falling for our own taqyia.

kumarn · Post by **kumarn** » 13 Dec 2011 23:17

Forget all that. Not long ago these retards where involved in the hijacking of an Indian airplane. So, given an opportunity they will collaborate with the napakis to screw us. Now, if they are being screwed by the napakis, I feel really good. tsch, tsch...

But, yes need to start stoking the fires, so that napakis and the rest can prove who is greener. All the best to them.

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 13 Dec 2011 23:21

Ayesha Siddiqa challenges assumptions about Pak middle class

lengthy PDF

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 13 Dec 2011 23:22

Pakistan army's existentialist dilemma

What's holding back the generals is an obvious lack of self-esteem and the fact that their stock isn't higher than the Zardari-Gilani dispensation's in the aftermath of the Abbottabad ignominy. The Nato raid that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers has made matters worse, forcing them into the pretence of a confrontation with the US.

The army needs civilian surrogates to deflect attention from its failures. It lacks the institutional high ground that helped past dictators whip up popular consent for ousting elected regimes. Zardari's ouster might bring in Nawaz Sharif, whom the generals despise for his clout with the soldiery.

Such is Rawalpindi's existentialist dilemma that post-Memogate, it is in a self-demeaning race to show the civilians as American lackeys in a conspiracy to upstage the military establishment. The exercise might help them shine in comparison with the PPP. But people know the generals run Pakistan's Afpak and Pak-US policy, very much part of which was the clearance the army gave for the US drone attacks on the Pakistani soil.

Besides causing the face-off between the army and the civilian government, Memogate has brought the presidency into another conflict with the judiciary.

In order not to sink, the army has to swim with the civilians, more so because they need the US for survival. In the ongoing brinkmanship with Washington, their nuclear capability is as much of an asset as a liability. They can't cut loose, become a rogue state and yet keep their bombs.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Dec 2011 23:30

devesh ji,

perhaps the point I was trying to make got lost in translation.

It is not a question of friendship at all. It is a question of our strategic interests and our agenda. If our agenda is to break Pakistan or to neutralize it in some way or to keep it preoccupied with its other neighbor, and if it helps to prop up Afghanistan in order to further that agenda, then that is what takes priority. Their Islamist credentials become secondary.

So as long as the agenda remains anti-Pakistan and an alliance or otherwise support to Afghanistan can help us, we should call Afghanistan our friend.

devesh wrote:I have no problem with "pragmatism". I fully understand the need for reverse taqyia when dealing with Islamists. simply saying that the "feeling bad" should be confined to appropriate levels. no need to drink our own koolaid. we are already "philosophically compromised" with all the Gandhian/Nehruvian nonsense of the past century. no need to further delude ourselves by falling for our own taqyia.

On the contrary it is important to drink this Koolaid. We should drink this Koolaid to the extent that should Pakistan attack Afghanistan, we should feel incensed that they are attacking our "friends" and we should attack Pakistan.

Nobody can accomplish a mission if one is not convinced of it. If we have to pool all our resources, we need to be convinced in what we are doing. So we need to be convinced that Afghans are our friends.

Secondly we have to convince the other side - the Afghans about how we feel about the interests of their nation! Because that too is part of the agenda. So why be shy and stingy in showing our "affection"?!

The more we embrace one set of Islamists - the Afghans, the harder we can hit the other set of Islamists - the Pakis! "Because we are not doing so because of their religion" (officially said)! We can also keep the Islamists from consolidating themselves against India.

Should we let our animosity to Islam(-ism) stop us from destroying our most vicious Islamist fiend - Pakistan?! Of course not!

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 13 Dec 2011 23:58

kumarn wrote:Forget all that. Not long ago these retards where involved in the hijacking of an Indian airplane.

Self goal. The guys who were actually involved are quite unpopular there. Look at surveys to see how much popular support the Taliban has.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Dec 2011 00:25

Pranav wrote:
kumarn wrote:Forget all that. Not long ago these retards where involved in the hijacking of an Indian airplane.
Self goal. The guys who were actually involved are quite unpopular there. Look at surveys to see how much popular support the Taliban has.

Were the people opposed to the hijack? Were the people opposed to killing the kaffirs?

I think people were only opposed to the harsh rule, not to the ideology espoused by them.

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 14 Dec 2011 00:52

Those killed are Shias. Those who hijacked the plane or attacked India before 1947 are Sunnis.

RajeshAji
We should not be so short sighted as the americans who were so blinded by hatred of the russians that they gave stingers to terrorists and new clear bums to pakhanas. Creating a headache for themselves.
There needs to be a balance. Afghans(Shias or Sunnis, Tajiks or Pashtoons) are not brothers. Temporary friends for some time only.
In fact getting the Hazara Shias and the Tajiks to hit the Pashtoons after 2014 would be a very good idea. Arm them, train them and then unleash them on the Taliban.Reverse strategic depth. Russians wouldnt mind that and that should take care of the logistics.The Americans cant go against the public opinion they have created for so long.Hit the Taliban with no concern for human rights till they go to papa Pakhanastan. Get pakhanastan involved in war of attrition on the western front or see them lose the Pashtoons forever.Lets see who pays for this war this time.
Regards
Soami

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Dec 2011 01:05

Brad, That article headline is very clever. The writer is accusing tspa of loss of virility.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 14 Dec 2011 01:13

^ Thats an HT article by Vinod Sharma, why Cutlet?

kumarn · Post by **kumarn** » 14 Dec 2011 01:15

Pranav wrote:
kumarn wrote:Forget all that. Not long ago these retards where involved in the hijacking of an Indian airplane.
Self goal. The guys who were actually involved are quite unpopular there. Look at surveys to see how much popular support the Taliban has.

They might not support the taliban, when the taliban blows them up, or enforces its harsh rules. But will they support the taliban in their jeehard against the kufrs?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Dec 2011 02:53

RSoami wrote:Those killed are Shias. Those who hijacked the plane or attacked India before 1947 are Sunnis.

RajeshAji
We should not be so short sighted as the americans who were so blinded by hatred of the russians that they gave stingers to terrorists and new clear bums to pakhanas. Creating a headache for themselves.
There needs to be a balance. Afghans(Shias or Sunnis, Tajiks or Pashtoons) are not brothers. Temporary friends for some time only.
In fact getting the Hazara Shias and the Tajiks to hit the Pashtoons after 2014 would be a very good idea. Arm them, train them and then unleash them on the Taliban.Reverse strategic depth. Russians wouldnt mind that and that should take care of the logistics.The Americans cant go against the public opinion they have created for so long.Hit the Taliban with no concern for human rights till they go to papa Pakhanastan. Get pakhanastan involved in war of attrition on the western front or see them lose the Pashtoons forever.Lets see who pays for this war this time.
Regards
Soami

Karzai himself said Pakistan is Afghanistan's brother whereas India is Afghanistan great friend. No brotherhood with India can be sold to the Afghans. They would not buy it. And we are not selling it. It is friendship onlee.

There are forces we need to balance in the region, and then there are regimes/leaderships/groups we need to overthrow.

We would not be able to use the Northern Alliance (Tajiks, Hazaras, Aimaks, Turkmen, Nuristanis, etc.) against the Pushtun or Taliban. There would be no 'unleashing'. It is the Americans who are pushing them right now in their avatar as Afghan National Army, and as such they are willing to act, but if one takes away that pressure, they would be more than willing to simply protect their own areas and leave the Pushtun areas to the Pushtun to whatever leadership the Pushtun throw up, be it some Pushtun warlords, tribal chiefs, democratically elected representatives or the Taliban.

What we need to do is make Northern Afghanistan an impenetrable wall for the Pushtun. No more controlling 97% of the territory or anything like that. If we harden Northern Afghanistan to Pushtun adventurism, we would in fact be pushing Afghan Pushtuns to search for expansion of their control southwards, into other Pushtun territories lying in Pakistan. The Pakjabis are scared shit of that prospect. That has been one of the major reasons why they have Wahhabized the whole Pushtun nation, just so that Pushtun nationalism does not take hold. If Pakistan remains the "Stronghold" of Islam, then islamized Pushtuns would not look for their own Pushtunistan. That was half the thinking.

The other half of the thinking was to push the Talibanized Pushtuns northwards. When Pakistan speaks of strategic depth, they are speaking of looking for northward depths where they can keep the Pushtun involved and thus distracted from any agenda in the South.

We have to neutralize the second half of the equation. Pushtun - Taliban or otherwise should face an unconquerable wall in the North and soft and compromised territory in the South. It already has been softened to quite a large extent through TTP and the various sanctuaries for the Afghan Taliban, made those territories easy pickings for the Afghan Taliban also.

We have to start funding the Taliban ourselves and encouraging them to look for greener pastures southwards in Pakistan. Once NATO and ANA retreat to areas further North to non-Pushtun areas, the Taliban's agenda would be up for sale. We need to buy the Pushtun to cause maximum damage in Pakistan.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 14 Dec 2011 03:05

RSoami wrote:Those killed are Shias. Those who hijacked the plane or attacked India before 1947 are Sunnis.

RajeshAji
We should not be so short sighted as the americans who were so blinded by hatred of the russians that they gave stingers to terrorists and new clear bums to pakhanas. Creating a headache for themselves.
There needs to be a balance. Afghans(Shias or Sunnis, Tajiks or Pashtoons) are not brothers. Temporary friends for some time only.
In fact getting the Hazara Shias and the Tajiks to hit the Pashtoons after 2014 would be a very good idea. Arm them, train them and then unleash them on the Taliban.Reverse strategic depth. Russians wouldnt mind that and that should take care of the logistics.The Americans cant go against the public opinion they have created for so long.Hit the Taliban with no concern for human rights till they go to papa Pakhanastan. Get pakhanastan involved in war of attrition on the western front or see them lose the Pashtoons forever.Lets see who pays for this war this time.
Regards
Soami

I am in agreement that something like above is very much in our interests. it's all about "identity". the Afghani tribes need to identify themselves as the victims of Islamic terror. the present process helps that. we should recognize this. the more Pakhana turns its fervor on Afghan, the more the Afghanis feel the heat. this is a good thing. in the long term, future generations of Afghanis will grow up with stories of how their Greenest brothers wanted to please Allah by killing them. I am waiting for one full generation of young boys and girls to grow up with these stories and the real life images of what happens when Allah wants to be pleased.

any future post-Islamic Afghanistan will be influenced by the rise of post-Islamic movements in Iran and by the memories inflicted on them by their Greenest neighbors to the East. until then, we should do our utmost to "enable" the flow of Pakhana terror onto the Afghanis. this will benefit the entire world in the long term. it will help humanity. it will help Bharat.

it is not in our interests to let the Pakjabis become subservient to Afghans. Pakjabis already have an insecurity complex which fuels their hatred. this has lead them into a vicious loop of "I am greener than the greenest" mentality. if Afghanis dominate Pakjabis, it won't humiliate Pakjabis into rejecting Islam. on the contrary, it will fuel them even more to be like the "martial races". this delusional process has been gripping Pakjab for a long time now, induced by memories of plunder and rape at the hands of invaders coming through the Khyber Pass.

I say let the Pakjabi elite feel all warm and cozy by "beating" the "martial races" and thereby proving that they are the greatest of the greenest and the most "martial". meanwhile, their society keeps going further down the drain of economic bankruptcy. at some point, their crimes on Afghans will be paid back in kind, and their own society will go ideologically bankrupt after having proved their "greatness". at that point, the only hurdle will be the Islamist based theologian networks.

what is India's role in all this? we keep supporting the Afghanis just enough to keep them alive and kicking no matter how much damage the Pakjabis inflict on them. we let the Islamist networks in Afghan deal with the psychological consequences of Pakjabi rape and looting. let them have a merry time defending the deeds of Allah's greatest and greenest soldiers....

the only way to sufficiently weaken the Afghan Islamism is by having the Pakjabies batter them, while Pakjabi society itself is continuously being eaten away by the financial and unsustainable practices like 10 children/woman.

crushing Pak Islamism will be done only when India finally decides to ruthlessly suppress the eliminate the Islamist networks.
but before that happens, India needs to undergo a transformation, and this interim period is best suited to weaken Islam's torch bearers in Afghanistan.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 14 Dec 2011 05:10

This reminds me of something I posted back in May, where I basically advocated India teaming up with Iran & Russia to supply the Northern Alliance. At the time, I said that it's now clear that US will soon retreat from AfPak theatre and hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban. My thinking was the death of OBL finally gave US the opportunity to declare victory and run.

I still believe this. The US is definitely leaving, especially now that the Pakis have kicked them out, cutoff the resupply route, and threatened to shoot down their drones. The US has to show some balls now or just chicken out. They'll definitely chicken out; the US is a cowardly nation that likes dropping bombs on defenseless people from 30,000ft. They don't take on real opponents, especially ones with nukes. Besides, the Americans are exhausted and broke from years of wasted effort in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan. It's game over for them, so we have to start preparing for America's exit.

We should be working with the Russians, Iranians and other Central Asian govt's to ensure that by the time US leaves Afghanistan, we've already armed the Tajik\Turkmen\Uzbek types with enough weaponry and supplies to defeat any Taliban invasion. Basically we'd be resurrecting the old Northern Alliance, but this time they'll be able to hold their own, giving them control of more than half the country. Basically just deny the Pakibahns their victory in Afghanistan; keep the place embroiled in civil war for another 20 years. As long as these people are killing each other, they won't be hurting anyone else. And hey, if the NA-types prove strong enough to counterattack and take over the Pushtun areas, so much the better. Let Pakistan deal with the stream of Pushtun refugees.

Nobody has to really win here; since the US has decided to let the Afghans hang out to dry, the best we can hope for is to arm "our" Afghans and keep this war going on forever. The Iranians, Russians and central asian governments have a variety of reasons to help prevent a Taliban state on their border. I don't think we'd have any problem getting regional support.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 Dec 2011 05:25

If it came to PATM(Paki alligned Terrorist Movements) VS NA then even Chinese will have hard time suporting Pakibugs in war with forces supporetd by Iran and Russia along wth India. PRC can ill afford antagonizing all 3 in current Geo-Pol enviorenment and undermine its own strategic interests. This might turn out to be the last dose of delusion Paki take before going into permanent coma .

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 14 Dec 2011 06:42

India ought to help Iran go nuclear the way China and the US helped Pakistan go nuclear. Strike a deal with Iran, they would not use it against Israel or something.

The best way to keep the Sunnis in check. Sunnis of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Rohit_K · Post by **Rohit_K** » 14 Dec 2011 07:19

more dhishum dhishum in Karachi

Four dead as violence revisits Lyari Town

Among those killed since early Tuesday morning in Lyari was Abdul Rehman Hingora, a programme director of a private TV channel. The deceased was returning home from work early Tuesday morning when he was hit by a stray bullet, a colleague of the deceased told this scribe.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Dec 2011 07:50

johneeG wrote:I think people were only opposed to the harsh rule, not to the ideology espoused by them.

johneeG, from what I know, the Afghan society is far less radicalized than the Pakistani society. There is much hope in Afghanistan and there is no hope in Pakistan.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Dec 2011 09:56

SSridhar wrote:
johneeG wrote:I think people were only opposed to the harsh rule, not to the ideology espoused by them.
johneeG, from what I know, the Afghan society is far less radicalized than the Pakistani society. There is much hope in Afghanistan and there is no hope in Pakistan.

Saar,
with due respect, I dont understand the classification of radical-moderate. Particularly if radical and the moderate agree with their attitude towards the 'other'. I think the 'radical' and 'moderate' have disagreements on the internal politics and policies only.

From a non-muslim perspective, the bottomline is their attitude towards the non-muslim. Whether they are radical or moderate is secondary. Also, such classification is relative. What can be considered moderate in Pakistan, may be considered radical in India. What can be considered radical today, may come to be viewed as moderate tomorrow. So, the classification is relative to time, place, circumstance and other candidates one is comparing with.

I know that you have a detailed knowledge of situations in Pak and Astan. And you are making the statement based on that knowledge. I am not disputing your knowledge. I agree that Pak is more radicalized than Astan.

As I understand, afghans are friendly with Indians. Glad. Taliban was against India and so it needs to be weakened(if not eliminated). Accepted. Majority of Afghans were opposed to Taliban. Accepted.

So, from these points, one concludes that taliban are radical and majority of Afghans are moderate. But this conclusion does not take into consideration an important question: What exactly were Afghans opposed about the Taliban? Did Afghans have a problem with Taliban's attitude towards Kaffirs? Were the Afghans opposed to the hijack of Indian plane?

I think the Afghans were primarily opposed to the Taliban's ridiculous internal policies i.e. their harsh rules. Killing of kaffirs was not a big deal.

For example, say people of India dislike Indira for imposing Emergency. But Indira was at the helm during 71. So, if someone were to conclude that most people of India hate Indira, so they are opposed to creation of BG, they would be wrong, isnt it?

From a non-muslim perspective, radicalization is not a problem nor moderation a solution unless the attitude towards the non-muslim changes. Radicalization that involves growing beards, wearing salwaars of knee-length, total hijabs,...etc are acceptable to a non-muslim. No problem. But, what is not acceptable or tolerable is the idea that non-muslim can be attacked, raped, maimed and killed for being a non-muslim. If this idea is absent, then I dont have a problem with 'radicalization'. If this idea is not rooted out, then 'moderation' is useless.

And India is considered non-muslim.

Finally, IMHO, there is hope in both Astan and Pstan. If the ideology and the elites who protect it are neutralised, then the masses can be sanitized regardless of 'radicalization'. It will take time and efforts but is possible. And there is hope...

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 14 Dec 2011 10:00

India ought to help Iran go nuclear the way China and the US helped Pakistan go nuclear. Strike a deal with Iran, they would not use it against Israel or something.

Mannyji
Bad short sighted policy.US got the pukis new clear bums to keep India in check and see where it has got them.Iran is also an Islamic state before a Shia one. never to be forgotten.
Regards

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 14 Dec 2011 10:01

devesh wrote:crushing Pak Islamism will be done only when India finally decides to ruthlessly suppress the eliminate the Islamist networks.
but before that happens, India needs to undergo a transformation, and this interim period is best suited to weaken Islam's torch bearers in Afghanistan.

+100 to that. Very pithy thought.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 14 Dec 2011 10:03

RSoami wrote:
India ought to help Iran go nuclear the way China and the US helped Pakistan go nuclear. Strike a deal with Iran, they would not use it against Israel or something.
Mannyji
Bad short sighted policy.US got the pukis new clear bums to keep India in check and see where it has got them.Iran is also an Islamic state before a Shia one. never to be forgotten.
Regards

Nooclear Iran is a bad idea.
Actually Iran should never become too powerful in the neighborhood but sufficiently powerful to keep Arabs on the edge. How Pakis come in picture - Well they will never decide if they are with Arabs or Iran. Being the boot lickers they will go with Arabs but will end up having a enemy crazy state next to them.

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 14 Dec 2011 10:10

We would not be able to use the Northern Alliance (Tajiks, Hazaras, Aimaks, Turkmen, Nuristanis, etc.) against the Pushtun or Taliban. There would be no 'unleashing'. It is the Americans who are pushing them right now in their avatar as Afghan National Army, and as such they are willing to act, but if one takes away that pressure, they would be more than willing to simply protect their own areas and leave the Pushtun areas to the Pushtun to whatever leadership the Pushtun throw up, be it some Pushtun warlords, tribal chiefs, democratically elected representatives or the Taliban.

RajeshAji
What makes you so sure that the warlords of the Northern alliance would not attack the Pashtoon regions.They need only be managed and manipulated.They can be as brutal and uncivilized as the the Taliban.Its the lure of EASY SPOILS that motivates them.They are Ghazi Islamic mards before anything else.
We need to remind them that they have suffered at the hand of the Taliban for 20 years and only a `proactive` policy will make them safe from any future Taliban attack. Its the policy that the idiots in Pentagon should have followed.Air support with NA attack across Pashtoon regions.But then they are idiots for nothing.
Regards

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Dec 2011 10:27

RSoami wrote:They are Ghazi Islamic mards before anything else.

+108.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 14 Dec 2011 10:29

RSoami wrote:Bad short sighted policy.US got the pukis new clear bums to keep India in check and see where it has got them.Iran is also an Islamic state before a Shia one. never to be forgotten.

RSoami ji, there is some truth in what you said - especially today after so much water has flown under the bridge. But not so long ago Iranians were distributing sweets in the streets the day after we tested at Pokharan. At that time, it was mainly for India they were celebrating, not for the response tests by the Pakrats. I think Iran is going to get nukes anyway, and most probably the Pakis/PRC will take that opportunity to proliferate. Because of our insecurities and indecision, we have not been able to take bold steps to win a single loyal friend who would be attracted to a stable, strong and reliable regional power. For some strange reason, some Indians keep seeing the "Shi'a/Islamist" aspect of Iranian society, and ignore the Iranic/nationalist aspect that tends to identify with India rather than Arabia. Thus, India fails to help the latter identity develop, and energizes the former due to the fear psychoses of certain groups within our population. Your fear psychosis tends to ultimately justify itself - it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It fails to nourish and develop alternate identity paths - both within India and within other nations we interact with.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Dec 2011 10:51

devesh wrote:it's all about "identity". the Afghani tribes need to identify themselves as the victims of Islamic terror. the present process helps that. we should recognize this. the more Pakhana turns its fervor on Afghan, the more the Afghanis feel the heat. this is a good thing. in the long term, future generations of Afghanis will grow up with stories of how their Greenest brothers wanted to please Allah by killing them. I am waiting for one full generation of young boys and girls to grow up with these stories and the real life images of what happens when Allah wants to be pleased.

No such thing happens! Have the converted faithful in India turned against the Ghazis who came down at them from the Khyber? No! They have become their most ardent supporters. Green accepts the Greener if it shows it is Stronger.

Secondly it can turn exactly into the way things were in the 1990s. Taliban take over. The terror of the bombs end with that. The terror of the beatings with long sticks start with that. The only reason the Afghans did not accept the Taliban fully in the 90s was because the war for domination was not over. Ahmed Shah Masood was still putting up a fight against the Taliban. Had Masood crumbled, Afghans may have accepted Taliban domination completely and started identifying themselves with the Taliban within a generation. Many in the South already do.

So in that case it would be too much to expect that Afghans would be growing up with seething anger at the Pakistanis. The next generation may be completely Talibanized, including the Tajiks. Pakistanis would be controlling Afghanistan to a large extent through the Taliban as Pakistan would control Taliban's access to the outside world, and channeling the funding from the Saudis, just as they did in the 90s.

the Afghans, both Northerners and Pushtun would see that their rulers are the Pushtun Taliban.

So the assumption that Pakistan would keep up a campaign of just bombing Afghans may not come true.

devesh wrote:any future post-Islamic Afghanistan will be influenced by the rise of post-Islamic movements in Iran and by the memories inflicted on them by their Greenest neighbors to the East. until then, we should do our utmost to "enable" the flow of Pakhana terror onto the Afghanis. this will benefit the entire world in the long term. it will help humanity. it will help Bharat.

Why would it help - humanity, world, Bharat? Pakhana Terror on Afghans is an intermediate mode of exerting control over a NATO controlled Afghanistan. Once NATO leaves, Taliban move in.

On what basis is a post-Islamic Afghanistan coming up? Where does one see anything post-Islamic in the Sunni world?

The memories from Greenest neighbors of say terror are not persistent. First they will be against Taliban, not outsiders like Pakistan, and secondly the Taliban would sooner or later be embraced wiping out the bad memories.

devesh wrote:it is not in our interests to let the Pakjabis become subservient to Afghans. Pakjabis already have an insecurity complex which fuels their hatred. this has lead them into a vicious loop of "I am greener than the greenest" mentality. if Afghanis dominate Pakjabis, it won't humiliate Pakjabis into rejecting Islam. on the contrary, it will fuel them even more to be like the "martial races". this delusional process has been gripping Pakjab for a long time now, induced by memories of plunder and rape at the hands of invaders coming through the Khyber Pass.

True, it is not in our interest to let Pakjabis crumble in front of the Afghans. The Afghanis should not dominate Pakjab.

However the first priority is not the fall of Pakjab, but rather the break up of Pakistan. As long as Pakistan exists, no Pakjabi would ever listen to Indians. Only after Pakistan breaks up, would the Pakjabis start looking towards India for help.

It may be of interest that during all those military campaigns by the Pakistani military against Pushtun or natural disasters in Pushtun lands, never has Pakjab allowed Pushtun refugees to stream in into Pakjab. They have always been diverted towards other Pushtun areas or towards Karachi. The Pakjabis too are not that fond of having Afghans lording over them. They are more than happy to takeover Afghan Ghazis as their role models, but they want to rule themselves. So Pakjab would not be accepting Afghans/Pushtun overlordship that readily.

Sure the Pakjabis have insecurity viz-a-viz the Pushtuns, but the Green Project of Islamization of both the Pushtun and of Self has been to ensure that Pushtun do not demand secession and secondly so that they accept Pakjabi domination in the name of Islam. It is not for the sake of becoming green in itself as the aim. Becoming green is only a means for keeping Pakjabi domination intact.

So just because we encourage the (Afghan) Pushtun to reclaim the Pushtun areas of Pakistan, does not translate into those Pushtuns being handed over the keys of Pakjab itself. All it means is that the PA project of Domination through Greenery has failed, and Pakjab would have to think of some other strategy to retain its strength as well as survival.

devesh wrote:I say let the Pakjabi elite feel all warm and cozy by "beating" the "martial races" and thereby proving that they are the greatest of the greenest and the most "martial". meanwhile, their society keeps going further down the drain of economic bankruptcy. at some point, their crimes on Afghans will be paid back in kind, and their own society will go ideologically bankrupt after having proved their "greatness". at that point, the only hurdle will be the Islamist based z
theologian networks.

The Pakistanis are doing the crimes on the Afghans by proxy - through the Taliban. Secondly as said earlier, those crimes would be of a different nature than random terrorist bombings.

Any feeling given to Pakjabis of their "martial prowess" is a straight road to hell for India. Pakjabis have devised strategies to keep the Afghans off their backs but they have remained India-centric the whole time. If we give any lift to Pakjabis their first intuition is to come and dominate the Hindus in India.

They have to weakened to an extent that they forget that they can dominate the Hindus, but rather start thinking that they need Indian help in order to survive.

devesh wrote:what is India's role in all this? we keep supporting the Afghanis just enough to keep them alive and kicking no matter how much damage the Pakjabis inflict on them. we let the Islamist networks in Afghan deal with the psychological consequences of Pakjabi rape and looting. let them have a merry time defending the deeds of Allah's greatest and greenest soldiers....

The Pakjabi loot and rape of Afghanistan as depicted in the photo circulating here is a short-term myth, with life-expectancy as long as NATO's stay in Afghanistan. The loot and rape would be done by the Taliban later on, and Pakjabis would only be dealing with the leadership of Taliban. So what psychological consequences are we speaking about? The narrative would change.

Sure the Tajiks would still be unhappy about the Pakjabi help to the Pushtun Taliban who would be ruling over them, but then that anger would be secondary. Are we more riled about Paki terror or by the American arms that land in their laps?

devesh wrote:the only way to sufficiently weaken the Afghan Islamism is by having the Pakjabies batter them, while Pakjabi society itself is continuously being eaten away by the financial and unsustainable practices like 10 children/woman.

Pakjabis are the reason for Afghani Islamism! There is no competition here! Pakjabis are the father to modern Afghan Islamism in the form of Taliban. The Afghans had already mellowed as the Brits were ruling the India. After the third Anglo-Afghan war in 1919, King Amanullah Khan already started the process of giving a modern outlook to Afghanistan.

Of course there were Afghan Islamists long after that, but their strength was highly diminished until Pakistan again started using Pushtun tribals to its own ends like in Kashmir and then radicalizing the Afghans who came over as refugees.

Afghan Islamism stopped being a factor for India in 1809 when Maharaja Ranjit Singh's forces captured Khyber, i.e. since 200 years, Afghanistan is no threat to India proper.

devesh wrote:crushing Pak Islamism will be done only when India finally decides to ruthlessly suppress the eliminate the Islamist networks. but before that happens, India needs to undergo a transformation, and this interim period is best suited to weaken Islam's torch bearers in Afghanistan.

That is true. Pakistan Islamism can only be finished by India. But the way to go about it is hardly going at it head to head when it is at its strongest. Before we can wash the heads of the Pakjabis, they would have to be beaten up and softened in several ways - break up of Pakistan, pressure from the Pushtuns, complete economic dependence on India, weak government, Indian control over all the various militant factions in Pakjab, denuclearization, etc.

Certainly bolstering the martial pride of Pakjabis and their successes is not the way to defeating Pakjabi Islamism.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Dec 2011 11:04

RSoami wrote:RajeshAji
What makes you so sure that the warlords of the Northern alliance would not attack the Pashtoon regions.They need only be managed and manipulated.They can be as brutal and uncivilized as the the Taliban.Its the lure of EASY SPOILS that motivates them.They are Ghazi Islamic mards before anything else.
We need to remind them that they have suffered at the hand of the Taliban for 20 years and only a `proactive` policy will make them safe from any future Taliban attack. Its the policy that the idiots in Pentagon should have followed.Air support with NA attack across Pashtoon regions.But then they are idiots for nothing.
Regards

Then we are playing straight into Pakistan's hands. As long as Pakistanis can show the Pushtuns that their interests can only be served if they hang on to Pakjabis, the Pakjabis need not worry.

If Pushtun remain dependent on Pakjabis, on Pakistan, the Pakjabis need not worry that the Pushtuns in Pakistan would someday want to break up from Pakistan. And that exactly has been Pakjabis main angst.

The Indian Government too has increased its outreach program to the Pushtuns by leaps and bounds. Much of our aid now is going to the Pushtun regions.

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 14 Dec 2011 11:27

Carl ji,
My opposition is only to proliferating nuclear bums to the iranians.(reply to mannyjis post)
Besides I am all for good relations with them.But there has to be a balance, we do not need to go overboard with friendship to them just because they are anti-Sunni or similar to us.They ve been vacillating between the pakis and us too.
Thats all.
Regards

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 14 Dec 2011 11:38

Devesh: Such clearheadedness is admirable and should be emulated. Totally neutralise( if not destroy) Islamist influence and mentality, before India can feel safe. Otherwise, the threat of looting, killing, vandalism, funding of violence/fundamentalism et al is always going to be there. No matter how 'friendly' any Moslem majority country or Moslem people appear to be at any given time. Excellent and clear sighted. No Indian need apologise for feeling 'fear' or apprehension. It's normal. We need more such upfront, non-muddled thinking and it should be expressed in the mainstream.

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 14 Dec 2011 11:49

@RajeshAji
You are thinking of the state of Pakistan in terms of Westfalian concept with borders and citizenship.
Pashtoons are a lost cause.They are Islamic fundamentalists.Inability to see this will cost us dear.They still hold their ethnic roots but they would chosse pakistan over india any day.
Ideologically we need to fight these Islamic radicals with the help of less pious.Make it untenable for them and their brother Pakjabi jihadis to focus anywhere else.Use NA warlords to wage war.Keep the Pashtoon region destabilised and wait for opportunities.The refugee flow in Pak will naturally fulfil the rest.
Regards
Soami

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 14 Dec 2011 11:51

johneeG wrote: I think the Afghans were primarily opposed to the Taliban's ridiculous internal policies i.e. their harsh rules. Killing of kaffirs was not a big deal.

It is not such an Islamic issue (even though those who want to do pakiness can find plenty of justification in the holy book).

Paks had no problem slaughtering Palestinians in Jordan, nor would they have much problem in slaughtering Uighyrs for the Cheenis.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Dec 2011 12:47

RSoami wrote:@RajeshAji
You are thinking of the state of Pakistan in terms of Westfalian concept with borders and citizenship.
Pashtoons are a lost cause.They are Islamic fundamentalists.Inability to see this will cost us dear.They still hold their ethnic roots but they would chosse pakistan over india any day.

It is the Westphalian structures that has given Pakistan a free hand. Otherwise they would not have been in control over Baluchistan for example. The Westphalian Nation concept has stopped other countries like India to intervene in Pakistan more aggressively, thus allowing the Kabila of Pakistani Army full control over the region.

When we say break Pakistan, we mean taking away this legal cover that the Pakistani Army uses to keep others out as well as stopping other nationalist power centers from taking hold.

When you say, Pushtuns are a lost cause, then you have to define the cause first. If it is about trusting them with our women and treasure or even them holding to any terms of a deal/bargain, then yes they are a lost cause. If you want to have a Pushtun guard in front of your home, of course that would be inadvisable! But our 'cause' is not to hold hands with them sitting on a romantic hill, the way Pakis tend to do with their taller than mountain friends. Our singular cause is to get Pushtuns to break the Pakistani state formally, pushing the dominion of Pakistani Army back to Pakjab's borders, allowing for other ethnic centers of power in Pakistani region to rise up.

Pushtuns are not being asked to choose India over Pakistan. Pushtuns are being asked to choose Pushtunistan over Pakistan. Pushtuns don't have to become Indian allies and coordinate stuff with us (at least not overtly). They just have to have an agenda that suits India.

RSoami wrote:Ideologically we need to fight these Islamic radicals with the help of less pious.Make it untenable for them and their brother Pakjabi jihadis to focus anywhere else.Use NA warlords to wage war.Keep the Pashtoon region destabilised and wait for opportunities.The refugee flow in Pak will naturally fulfil the rest.

Pushtun region is already destabilized. That has been another of Pakistan's great achievements. The question is where does this instability hit land - the Afghans or the Pakistani Army. We want the instability to hit Pakistani Army.

Chaos and instability are not the problems of Islamism, and nor is some refugee crisis. How many new recruits did the Islamists get the last time there were 3 millions Afghans coming over into Pakistan?! Refugees are a bonanza for Islamists.

We should not let our "hatred" of Islamism blind us to the cracks in it!