Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 2012

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby shiv » 05 Feb 2012 17:25

Let's not divert the topic to what is happening inside America. Maybe I am wrong but I think the Americans have actually had a sudden flash of clear thinking in realizing that they cannot defeat Pakistan militarily.

Too many admirahs of America get upset by this sort of statement because they are not personally tasked with planning and executing war with Pakistan. The issue needs to be looked at with the lens that asks why a 200 pound wrestler might not want to take on a 50kg Leopard. It's not about victory, its about injury.

But the leaders who lead America have not been smart enough to understand that they have been feeding the Leopard. My reading of articles from America is that there seems to be some realization that the Islamist militia that Pakistan has are part of Pakistan's defence against India an no American can make Pakistan give up that defence. Americans are always asked for aid and arms to strengthen Pakistan, but not at the cost of giving up the Islamist anti-India militia.

This leaves the US with in the position of a pilot whose controls allow the plane's nose to be pointed down, but the control will not allow the nose to be pulled up again. It is unidirectional control. Unidirectional control is not control although it is being spun on here as control. Unidirectional control means complete loss of control except if suicide is the choice.

The US's only option is to crinkle its nose and cooperate with the sweaty stinking hairy Indians and try and let Pakistan crash into a soft India rather than a hard one. The US still has a few options with Pakistan. One option is to not point the nose down further towards India knowing that the nose will not go up again. The other option is to beg and cajole the Pakistanis not to throttle forward.

India's position here is not a happy one. India has a plane screaming down about to crash into it. The US has helped to point the nose of the plane towards India, but now the US finds that the nose will not point anywhere else. If the US fails India gets hurt. If the US succeeds in stopping the Pakistan plane from accelerating at India, India will get hurt a little less. India gets hurt anyway. For the US it's only a matter of trying to cut its losses and stay engaged.

India's future must lie in minimizing injury to itself. Minimizing injury necessarily means that India has virtually no near term chance of extracting revenge for all the terrorist atrocities committed by Pakistan so far. India must do whatever is in its power to soften Pakistan up before a crash. Of course if a crash is inevitable India will fight and will prevail, but if it is nuclear war the price of victory will be high. India is gaining conventional strength to the point that only by using nukes can Pakistan inflict much damage on India before it is defeated and rebooted. India has to choose between starting war and avoiding war. The safest choice may be to prepare for war but try and avert it.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2566
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby darshhan » 05 Feb 2012 17:50

shiv wrote:
India must do whatever is in its power to soften Pakistan up before a crash.


This is probably where we can use the services of people like Mani Shankar Aiyar , shashi tharoor etc even if we do not like them(in certain ways).

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24010
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby SSridhar » 05 Feb 2012 18:13

PO Kashmiris must be taken on board in determining MFN to India - Fazl-ur-Rehman
After PA & Diffa-e-Pakistan Council it is now the demand to incorporate PO Kashmiris into government's policy making business of granting MFN.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14190
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby pankajs » 05 Feb 2012 18:21

Ultimately both India and US understand that pukeland will crash land and that this cannot be prevented. If it explodes it is going to cause a lot of problems to India in particular and the world in general.

The idea may be to ensure that the rate of descent is controlled and that it implodes rather than explodes and to minimize damaging others. The things that is troubling them is how to manage the descent and how to control the implosion. Both the countries are clueless but have bet on the civilians as their last hope.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby harbans » 05 Feb 2012 20:16

The problem with MSA's and the Pappi Jhappi types is they create a constituency within India that when Pakistan collapses, will justify mass influx of Pukes within India. MSA's statements like Pakistan and India can face the World together is shallow and demeaning. Why should India face the World with Pakistan? That implies we see the world as Paki's see it. Which cannot be the case. We are doomed if we see the World from Paki blinkers. We'll end up on the losing side if ever that is the case. I myself wouldn't support an India that views the world from Pakistani Islamist blinkers. These POVs will only divide India. The PJ-Left combine will weaken India to a Maoist-Islamist ideological onslaught. That already is happening with some pace if one sees and reads our news of late.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6812
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby CRamS » 05 Feb 2012 20:28

A_Gupta wrote:
Came here looking for info. Found this crap. The last ten years of world events proves that. If the US is going downhill, it is because too many citizens like the quoted one have utterly and completely lost touch with reality.



Oh please, spare me you arrogance. Looks like I got under your skin, that itself shows you have nothing substantive to show.

It is you who is out of touch with reality. As your BP raised, you pay scant attention to CRamS's theory: don't go by US's rhetoric and stated objectives, especially the moralistic "spreading democracy" type mumbo jumbo. Go by the only immutable fact: US interests. And how many do I have to repeat that defeat of Talibunnies, obliterating every "terrorist" yada yada was the stated objective immediately after 9/11 when US was frothing in the mouth like you are at me. Reality has dawn on US now, and it must dawn on you too, and calm down.

Right now, what US wants is a return to the status quo ante that prevailed before 9/11, with an Afghanistan & TSP that is no longer a terrorist cesspool that can threaten US and its lackeys. (SDREs are fair game in US calculations). With TSPA as the ring leader under US tutelage, "mighty" Al Queda annihilated, and Talibunnies in TSPA's control in power in Afghanistan, is it not the status quo prior to 9/11 minus any threat to the US and its lackeys? Furthermore, such an arrangement also keeps India in a "South Asia" box, another geo-political artifact of the pre-9/11 status quo.

Part of being a super power is also the ability to look at the big picture and make a mid course correction. (In a certain sense, India is also behaving maturely by not rushing head on into punishing TSP and getting enmeshed in a costly war. But India can do a lot more than the current shameful surrender). Current US strategy is to buttress the pre-9/11 status quo while preserving its super power H&D. But to claim that US power has somehow been diluted as a result of the AfPak denouement is immature analysis and understanding of US power.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby svenkat » 05 Feb 2012 20:48

Theres no way the status quo before 9/11 can be regained.Porkistan is a goner.Taliban will not listen to TSPA.Karzai and NA will be a thorn in paki fanatasies.

India is much stronger,more cohesive than it was in 2001.The Congress has played a role in listening to the 'million mutinies','accomodating diverse interests' who add to the muscle and India will go after those who cross the redlines.The BJPs hold on polity was much weaker in 2000s and they were learning the ropes,so to speak.Whether it will be Congress or BJP,India will not be dictated to by the terrorists in pindi.

The platform is set for India to go.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14190
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby pankajs » 05 Feb 2012 21:10

The next line of attack after the failed 'memogate' bid.

Senate polls can’t be invalidated, says Babar
LAHORE: The present assemblies have the similar protection under the 18th Amendment, which the judges enjoy under the 17th and therefore Senate election cannot be invalidated, says former law minister Babar Awan.

“The Senate election cannot be invalidated through any legislation, judgment or petition under law as the only way to do so is through an amendment to the Constitution,” he said while stressing that the present assemblies were enjoying the constitutional protection.

Mr Awan further said: “The petitions of Imran Khan and Mubashar Luqman pleading not to hold March 2 Senate election are ill-advised and against the constitutional provisions.”

Despite conspiracies, Senate polls will happen on time: Gilani
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has said that several conspiracies have been hatched to stop the Senate elections but the government is committed to holding the polls on time.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Satya_anveshi » 05 Feb 2012 21:25

Pakistan - a resilient cesspool

Mr Lieven’s talk basically gave a sketch of his book ‘Pakistan: A Hard Country.’ He began by asserting that Pakistan was not a failed state and said the people who had gathered to listen to him were proof of it. Pakistan was not Afghanistan, Chechnya or Somalia. He maintained that his book was about the sources of resilience in Pakistan, which could be sources of stagnation as well (in terms of development). To explain his point, he said he had used the expression ‘Janus-faced’ many a time in the book, and that the editors had made 18 deletions of the phrase, leaving just half a dozen.{ramana garu used it umpteen times here on this forum} The book was an attempt at discussing power in the country, how it is exercised and what are its roots – religious, cultural etc. This central theme was set against the background of the war in Afghanistan and the rise of militancy in Pakistan. He told the gathering that when an American publisher read it he was taken aback because he had thought that it would be about the Taliban and an impending Islamic revolution in Pakistan.{make no mistake about it...the agenda is same..US is OK because in the pecking order of things in islamic agenda..it comes after India and Israel..so it might just be OK with...if this is their conclusion, we should not be surprised, like always, if their policy come backs to bite them again.} He added that it also discussed the role of the military and the four provinces and the difference within those provinces.

Another review of this same book from puki press:
‘Pakistan isn’t a failed state ... yet’

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby A_Gupta » 05 Feb 2012 22:25

part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbfuvUDJ2rg

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx2yPKv7GqM

Pakistan me jihad kuon

Why jihad in Pakistan is justified - by I think a Taliban maulana.
I think these will be taken down soon, by YouTube admin.

-Arun
Sharing information, not opinions

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby svenkat » 05 Feb 2012 22:30

From the Lieven book:
If the army breaks, Pakistan will break


“There is no sense in risking the destruction of Pakistan to save Afghanistan.”


sums up western view.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6812
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby CRamS » 05 Feb 2012 22:45

We all know arse holes like Lieven and Brizinsky are TSP apologists. Jihadi Lodhi was elated in reviewing Brizinsk's book, pretty sure she will be the same reviewing Lieven's book. Stay tuned. They have both written hot air about AfPak basically TSPA/ISI's views. The question nobody in the west nor among the Indian elite ask is why is the non destruction of TSP sacrosanct?

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Satya_anveshi » 05 Feb 2012 23:59

A_Gupta wrote:part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbfuvUDJ2rg
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx2yPKv7GqM
Pakistan me jihad kuon
Why jihad in Pakistan is justified - by I think a Taliban maulana.
I think these will be taken down soon, by YouTube admin.
-Arun
Sharing information, not opinions

For those who are urdu challenged, the crux of the long 70 min verbal diarrhea is that there is no distinction between Paki Army and Kuffr army.
Puki army has displayed amazing loyalty in always furthering kufr cause.
No holds bar fight against Puki army is well justified and is a must for islamic revolution.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21163
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Prem » 06 Feb 2012 03:36

The coming crash of Cockroach camp now calls for thread to be named
Temporary State of Pakistan.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21163
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Prem » 06 Feb 2012 03:38

Billi ko Cheehron ke Khwab

Lobbyist for Pakistan asked US to apologize for blundered NATO airstrikes
Pakistan’s chief lobbyist asked the United States to apologize for NATO airstrikes that inadvertently killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, according to Justice Department records.On Dec. 22, 2011, Mark Siegel, a partner at Locke Lord Strategies, emailed a nine-page memo to offices on Capitol Hill that detailed Pakistan's version of the events surrounding the airstrikes.The memo said that the incident "seriously damaged" the relationship between the Pakistani Army and U.S.-led NATO forces and aroused "suspicions in the rank and file of the Pakistan Army that it was a premeditated attack … conducted to undermine the sovereignty and stature of Pakistan.""Considering the circumstances of the 25/26 November attacks that resulted in the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers, an apology by the U.S. Department of Defense to the people of Pakistan would not be inappropriate," the memo concludes. Siegel noted in the memo that the document was prepared after “briefings by multiple officials of the Embassy of Pakistan."Locke Lord has a $75,000 per month contract with the Pakistani embassy. The embassy paid the firm more than $911,000 in representation fees from October 2010 to September 2011, according to Justice records.
Siegel said an apology still has not been offered to Pakistan for the airstrikes

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21163
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Prem » 06 Feb 2012 03:41

Mottu of Carpet Seller Fame

Amb Haroon
A colleague in Pakistan sent me this about the Pakistani ambassador at the UN: "Pakistan's UN ambassador in NY is Haroon, from the wealthy Haroon family of Karachi that owns DAWN newspaper. Yes, the family has longstanding links with the British from the colonial era. He is a political appointee, a nominee of President Zardari as a bribe to the family. Pakistan's UN ambassador in Geneva

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21163
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Prem » 06 Feb 2012 04:26

http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/03/why-this ... ri-di.html
Why this kolavari di?
What have the Ahmadis done to deserve this treatment in this Islamic republic of ours? The latest bout of hate speeches against the Ahmadi community and threats hurled at them was witnessed in Rawalpindi’s Satellite Town last Sunday. Thousands gathered near a community centre on the call of banned militant outfits like the Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan and the Jamat-ud-Dawa, flanked by local leaders of the PML-N and trade unions.
They demanded not only the closure of the Ahmadi community centre but also that all Ahmadis be expelled from Pakistan. The country’s Christian minority also came in for a shock when the hate rally’s meeting point, the Holy Family Chowk, was rechristened as the Khatm-i-Nabuwat (Finality of Prophethood) Chowk.As for the anti-Ahmadi sentiment in Punjab, it dates back to 1953 when anti-Ahamdi riots in Lahore had resulted in the imposition of martial law in that city. Later a judicial commission charged with an inquiry into the riots, which was headed by Justice Mohammad Munir, found that no two Muslim clerics out of the 50 odd who were consulted, could agree on a definition of ‘who is Muslim’. Therefore, the government had rejected the demand that Ahmadis be declared non-Muslim.
This was left to the country’s first democratically elected government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who in the 1973 Constitution declared Pakistan an Islamic republic, and then went on to castigate the Ahmadi community as non-Muslim through an act of parliament. Gen Ziaul Haq’s dictatorship further tightened the noose by enacting more anti-Ahmadi legislation.That said, in Pakistan, a few questions remain unanswered regarding the religious, social and official persecution of Ahmadis: whether the anti-Ahmadi legislation is legal or not; whether it is in contravention of the basic structure of the constitution that guarantees religious freedoms; whether parliament has a constitutional right to ascertain the faith of an individual or a community or not; and lastly, between Parliament and the Constitution of Pakistan, which is sovereign or supreme, the institution or the basic law that even governs that very institution?
It is our moral and intellectual bankruptcy that not a single individual has dared to legally address these anomalies that have pitted the entire state apparatus and society against one, small religious community


( Janab, Moral and Intellectual honesty will make you Kaffir in Pakistan )

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 966
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Guddu » 06 Feb 2012 04:37

Anindya wrote:
IIRC the author is an Indian.


Yes - Jawed Naqvi is Indian - only mildly though. IIRC, he celebrated the Pakistani attack on the Parliament.


javed naqli is a treasonous character, paki at heart.

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 966
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Guddu » 06 Feb 2012 04:45

Jhujar wrote:The coming crash of Cockroach camp now calls for thread to be named
Temporary State of Pakistan.


I vote for a name change...TSP captures it well :((

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Sudip » 06 Feb 2012 07:40

"In Iran, you could point a camera at a woman ... and she would smile. If you did that in Pakistan, the woman would run away and a man might throw a rock at you." --- Kaplan, Robert, D. The Ends of the Earth, Random House, 1996, p.181

panda
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 26 May 2011 06:49

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby panda » 06 Feb 2012 07:56

Some newbie pooch:

CRamS wrote:
And how many do I have to repeat that defeat of Talibunnies, obliterating every "terrorist" yada yada was the stated objective immediately after 9/11 when US was frothing in the mouth like you are at me.[snip]

Right now, what US wants is a return to the status quo ante that prevailed before 9/11 [snip]

Current US strategy is to buttress the pre-9/11 status quo while preserving its super power H&D.



How do you know?

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby shiv » 06 Feb 2012 08:30

Has anyone thought how a powerful king in the old days could ever survive and still keep nobles and vassals loyal to him although each of those nobles/vassals had armies available to them? Not easy - requires real leadership but the following is an approximate description.

First the king would have a very powerful loyal army led by good trained men and loyal generals. The best generals and men would be rewarded with land, wealth. wimmens, villages etc. This "kingdom" would then be able to attack a neighbouring kingdom. Either the neighbouring king would be killed and a loyal general given the throne there, or the neighbouring king might agree to become a vassal. In every case the vassal/general would require to have an army to help support the king, but the king himself would also require a separate "Kings guard" of his own in case any of the general/vassals got uppity - so that they could be defeated. The Nizam of Hyderabad had a Nizams army of Arabs who were his own private guardsmen to serve this role.

What has this got to do with Pakistan? Believe it or not this is the exact model used by the Pakistani army to retain control of Pakistan. It is also a model used by the USA in NATO and "Warsaw pact" to have vassal nations to fight proxy wars for USA/NATO. The USSR did it too, as did the British empire.

The Pakistani army treats the Army chief as "King/President". The army itself is the Presidential Presidents private guard. Loyal generals are awarded large tracts of land as gifts. Islamist groups are the vassals. They are armed and allowed to fight the Pakistan army's enemy (India mainly, but also Hindus, Sikhs, Shias and Ahmedis).

Now note this. How does the Pakistani army remain stronger than its vassals? What does the Pakistani army have that its vassals do not have? The vassals (islamic militias) have leaders like Hafeez Saeed or Syed Shahabuddin military training camps, small arms, explosives etc. But the main Paki army retains things like tanks, artillery, aircraft and Navy. These are the force multipliers that are used to make the Pakistan army more powerful than its vassals. Just like CRamS stated that "The US can defeat Pakistan any time", the Pakistan army, with its tanks, artillery and aircraft can "defeat the islamic militias at any time".

The US has played the role of supporting the Pakistani army and giving it the funds to maintain its artillery, tanks, ships and aircraft so that the Pakistan army can remain more powerful than its own vassals. In other word the US used the Pakistan army as its own vassal and propped up its vassal so that they could dominate over their own sub-vassals - the islamic militias. This happy scenario lasted till about 2003-4.

What has gone wrong?

Its like this. The Pakistani army's men are recruited from the same population as the islamic militias. As long as the Islamic militias, Pakistan army and the USA had the same enemies, there was no problem. But when Islamic militias became the US's enemy, the Pakistani army was asked to choose between being a vassal of the US and fighting its own vassals, or staying with its vassals and saying "Balls to the US" . The Pakistani army tried to play both sides for a while, but the Pakistani army is now finding that its own men are unwilling to fight Islamic militias.

All the hardware (tanks.artillery/aircraft) in the world are of no use if men refuse to fight. Mind you, Islamic militias are willing and able to fight the US. But the Pakistani army is unwilling to fight the Islamic militias. For this reason the US has directly started fighting the militias. But in order to fight this war, the US depends on the Pakistan army for logistics and other support. the Pakistan army has its own morale problem and cannot support the US. So after 10 years the US is up shit creek. Of course the US could "defeat the Paki army in a minute" as Shri CRamS repeatedly reassures us. But for the US it is absolutely no use fighting the Pakistan army. They want to fight the Islamic militias and were stupid enough to depend on the Pakistan army to do that. By bashing the Pakistan army now, they will make the Pakistan army (The King) weak, and the vassals (islamic militias) will take over the kingdom. The US of A, sole souperpower has screwed itself good and proper in Pakistan and has nowhere to turn. They simply do not have a clue.

The US is not going to simply dump the Paki army because the US fears that Islamists will take over. But any arms and funding given to the Paki army automatically gets directed at India. This behaviour helps the Pakistan army because all the Islamists are expected to unite behind the Pakistan army in fighting India. India cannot capture Pakistan. India will not even fight a war that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. But India is publicly taking a posture where India claims that it will punish Pakistan in unspecified ways in a short war without crossing the nuclear Rubicon. If there is a war and if India does what it says - it will be the Pakistani army, Air Force and navy that get hit the hardest by India. They will be left weaker and they will be shamed. A weak Pakistan armed forces is the last thing that the US wants, but th Pakistan army is heading for suicide in a war with India.

What the US seems to be doing is trying to dissuade the Pakistan army from either heading towards war and trying to dissuade the Paki army from using Islamic militia against anyone. The US knows that if India decides to punish the Pakistan military, they would be unable to stop that punishment from occurring. So the US's only option is to do everything in its power to prevent the Paki army from being punished. The US has lost credibility in India after 26/11 and the Headley affair. I am not sure what the US is doing to build up credibility with India. If they are actually sharing intel with India and that intel is useful to India, then that is one possible route to build trust with India.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby rajanb » 06 Feb 2012 09:51

Shiv,

I agree in the main as to what you are saying. But in my case, the jury is out when you say the following:

trying to dissuade the Paki army from using Islamic militia against anyone.


Especially India

I doubt if it is an objective that they are really pushing their weight behind it. They would dilute this objective wrt us if the Pakis give them something substantail. That "substantial" is toning down their hardend stance against the Khans after the 22 quadrifications, which has seemingly got the pakis to harden their stance. The US would look the other way and it would be another headley type situ. So the terrorists wouldn't be held back, if need be.

Right now, the Khan administration is at a total loss as to how to handle this situation. I see the Khans policies as flawed. And to me that is another indicater that the soup has been drained from the souperpower.

If they are actually sharing intel with India and that intel is useful to India, then that is one possible route to build trust with India.


On the intel sharing. suffice to say, that surprisingly (and I am speaking as an SDRE who never was inferior to any TFTA), that the intel shared by India has been of greater value to the Khans, rather than vice versa. That the Khans decided to ignore some very explosive intel is in my opinion because the Porkistunis had them in their pockets.

On their Intel for e.g., they might warn us of an impeding attack (they may also forget to warn us), but they do not go to the extent of using whatever influence they have, if they were a souperpower to stop it. As you have pointed out skiing downhill strips you of potent soup. So its not that they can, but do not even try.

Ultimately, our aim is to keep them happy in their declining state by buying things from them so their jobs are intact or grow. A helping hand. After all, diplomatese is not about confrontation, but doing enough to stop well short of it.

my 2 paise.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21163
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Prem » 06 Feb 2012 10:13

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\02\05\story_5-2-2012_pg1_1
Bill seeks to ‘rein in’ intelligence agencies

ISLAMABAD: Senators from the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) on Saturday submitted a bill in the Upper House of parliament, seeking a reduction in powers of intelligence agencies regarding preventive detention.JI senators Prof Khurshid Ahmad, Prof Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and Aafiya Zia signed the bill that was submitted to the Senate Secretariat.The bill calls for a prohibition on handing over any citizen to a foreign country without prior permission of the high court concerned. Articles 9 and 10 of the constitution need to be amended for the purpose, the bill read.The statement of objects and reasons of the bill says a “forced disappearance by intelligence agencies or others has taken a form of state terrorism and hundreds of Pakistanis are allegedly kept in the custody of state agencies without any opportunity of being heard at any judicial forum; while their families know nothing about the whereabouts of their loved ones”.
It said intelligence and law enforcement agencies had been “misusing” provisions related to preventive detention in the constitution.“Recently many violent incidents have taken place, the tails of which go to intelligence agencies. It is necessary to cut short the powers of intelligence agencies in case of preventive detention to a reasonable limit and ensure the right of a fair trial for every detained person,” the bill says.It also proposed to reinstate the maximum duration of “one month” for preventive detention without being heard as “it was in the original text of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, before Third Constitutional Amendment was made in 1975 that had increased this period to three months”.

( Sultan Kiyanahi Bahut Naraz Hoga)

a_bharat
BRFite
Posts: 660
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 09:54

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby a_bharat » 06 Feb 2012 10:38

shiv wrote:What the US seems to be doing is trying to dissuade the Pakistan army from either heading towards war and trying to dissuade the Paki army from using Islamic militia against anyone. The US knows that if India decides to punish the Pakistan military, they would be unable to stop that punishment from occurring. So the US's only option is to do everything in its power to prevent the Paki army from being punished. The US has lost credibility in India after 26/11 and the Headley affair. I am not sure what the US is doing to build up credibility with India. If they are actually sharing intel with India and that intel is useful to India, then that is one possible route to build trust with India.


I would think that US wants to direct Islamic anger/madness away from it and India would be a good target. Similarly, India should do the opposite and let US be the number one enemy of Islam in this region. I vaguely remember some comments made by some US congressmen that India acts as a buffer for the US to absorb Islamic anger.

The US perhaps wanted India to attack Pakistan but India didn't react as they expected. It is possible that US is complicit in the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. If US has any contribution towards the relative quietness in the last few years in India in terms of terrorist attacks, it may be due to the fact that their schemes got exposed.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Satya_anveshi » 06 Feb 2012 10:43

Of all the countries in the muslim world, peculiar thing about pukistan is its inability to reconcile with the borders. Amazingly, in search of those rigid and solid borders that give it an identity of its own, a place of its own on this planet - it managed to reduce them by about half.
It now looks as though it totally gave up that effort to reconcile with what it has and going full steam in furthering its irredentist claims far and wide using the bogey of Islamism. However, in using Islamism to extend leverage outwards by adopting jihadism and terrorism as state policy, it lost the monopolistic control of violence in maintaining law and order internally (and those emanating externally from its soil).
By a quark of fate, if we have to call it that way, it so happened that those internal forces are up against the very state of pukistan and administering it the poetic justice.
Come what may, the civilized nations who have stake in the region should not let this internal conflict in pukistan to pass, allow the conflict to play out fully, and till the state institutions regain the monopoly. We can only deal with a normal state and we should hope for the khakis and the puki state to win. As a good neighbor we convey to puki armed forces that we stand ready to rescue them should they receive massive body blows from jihadis. They should count on us.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby rajanb » 06 Feb 2012 11:29

^^^Speaking of state institues regaining their monpoly or rightful place.

Pak govt, military heading for fresh confrontation?


Islamabad, Feb 4: Days after the partial easing of their tensions over a mysterious memo, Pakistan's government and army could be engaged in a fresh standoff over the issue of handing over control of all cantonment boards and military lands across the country to civilians.

The process for appointing a new director general of the Military Lands and Cantonments Department could trigger a fresh confrontation, The News daily reported on Saturday.

The incumbent, a serving Major General, is set to retire on February 20 and the army apparently wants to retain control of the multi-billion rupee enterprise.

The Defence Ministry has moved a summary or formal proposal to the prime minister for appointing another serving officer, Major General Tahir Masood, but the Premier's office appears to be in "no mood to accommodate the request," the report said.

The prime minister's secretariat has "declared in categorical terms that no summary for appointment of a serving army general to a civilian position will be entertained," it said.

Civilian officials said the post is a "purely civilian" one.

These developments come days after the partial easing of civil-military tensions over a secret memo that sought US help to stave off a feared coup in Pakistan in May last year following the killing of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in a covert American raid in Abottabad.

The director general of Military Lands and Cantonments is the head of 43 cantonment boards and military estate offices dealing with 5.5 million civilians.

Since the formation of the Military Lands and Cantonments Group, the post of its chief had been filled by a civilian bureaucrat but former military ruler Pervez Musharraf grabbed it in 1999 and appointed a major general in violation of rules.

In 2008, army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani recalled all serving army officers from civilian posts but the general posted as director general of Military Lands and Cantonments was not recalled.

Currently, Maj Gen Athar Hussain Shah is serving as the director general and he will retire on February 20.

The Premier's spokesperson, Akram Shaheedi, said the prime minister's secretariat had not received any summary for appointing a major general as the new director general.

Shaheedi said the premier would "never approve any summary of posting any serving military person against a civilian post in violation of rules."

The Pakistan Military Lands and Cantonments Officers Association has passed a resolution saying that no institution has a valid legal and moral claim over the post of the director general except the department itself.

The resolution spoke about negotiating with the senior-most echelons of the Pakistan army and intimating them of the legitimate claim of officers of the department to the post.

Pakistan's cantonment boards are overwhelmingly administered by military authorities as the president of the board is always a serving army officer, usually a brigadier.

The military estate officer manages lands in cantonment areas and 99% of the clientele of cantonment boards and military estate officers are civilians.

PTI


Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12164
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Feb 2012 11:38

Jhujar wrote:http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/03/why-this-kolavari-di.html
Why this kolavari di?
What have the Ahmadis done to deserve this treatment in this Islamic republic of ours? The latest bout of hate speeches against the Ahmadi community and threats hurled at them was witnessed in Rawalpindi’s Satellite Town last Sunday. Thousands gathered near a community centre on the call of banned militant outfits like the Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan and the Jamat-ud-Dawa, flanked by local leaders of the PML-N and trade unions.
They demanded not only the closure of the Ahmadi community centre but also that all Ahmadis be expelled from Pakistan. The country’s Christian minority also came in for a shock when the hate rally’s meeting point, the Holy Family Chowk, was rechristened as the Khatm-i-Nabuwat (Finality of Prophethood) Chowk.As for the anti-Ahmadi sentiment in Punjab, it dates back to 1953 when anti-Ahamdi riots in Lahore had resulted in the imposition of martial law in that city. Later a judicial commission charged with an inquiry into the riots, which was headed by Justice Mohammad Munir, found that no two Muslim clerics out of the 50 odd who were consulted, could agree on a definition of ‘who is Muslim’. Therefore, the government had rejected the demand that Ahmadis be declared non-Muslim.
This was left to the country’s first democratically elected government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who in the 1973 Constitution declared Pakistan an Islamic republic, and then went on to castigate the Ahmadi community as non-Muslim through an act of parliament. Gen Ziaul Haq’s dictatorship further tightened the noose by enacting more anti-Ahmadi legislation.That said, in Pakistan, a few questions remain unanswered regarding the religious, social and official persecution of Ahmadis: whether the anti-Ahmadi legislation is legal or not; whether it is in contravention of the basic structure of the constitution that guarantees religious freedoms; whether parliament has a constitutional right to ascertain the faith of an individual or a community or not; and lastly, between Parliament and the Constitution of Pakistan, which is sovereign or supreme, the institution or the basic law that even governs that very institution?
It is our moral and intellectual bankruptcy that not a single individual has dared to legally address these anomalies that have pitted the entire state apparatus and society against one, small religious community


( Janab, Moral and Intellectual honesty will make you Kaffir in Pakistan )


And thanks to British Proganda management, the leaders of Christians and Ahmedis put their Lot with Jinnahs and Fundoos of Pakistan at the time of Partition and were active participants/ supporters or deliberately mute spectators when the violence was directed against the Hindus. Thinking by getting rid of caste/superstitious Hindus, their society will be much better.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12164
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Feb 2012 11:45

Pakistan, India can't afford war over Kashmir: Gilani

Talk is cheap Mr. Gilani, if you separate the heads and trunks of UJC leaders, 5000 miltants publically with the action done by Khakis then we will believe you.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby A_Gupta » 06 Feb 2012 12:21

darshhan wrote:As of today America is itself a failing state.And it might well happen that America reaches the failed state stage earlier than Pakistan itself.This would be hard for patriotic Americans to digest but in my opinion there is a fair chance of this happening.And if that happens ,then forget about America meddling in Afghanistan,Pakistan,India,Fiji,chile etc.America would be hard pressed to control its own territory especially in its south west.


This is the polar extreme from CRamS. There is no more evidence for the US being a failed state or losing its south west territory than there is of it being able to impose its will successfully as it likes. While certain tasks, like making Arabs and Kurds, or Shias and Sunnis in Iraq is beyond the US; or straightening out Pakistan, or denuking North Korea, US economic strength, military power, political stability is far from that of a failing state.

-Arun
[sigh, have to write this to be fair]

kenop
BRFite
Posts: 1333
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 07:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby kenop » 06 Feb 2012 12:45

Is groper trying to find other reasons for shahadat?
Pak cannot afford war over Kashmir: Gilani

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani today acknowledged that the Kashmir issue would have to be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy as Pakistan "cannot afford wars" in the 21st century.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby johneeG » 06 Feb 2012 13:19

I have a theory: I agree with Shiv's model of vassal and king relationship between US/PA and PA/jihadis. In these relationships, there is generally an important aspect called 'perception of strength'.

That is 'perception of strength' of the king motivates the vassal to be obedient. If and when the vassal gains a 'perception of weakness' about the king, the vassal is inclined to revolt or rebel.

About the relationship of PA and US?
US was supposed to help PA take on(or take over) India. Kashmir seems to be taken up as case-study by the PA/pakis to see if they can take on(or take over) India with the help of US. From paki perspective, US failed them in getting Kashmir. This perceived failure on US part translates to a perception of weakness of US which makes the vassal PA more defiant.

From US perspective, the PA has succeeded in keeping India on edge directly or indirectly(through proxies like jihadis). Thus, PA has done its job. So, US sees no reason to ditch PA.

About the relationship of jihadis and PA?
I think this is the critical point. I would include the supporters of jihadis also, in the definition of jihadis. So, that would mean most pakis. So, what is the relationship of pakis and PA?
PA is expected to conquer the Hindus. Atleast, kill them or bleed them. Now, the important point is that PA has failed this duty. PA has been unable to conquer India(unable to take over Kashmir). Further, PA has even lost wars. 1971 was important event in this regard, where the defeat was humiliating and irreversible. That sealed the fate of PA(particularly the prompt surrender of PA). PA lost the game of perception. PA gained a perception of weakness in the eyes of pakis(even if pakis or PA did not realise this immediately). PA decided to use jihadis for the purpose of conquering India or bleeding India. So far, jihadis have been more successful in their mission than PA(without much retribution from India). Thus, jihadis gained respect in the eyes of pakis(due to perception of strength). As this approach got crystallized and PA started depending heavily on jihadis to counter India/Hindus, jihadis started gaining 'moral authority'(ability to take on India/Hindus) in the eyes of pakis.

I think a certain threshold was crossed in this perception game and now, jihadis are seen as more 'upright, moral, strong and islamic' than PA. This view is shared by pakis in PA, jihadi groups and commoners . Jihadi groups realised that PA depended on them heavily and could not take on India directly(Interestingly, jihadi groups declaring that they will stand with PA can be read as PA will be weaker without jihadi support). All this means jihadi groups became more audacious in their aims, objectives, dreams and projects. Simultaneously, PA seems to have become less and less able to wield complete and absolute control over them. And PA had to be satisfied with only loose control on the strength of sheer force and funds(both of which are provided by US).

At some point, the jihadis decided to take on US(to expand their field of play). Over the course of time, it resulted in 9/11.

It changed the equation from US' perspective. Till now, US had no takleef with PA. But now, it had a takleef with PA(and its proxies). PA's takleef is its inability to defeat India or wield absolute control over jihadis. Jihadis takleef is to replace PA as the king of pakis. Pakis' takleef is that India is still undefeated i.e. Kashmir is still held by India. India's takleef is that jihadis are attacking India. Jihadis are sponsored by PA. PA is sponsored by US.

--------

The whole thing started due to the inability of PA to take on India and depend solely on jihadis. PA has now moved to the role of funding, sponsoring and training jihadis instead of fighting. I had previously said in a certain post that the surest and shortest way to destroy PA is for India to defeat PA in a visible(humiliating) and tangible(land) manner.

What it would do is drastically decrease any remnants of PA's 'moral authority'(perception that it is the sole protector of pakis and that it has the ability to defeat India).

Now, if PA falls, the jihadis will takeover pak. But, jihadis will become less powerful also. Because, PA funds jihadis and US funds PA. PA has been the interface between US and jihadis. US cannot directly fund jihadis because jihadis have started viewing US as the real shaitaan and ultimate goal.

The fall of PA would most probably result in jihadi warlords will take over and demarcate their respective territories i.e. an inofficial(or maybe official) division of pakistan into smaller entities.

These jihadis would not be as powerful as previously because they are not funded by PA(which was funded by US). Secondly, the jihadis would be busy extending their territories i.e. fighting each other. Thirdly, the jihadis would focus on other players as much as India(unlike PA which is India oriented).

Lastly, about the potential immigration threat: IMHO, the super-rich and rich would immigrate to US/UK or someother european country. The poor and middle-class would just stay in pak rather than risk immigration.

Of course, there maybe immigrants. But, I think, the whole aspect is being blown out of proportion.

----------

From PA's perspective, the only way it can rectify the situation is by defeating India or at least creating a perception that it has defeated India in battle (without depending on jihadis). PA will have to fight India in a war/battle and defeat it. Then, it will regain its perception of strength and moral authority in the eyes of pakis(including jihadis).

Otherwise, PA will have deal with the jihadis. But, then, it will lose its only offensive medium against India. So, India will be further strengthened.

I dont see any option of long-term 'reformation' of jihadis by PA i.e. if PA cannot continue using jihadis and also keep them completely in their control, if PA does not face and defeat India in war/battle.

So, PA is caught in between. Adding US to the mix has made the issue life threatening for PA. Because US' support is the single most factor that has sustained PA. No one can replace US' support to PA. Not China, not saudis and not UK.

----------

From US' perspective:
I dont agree with the view that US is weak. Neither do I agree with the view that nothing can stand in US' path.


I have no doubt that US is a declining power. I think US is still the most powerful country. It seems to have many levers of influence in all camps. To add to it, its military, diplomatic and financial muscle. US cannot be underestimated.

The point, it seems to me, is that US(like any common human being) tries to get its job done through least resistive path. It tries to avoid pain(at strategic level). Its politicians (like politicians in all democracies) seem to prefer to go with the accepted norm rather than risk change of strategy(specially geo-political matters).

This attitude of US has allowed US to depend on PA. Funding, arming or training PA was easy and cheap for US. In recent times, that cost has gone up. Firstly, due to the rise of India. Secondly, due to financial stress in US. Then, there have been blowbacks(or betrayals) from pakis(and its vassals).

What should US do?
US cannot continue to fund PA because the funds to PA will train jihadis and jihadis will go after US in or out of US' homeland.
If US stops funding PA, then PA will crumble and it will lose its leverage in this region to an extent.

I think the option of 'reforming' pakis does not exist.

The alternative from US' perspective would be to groom India to replace pakis. So, it seems to me that the game is in this direction. US definitely has many levers within India.

Of course, the point that needs to be remembered is that US is a global player and its interests are not limited to this one region. Therefore, it will try to play defensive game in one field while it is focusing on some other field. Also, it may be defensive in one area, so as not to give advantage to its rival in another area.

Right now, US seems to have many difficulties. Financial stress, rising China and India, falling Europe, and jihadi terror. It would be interesting to see how it tackles all the issues.

Dilbu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6385
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:53
Location: Deep in the badlands of BRFATA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Dilbu » 06 Feb 2012 13:22

kenop wrote:Is groper trying to find other reasons for shahadat?
Pak cannot afford war over Kashmir: Gilani

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani today acknowledged that the Kashmir issue would have to be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy as Pakistan "cannot afford wars" in the 21st century.

I think he is just trying to ungli the fauj's kashmir policy.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby V_Raman » 06 Feb 2012 14:10

This is an interesting discussion. So the question to india is, what can it do to show the PA that the jihadis are no longer useful against India? Some options

#1 Abrogate Article 370 and make Kashmir a full state
#2 For the next terrorist attack, punish the terrorists and the camps. Leave PA alone

Will the PA then take on the jihadis? How long will it take?

If these two options are not being considered, then the choice of GoI is clear. Bide time for an internal conflict in pakistan and punish PA if needed to precipitate that.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10057
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby sum » 06 Feb 2012 14:21

On Orbat:
Lieutenant General Khwaja Ziauddin (Retired) nominated as army chief and promoted to four star on 12 October 1999 who had served as Director General Inter-Services Intelligence Agency from 1998 to 1999 in an interview in November 2010 with Pakistan’s GEO TV made following important revelation:

· US was not really serious about apprehending or eliminating Osama Bin Laden in the period 1998-99.

· The ISI furnished US with a report that Osama could be targeted at a feast being held at Dasht I Margo in Nimroz but US CIA declined to take action as UAE Royal family was also in attendance.Thus the US lost a good chance of eliminating Bin Laden.

· US funded ISI special force had the capability to apprehend Osama Bin laden in few months had Musharraf’s 1999 October coup not taken place after which this special force was disbanded by Musharraf.



· Musharraf’s nominated DG ISI General Mahmud questioned General Zia in 1999 after the coup as to why General Zia was planning to capture Osama Bin Laden and hand him over to USA as it was against Pakistan’s national interest.

· General Ziauddin summed up General Musharraf as a chronic liar.

· General Ziauddin stated that General Musharraf literally begged Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to go to Washington on 4th July1999 and request President Clinton to ask the Indian military to agree to a cease fire and give safe passage to Pakistani troops stranded in Kargil and to request India not to escalate the conflict.


· US intelligence point of contact Major Sheehan designated to liaison about Osama with ISI used to be dead drunk at most time. An indicator of US non seriousness about Bin Laden.



· That Mullah Omar had agreed to a trial of Osama Bin Laden on terrorism charges but the USA showed no interest.

Sriman
BRFite
Posts: 1858
Joined: 02 Mar 2009 11:38
Location: Committee for the Promotion of Vice and the Prevention of Virtue

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Sriman » 06 Feb 2012 14:34

Ziauddin was Badmash's man and deeply unpopular within PA and ISI. He has an axe to grind against Gola but to somehow suggest he was very serious about catching Osama is misleading. It wasn't as if he had a lot of control over his underlings in ISI (who resented him to begin with). Unkil did pay ISI to set up a Special Forces unit to track down Osama but in all likelyhood Ziauddin saw it as a way to have a loyal SF unit at his disposal in case of a coup. Not that it worked. Steve Coll talks about it in his book.

Unkil had a couple of good chances to kill Osama (at his Tarnak farm and on the hunting trip in Nimroz) but CIA couldn't convince Sandy Berger and Kilton sahib.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby shiv » 06 Feb 2012 14:41

V_Raman wrote:This is an interesting discussion. So the question to india is, what can it do to show the PA that the jihadis are no longer useful against India? Some options

#1 Abrogate Article 370 and make Kashmir a full state
#2 For the next terrorist attack, punish the terrorists and the camps. Leave PA alone



Here is my take.

Article 320 is an internal Indian issue, and should not be connected up with Pakistan.

Infiltration trends over the past 15 years suggest that infiltration id getting more and more difficult and jihadis are increasingly getting killed at the border.

A for hitting camps jihadis, did you read the article I linked a couple of pages ago? It shows that there are key links between jihadis and army. Here is the link again
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a ... 854401.ece

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby V_Raman » 06 Feb 2012 14:48

Shivji, your post only reinforces my suggested choice of GoI wanting an internal conflict in Pakistan. We dont align with USA in that. It also means that GoI understands the refugee issue and are prepared to deal with that.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24010
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby SSridhar » 06 Feb 2012 14:54

V_Raman wrote:#2 For the next terrorist attack, punish the terrorists and the camps. Leave PA alone

Pakistanis, aam-aadmis or Generals or politicians or Islamist leaders, would not take it that way. Everybody knows that terror camps host PA officers for training, if not for running them. Any attack on terror camps would be described as an attack on Pakistan's Army and Pakistan's sovereignty and the consequences would follow. We should be prepared for that if want to do so.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashokk, g.chaks, SriniY and 33 guests