Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby Rahul M » 04 Nov 2009 00:55

Johann, the taliban modus operandi is that of a insurgent force operating in a favourable environment. they are good at this but even here they have managed to antagonise significant sections of the populace. one way to understand that discontent is to look at reactions in afghanistan following the the loss of power by taliban.

their capability or mode of operation does not translate into a significant potential to attack across the border into India nor are they flexible enough to overcome that shortcoming.
in that way, they are irrational.

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby Rahul Shukla » 04 Nov 2009 01:17

Pakistan creates its own enemy - Muhammad I. Ahmad (La Monde diplomatique)

... Peshawar was a sanctuary, as Afghanistan was perpetually at war. Now, many Afghans are leaving because Afghanistan feels safer.
The Afghan Taliban were using the region to regroup after their earlier rout: veteran anti-Soviet commander Jalaluddin Haqqani headquartered his network in North Waziristan; Gulbuddin Hikmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami had a presence in Bajaur. However, the military, reluctant to take on pro-Pakistan Afghans, whom the government sees as assets against growing Indian influence in Afghanistan, instead marched into South Waziristan to apprehend “foreigners” (mainly Uzbeks, Chechens and Arabs).

Following the regional code of honour, the tribes refused to surrender the guests and were subjected to collective punishment that soon united them against the government... Ineffectual tribal elders were marginalised or assassinated. The leadership shifted to individuals such as Nek Muhammad, 27, a charismatic veteran of the Afghan war, a sworn enemy of the US presence in Afghanistan.
President Pervaiz Musharraf’s decision in 2001 to join the US “war on terror”; the use of indiscriminate force to support what was seen as an American war; and the disappearances and rendition of suspects, many innocents among them, given into US custody for compensation. These combined to create a gulf between public opinion and government policy, and in 2002 led to the protest vote that brought the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA, an alliance of religious parties opposed to the “war on terror”) to power in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP).
In 2004, after two attempts on Musharraf’s life, the government ordered 5,000 troops supported by helicopter gunships into South Waziristan. The military suffered heavy losses and the government was forced to sign a peace treaty with Nek Mohammad that briefly ended hostilities. The ceasefire broke when, on 18 June 2004, the young amir was assassinated in a US drone strike...

Two more peace deals followed, but both ended when in August 2007 Pakistani forces stormed a mosque in Islamabad held by militants sympathetic to the Taliban, an operation that killed many innocents. A sustained terrorist campaign followed, and the blowback began to hit Pakistan’s major cities. In response, the military expanded its operations into other agencies including Bajaur, Mohmand and Khyber.
On the bus to Peshawar I’d met a youth... I asked him who the Taliban were, and he replied dryly “we all are”. A taxi driver showed me the flood of refugees from Khyber’s Bara region, and said the Taliban were a “phantom enemy” invented by the Pakistani establishment to justify foreign aid.
Around the time of the mosque siege the war also spilled into the mainland. Tensions had simmered since 2007 in Malakand’s Swat valley and culminated in the Pakistan army’s incursion this year into the region. The operation followed the failure of a peace settlement, the Nizam-e-Adl, that the government had signed with the Tehreek Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM), a local movement committed to the restoration of the region’s old legal order...

... in 1989 Sufi Muhammad established TNSM to formally pursue this cause. However, by 2002 the TNSM had all but disappeared after Sufi Muhammad led a contingent of 10,000 men into Afghanistan to fight US forces, most of whom were killed or captured.
In 2005 Muhammad’s son-in-law, Mullah Fazlullah, was able to revive TNSM, with a more radical edge. The group was further strengthened by the arrival of militants fleeing US drone attacks in FATA. After the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (Taliban Movement of Pakistan, TTP) was established in December 2007 with Baitullah Mehsud as its leader, Mullah Fazlullah changed his organisation into a local chapter of the movement. With its populist rhetoric, its swift justice and opposition to the old feudal elite, it found favour with the underclass and attracted many disaffected youths...

...With unemployment, easy access to weaponry and training, and rising political consciousness because of a vibrant private media, there was no shortage of angry young men to swell the Taliban ranks, especially when the war was also seen as a struggle against the entrenched elite.
However, as more power accrued to the TTP, petty criminals also joined. This not only granted them immunity from the Taliban’s brutal justice, but access to weapons and a powerful support network. They used these immediately, terrorising rivals and ordinary people alike... Whatever initial support the Swat Taliban had enjoyed evaporated quickly; even the TTP dissented when its spokesman Maulvi Omar urged Fazlullah to reconsider the decision to ban girls’ education.
Eager to check the growing power of the TTP, in 2008 the Pashtun nationalist government of NWFP released Sufi Muhammad, who had renounced violence, to negotiate peace with the militants. These efforts culminated in the Nizam-e-Adl (rule of justice) legislation of February 2009, which briefly ended hostilities after the government agreed to establish sharia courts and the militants agreed to disarm. After much delay, the legislation was ratified by the central government on 14 April 2009...
Western commentators and their local allies were quick to denounce the legislation as Pakistan’s “surrender to the Taliban”. The country, they said, was on the verge of collapse, its nuclear arsenal about to land into the hands of the Taliban, who were within 60 miles of the capital. Pressure mounted on the Pakistani government and in May... The tanks rolled.
While the operation succeeded in dislodging the militants, nearly three million citizens were displaced, and of those who remained, many were killed in the bombing of civilian neighbourhoods. The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) declared it the worst refugee crisis since Rwanda... The unaffected eastern provinces of Sindh and Punjab restricted entry to the refugees; this highlighted the ethnic dimension of the conflict, since the Pashtuns see themselves as primary targets.

Yet, unlike the military operations in FATA, the operation enjoyed relatively high popular support among Pakistanis (41%). It was hailed as a success by politicians, the military and the media.
Rahimullah Yusufzai, a veteran journalist and the most respected analyst of frontier politics... dismisses the idea that the militants were a threat to the country or its nuclear assets... “The Taliban had neither the capacity nor the intention to invade the capital. They were only interested in the Malakand division, and even there their influence was limited to three of its seven districts.”
In yet another act of political myopia, Pakistan diminished its options when in September it invited members of the Taliban shura (advisory committee) for negotiations and then arrested them. The policy of arming militias to counter the Taliban (along the lines of the Iraqi “awakening councils”) is equally
dangerous. In a region where blood feuds last for generations, Yusufzai notes, this means perpetual violence, pitting tribe against tribe.

...more than 200 suspected militants and sympathisers have been killed in extra-judicial executions by security forces and local vigilantes since the end of major combat operations. The population remains in a permanent state of fear: “If, earlier, people were terrorised by the Taliban, today they live in fear of the army,” says Yusufzai. “Anybody can be labelled a Talib”... People are very scared, they are afraid to talk, and the media” — which mostly cheered on the military — “is compromised.”
The Taliban attacks continued, accelerating in October in anticipation of the new military incursion in South Waziristan. Under the leadership of Hakimullah Mehsud, 28, a campaign of bombings began...killing mostly civilians. The attacks got more audacious as the government escalated the aerial bombing ahead of the ground invasion. Punjabi allies of the Taliban even managed a successful attack on military headquarters in Rawalpindi.
Of 701 citizens killed in 60 strikes between 29 January 2008 and 8 April 2009, only 14 were suspected militants according to one investigation; the brunt is borne by civilians. Public opinion is incensed: according to an August 2009 Gallup poll, 59% of Pakistanis see the US as the biggest threat, compared with 18% for traditional rival India. Only 11% see the Taliban as the biggest threat...
With the inducement of aid dollars, Pakistan with its poorly equipped army is trying to achieve what the US and Nato have failed to accomplish in Afghanistan. But the longer the military operations continue the more regions are likely to slip from under its control... Yet a form of military metaphysics prevails among the Pakistani elite and western commentators, who continue to hope that militancy can be bombed out of existence.
This affinity for war is odd at a time when the Washington consensus on the good war is crumbling... The last thing any Afghan government would want is to give western powers another excuse to invade and occupy; and most terrorist attacks against western targets have been planned in the West.
The recent entry of 28,000 Pakistani troops into South Waziristan has precipitated yet another mass exodus; a third of the population has been displaced. Though the Pakistani Taliban have few supporters left, Associated Press (AP) found refugees venting their anger at the government with chants of “Long live the Taliban”. Instead of winning hearts and minds, the government is delivering them to the enemy.


This is where he loses it IMHO. The reality is that ALL terrorist attacks against western targets have been planned in Pakistan - period!

Basically, Mr. Ahmad is saying that there should be no military operation is FATA, Uncle should leave, Pakistan should once again rule Afghanistan through proxies, Western governments should 'trust' the Pakistanis to stop attacks against western targets etc. If this is done, all will be well and kosher.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby Jarita » 04 Nov 2009 01:39

archan wrote:
If Taliban is on our border they will be waking up in the morning and wondering "how to crush India". India will be the next frontier

so?[/quote]


Greedy people can be managed. Fanatics cannot

I am not disagreeing with people. I just believe the answer is not as clear cut as folks are trying to make it seem. People seem to be very gung ho about what's happening in pakistan (I can understand given the role the so called moderates have played) but the direction a particular region will take depends upon past, players involved et al.
Somehow the mess in Afpak, China growling on our border simultaneously, US consorting with the good Taliban are all factors that make me nervous about the mess in the "occupied western territories of India".

archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6821
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby archan » 04 Nov 2009 02:08

Jarita wrote:Greedy people can be managed. Fanatics cannot

What about the fanatics who are greedy as well? or the greedy who are fanatics on the core but are smart enough to put up a facade of moderateness?

One thing we can be sure of, the Taliban won't be going to unkil to save their musharraf when they get their behinds kicked by us. And unkil won't be obliging even if they did.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby Jarita » 04 Nov 2009 02:29

[quote="archan
One thing we can be sure of, the Taliban won't be going to unkil to save their musharraf when they get their behinds kicked by us. And unkil won't be obliging even if they did.[/quote]


Archan, unkil will oblige Hitler if that is what it takes to achieve their strategic goals. Unkil has no emotional attachments/shattachments. If Taliban offers a trade that they will harass India and unleash 1000's of their folks on the country for Cashmere while supporting the drug and trade routes, unkil will support them. Unkil funded this monster.

shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby shaardula » 04 Nov 2009 02:29

AdityaM wrote:

Their helmets provide good protection


The caption says:
Security officials apprehending terrorists during operation Rah-e-Najat in the area.


Shouldn't it be, at the bare minimum:
Security officials apprehending suspected terrorists during operation Rah-e-Najat in the area.


if not:
Alleged Security officials apprehending their suspected terrorists brethren during "operation" Rah-e-Najat( or whatever fancy phrase) in the area.

???

I am not apologizing for the nitpick, when we all know that, when it comes to TSP and their suspected operations, the devil IS in the details. How do we know that the blindfolded men are not some random shias, for example? this is obviously foto-op. the guys are all blindfolded and tied up. why do they need guns to their neck? and why the action pose? unless ofcourse they are about to excecute them?

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby Johann » 04 Nov 2009 02:56

Rahul M wrote:Johann, the taliban modus operandi is that of a insurgent force operating in a favourable environment. they are good at this but even here they have managed to antagonise significant sections of the populace. one way to understand that discontent is to look at reactions in afghanistan following the the loss of power by taliban.

their capability or mode of operation does not translate into a significant potential to attack across the border into India nor are they flexible enough to overcome that shortcoming.
in that way, they are irrational.


Most of the PA's attempts to grab territory from the Republic of India have been failures. In that sense the PA's conventional offensive capacity has not been its most threatening element.

What has made it particularly threatening to India is its ideological challenge to Indian Republic's secular identity, its capacity for stoking violent extremism, and since the 1980s its nuclear weapons.

What we call the Taliban is a coalition of Pashtun jihadi commanders, some of whom cooperate with the PA, and others who fight it.

The Taliban can not hold on to land where they have no allies, i.e. any place there is a lack of local commanders.

There is no limit to the Taliban's expansion in the Punjab, all the way up to the Potohar, and that means there will be significant jihadi pressure on Kashmir, greater than what was seen after the Parliament attack.

The PA feared an Indian invasion in 1999 and 2001-02, hiding behind nuclear weapons. The Taliban would welcome invasion as an opportunity to fight the kafir on home soil.

The Taliban is going to be harder to deter and harder to leverage.
Last edited by Johann on 04 Nov 2009 02:58, edited 1 time in total.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby anupmisra » 04 Nov 2009 02:58

Lies, Damn Lies, and Pooki Statistics

Here's what the title says:

Most Pukistanis back war against militants: poll

Read on:

ISLAMABAD: A majority of Pakistanis support military action against Islamist militants although more people blame the United States for the violence than blame the Taliban, a poll released on Tuesday showed.


According to a Gilani Research Foundation poll conducted by Gallup Pakistan, an affiliate of Gallup International, 51 per cent of people support the government offensive.

51%! I wonder what the margin of error was in this survey?

Thirteen per cent of more than 2,700 people surveyed across the country opposed the military action while 36 per cent said they were unsure.


While a majority supported the action, only 25 per cent of respondents said the Islamists were responsible for the offensive with 35 per cent blaming the United States and 31 per cent the government.


Thirty-six per cent of people thought the offensive would improve security while 37 per cent said it would lead to a deterioration, the poll found.


In the latest survey, 37 per cent of people considered it Pakistan's war while 39 per cent saw it as America's war.


Extrapolating this, out of a population of 180 Million, 23.4 Million would be opposed to the war. 66.6 Million would be of the opinion that the war would lead to further deterioration. Furthermore, a whopping 70.2 Million would see this as fighting America's war.

Hey Congress, lets send them Pookies more US aid.

archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6821
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby archan » 04 Nov 2009 03:02

Believe it or not, even Unkil needs a certain decorum to be maintained by the people he supports. It becomes hard to justify support for a ragtag 7th century seeking force which supports a group who has killed thousands of your civilians and soldiers.

It is easy to debate while projecting a given player as 100% evil. You can dump any action on them with "they are evil, they will not stop at X, they will do Y". In reality, it is all gray and it is every country for herself.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby ramana » 04 Nov 2009 03:28

Johann wrote:
Rahul M wrote:Johann, the taliban modus operandi is that of a insurgent force operating in a favourable environment. they are good at this but even here they have managed to antagonise significant sections of the populace. one way to understand that discontent is to look at reactions in afghanistan following the the loss of power by taliban.

their capability or mode of operation does not translate into a significant potential to attack across the border into India nor are they flexible enough to overcome that shortcoming.
in that way, they are irrational.


Most of the PA's attempts to grab territory from the Republic of India have been failures. In that sense the PA's conventional offensive capacity has not been its most threatening element.

What has made it particularly threatening to India is its ideological challenge to Indian Republic's secular identity, its capacity for stoking violent extremism, and since the 1980s its nuclear weapons.

What we call the Taliban is a coalition of Pashtun jihadi commanders, some of whom cooperate with the PA, and others who fight it.

The Taliban can not hold on to land where they have no allies, i.e. any place there is a lack of local commanders.

There is no limit to the Taliban's expansion in the Punjab, all the way up to the Potohar, and that means there will be significant jihadi pressure on Kashmir, greater than what was seen after the Parliament attack.

The PA feared an Indian invasion in 1999 and 2001-02, hiding behind nuclear weapons. The Taliban would welcome invasion as an opportunity to fight the kafir on home soil.

The Taliban is going to be harder to deter and harder to leverage.


That is why BRF slogan is "destroy TSP".

In fact the fake secularism which is so divisive in India is to meet this ideological challenge to plural India.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby V_Raman » 04 Nov 2009 03:44

so secularism is the strategy is to isolate the vermin and let it decay? at what point does the plural side find out that the isolation is not going to work and the vermins might ask for a land for themselves?
Last edited by V_Raman on 04 Nov 2009 03:46, edited 1 time in total.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby svinayak » 04 Nov 2009 03:46

Johann wrote:
What has made it particularly threatening to India is its ideological challenge to Indian Republic's secular identity, its capacity for stoking violent extremism, and since the 1980s its nuclear weapons.

Lot of these are made up by media from the west with global jihad and islamists roaming the world. The concept of the global jihad and global caliphate is being promoted by the west/UK media and academics. Most of the attacks in the 90s were only in India but not many in the west. The tacit agreement between the jihadists and the west could be seen clearly during that decade.

If there was no global jihad and a vision supported by the west for global Caliphate most of the Islamists inside India would also will not bother and will not support it.

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4081
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby pgbhat » 04 Nov 2009 04:28

The limits of coercive diplomacy ------ Happymon Jacob......... Chindu
India has achieved all it can hope to with its silence; there is nothing more it can reasonably hope to gain by refusing to restart the dialogue process. Pakistan has accepted that the perpetrators of 26/11 came from its territory and has, in principle at least, agreed to prosecute them. India also helped focus the attention of the international community on Pakistan post-26/11. However, New Delhi’s insistence that it will talk to Islamabad only after Jama’at-ud-Da’wah (JuD) chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed is prosecuted may indeed be demanding too much. India should work with Pakistan to initiate Saeed’s prosecution rather than hounding Islamabad to go it alone: a strategy of pure coercion and compellence with no reasonable payoff is clearly counterproductive.

If New Delhi continues along this route, Pakistan may well up the ante against India (through border incursions, for example) in an attempt to bring India to the negotiating table: states have a tendency to behave irrationally when pushed to the corner. India’s strategy of compellence has never really worked against Pakistan. And it is unlikely to work in the future.

Another emerging trend in Pakistan is to accuse India of sponsoring terrorism against Pakistan. Today many in the Pakistan establishment are making serious allegations that India supports the Baloch insurgents as well as some Pakistan Taliban groups. While such allegations may not be wholly new, what is perhaps new is the focussed and predetermined manner in which these accusations are being made today and the manner in which this argument is gaining currency within Pakistan’s strategic elite. Although this may be purely for domestic consumption — as the international audience is unlikely to buy this line of argument — a Pakistani population and civil society unfavourably disposed towards India is not something New Delhi should ignore. It will be genuinely counterproductive for Indian interests in the long term. :roll:

More so, this shows that there is a perceptible change in Pakistan’s attitude: from being defensive and cornered in the months immediately after 26/11, it is now on the offensive. To some extent this has been a result of India’s overuse of coercive diplomacy, which it continues to indulge in without properly weighing its options in a cost-effective manner. Quite apart from the fact that this approach has degraded relations between the two countries and made Pakistan feel more insecure (which in turn may prompt it to be more belligerent), it has led the international community to regard the two countries as part of the problem rather than as part of the solution. More so, the more time India spends refusing to have a dialogue with Pakistan, the more difficult it will be for the country to start talking if and when it decides to talk.
Status quo bias

New Delhi’s unwise handling of Pakistan is a result of a deep-seated status quo bias that permeates New Delhi’s policy towards Pakistan, terrorism, and even Kashmir which in many ways is the ‘ground zero’ of Indo-Pakistan relations and India’s struggle against terrorism. This status quo bias has manifestly narrowed the Indian government’s understanding and approach to terrorism in the region.

New Delhi sometimes appears to consider terrorism a problem that is unique to India, as though no other country has ever suffered its consequences. It therefore persists with its demand that others (that is, Pakistan) ‘fix’ the problem first before it (the perpetual victim) will discuss other political and security issues.

This head-in-the-sand approach ignores the reality that terrorism is a global/regional problem requiring a global/regional solution. This solution can only be achieved in a cooperative mode and by creating cooperative mechanisms to contain the menace of terror in the region. And India needs to take the lead in this process, however challenging and long-drawn-out it may turn out to be. It is imprudent to attempt to enact unilateral measures to ‘control’ terrorism, precisely because terrorists respect no borders and are by their very nature extremely difficult to control. :roll:

A status quo bias may ‘benefit’ the painfully slow-moving Indian political and bureaucratic apparatus, but it is not beneficial for a country that desires to become a great power in an age of fast-changing international politics. To start with, therefore, New Delhi needs to shed its status quo bias and restart the dialogue with Pakistan in its own long-term strategic interests.


IOW it is all India's fault that bakis are behaving irrationally. :roll:

James B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2249
Joined: 08 Nov 2008 21:23
Location: Samjhautha Express with an IED

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby James B » 04 Nov 2009 05:06

'Pakistanis Have Blown My Comments Out Of Proportion' - C. Christine Fair

In a Foreign Affairs roundtable earlier this year you are quoted as saying: "Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity!" What did you mean by this?

I am fairly confident that every consulate in Zahedan - and I believe Pakistan has one as well - are not issuing a lot of visas. What I actually meant was something relatively innocuous that the Pakistanis picked up, took out of context and blew out of proportion, and that is that competent intelligence agencies cultivate assets. They have listening posts. They are there to gather information.

I would be surprised if consulates in countries that have competent intelligence services are not doing this all over the place. This is a relatively quotidian activity that virtually all consulates engage in. I meant something far more banal and yet benign, and quite frankly commonplace than what was attributed to me.

Were you surprised at the inclusion of Balochistan in the joint statement that came out of the Manmohan Singh-Yousaf Raza Gilani meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh?

Yes and no. Given how much the Pakistanis have been wanting so much to find some way of establishing some kind of theory of victimisation, in that sense, no, I am not surprised. But in terms of the on-the-face merits, I was really quite surprised.

The Pakistan civilian government doesn't really have any control over any of these policies. In dealing with the Pakistan government one has to wonder what is the civilian government up to and on whose behest are they acting. Pakistanis generally believe that Indians are involved in what is happening in their country. A recent poll in Pakistan found many Pakistanis believe India was behind the Islamabad Marriott and Lahore attacks.

Also, the Pakistani media is very much manipulated by the ISI. The ISI has very standard operating procedures to plant stories in the media. There have been stories about me as well... I recently learned that I am a neo-conservative with a Zionist agenda! :eek:


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby ramana » 04 Nov 2009 05:15

She still hints at sinister/sub-rosa activities going on. Her clarification is also more confusing.

In a Foreign Affairs roundtable earlier this year you are quoted as saying: "Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity!" What did you mean by this?

I am fairly confident that every consulate in Zahedan - and I believe Pakistan has one as well - are not issuing a lot of visas. What I actually meant was something relatively innocuous that the Pakistanis picked up, took out of context and blew out of proportion, and that is that competent intelligence agencies cultivate assets. They have listening posts. They are there to gather information.

I would be surprised if consulates in countries that have competent intelligence services are not doing this all over the place. This is a relatively quotidian activity that virtually all consulates engage in. I meant something far more banal and yet benign, and quite frankly commonplace than what was attributed to me.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby Airavat » 04 Nov 2009 05:27

Gagan wrote:In 47 these pashtoon irregulars were the majority of the fighting force that attacked J&K. The pakistan army came in after these guys were decimated by the Indian Army.


It's the other way round. The Pakistan army had infiltrated and was fighting in Jammu against the scattered J&K army units from September 1947, while the Pashtuns were sent into Kashmir towards the end of October.

Many more civilians were killed by the Pakistan army in J&K than by the Pashtuns in the 1947-48 war. Many of the Pashtuns have always been mercenaries first and Islamist ideologues second. With the pakistan army the reverse is the case.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby ramana » 04 Nov 2009 05:29

Pakis go from defensive to offensive when they think they have uncle's blessings with them. It has noting to do with India and Indian actions. So look for uncle's largesse to them and you will find the reason for the change in posture.

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4081
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby pgbhat » 04 Nov 2009 05:37


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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby shiv » 04 Nov 2009 05:41

anupmisra wrote:
The second photo looks like a soon-to-happen-execution.


The thought occurred to me but I it did not come out in words - thanks. This is a good pic to save and use later as psy ops "Pakistan Army executing men in gendercide" or "Pakistan army men dressed up as US army proving that they are doing unkil's job"

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby Johann » 04 Nov 2009 05:47

Acharya,

There is a lot more to the world than India and the West.

Arabs formed the core of the global jihad.

In the 1990s Arab jihadis returning from Af-Pak were overwhelmingly focused on taking over Algeria and Egypt. Westerners in those countries were in fact some of their most popular targets, along with the national leaderships.

When those jihads failed by the late 1990s they turned to jihad against the West as a whole, which they blamed for stymieing them.

Bin Laden's message was very simple - until you drive the West out of the Arab world there can be no Islamic revolution.

Many of the jihadis who fled from Algeria and Egypt stopped by in Bosnia and Chechnya before heading to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7084
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby Muppalla » 04 Nov 2009 06:12

Johann wrote:Acharya,

Many of the jihadis who fled from Algeria and Egypt stopped by in Bosnia and Chechnya before heading to Afghanistan and Pakistan.


Whatever may be the reasons, the jihadis inspite of their anti-west posture they are fighting with the same enemies/perceived-challengers of the west. Bosnia - they fought with Serbia and in Chechnya they fought with Russia. For Western Europe Yugoslovia's division is ethnic/phylosophical/religious assertion after the cold war. Russia is always an enemy even after the cold war. Irrespective of public postures India is not any friend like US to UK etc. It is again coincidental :) that these jihadis jumped to Kashmir and also against NA in Afghan areas. By the way NA is very close to Russia.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby harbans » 04 Nov 2009 06:39

Indian Hindus should have thier arms and legs amputated at birth so they cant be a threat to Pakistan later in life.


I got this statement from an unmentionable. An 'esteemed' poster that too. Defends the PA strongly. Problem is hate emanating from doctrine. Not alleged wrong doing. The rest are excuses. Doctrine is a problem. Jarita is correct. Ramana is wrong. Doctrine cannot be European, American or Asian. PA and Taliban are wrong both. One can never know who will be worse. India has to confront the doctrine at some point of time. The doctrine can never be respected as long as it aims at unbelievers as a target. No self respecting person can claim to have an iota of respect for a doctrine that labels others as Kafirs/ infidels on whom Jihad is obligatory. Confronting a geographical representation of the doctrine and saying one form of practitioners are better than the other is brushing the real problem under the carpet. Those who practice and believe in the doctrine know this is weakness. Easy to see.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby negi » 04 Nov 2009 06:48

Imho an excellent primer (specially for noobs) on various Taliban groups operating in the region and their relationship with ISI and LeT.

Talibnanized Pakistan and threat to regional security

--Maloy Krishna Dhar

I did not quote any specific paragraph as the whole article is full of nuggets of information.

--added author's name
Last edited by negi on 04 Nov 2009 06:53, edited 1 time in total.

archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6821
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby archan » 04 Nov 2009 06:52

V_Raman wrote:so secularism is the strategy is to isolate the vermin and let it decay? at what point does the plural side find out that the isolation is not going to work and the vermins might ask for a land for themselves?

Jai ho! can you please elaborate what do you mean by this?

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby shiv » 04 Nov 2009 07:18

V_Raman wrote: at what point does the plural side find out that the isolation is not going to work and the vermins might ask for a land for themselves?



At the exact point that plurality ends and the vermin/non-vermin discrimination becomes apparent.
A man is not a murderer until he commits murder. After he commits a murder he cannot be a non murderer who has murdered someone.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby anupmisra » 04 Nov 2009 07:18

shiv wrote:
anupmisra wrote:
The second photo looks like a soon-to-happen-execution.


The thought occurred to me but I it did not come out in words - thanks. This is a good pic to save and use later as psy ops "Pakistan Army executing men in gendercide" or "Pakistan army men dressed up as US army proving that they are doing unkil's job"


Or, how about " Paki army making up the taliban dead count"?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23760
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby SSridhar » 04 Nov 2009 08:55

Indian evidence in South Waziristan
Information Minster Qamar Zaman Kaira and Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General Athar Abbas have jointly vowed having “found concrete evidence of New Delhi’s involvement in the militancy in South Waziristan”. It has been decided to bring the matter to the attention of the Indian government without deviating from the policy of seeking a peace dialogue with New Delhi.

What is the evidence? Large quantities of Indian arms and ammunition, literature, medical equipment and medicines recovered from Sherwangi near Kaniguram. This is the place where the Uzbek and other foreigners had located themselves after the army launched the Rah-e-Nijat operation in South Waziristan. The foreigners have left the Kaniguram area and have relocated themselves in North Waziristan. Because of the suddenness of evacuation, they have had to leave behind the telltale signs of where they were getting their logistical support from.

India is not going to say “sorry we did it”. It is going to label the ‘findings’ as ‘staged’ by Pakistan to shift the blame for cross-border terrorism on to New Delhi. A similar case of Indian interference in Balochistan has been denied by India, but the international community, keen to see Pakistan succeed in clearing its Tribal Areas of terrorism, is gradually becoming aware of what the Indian policy in Afghanistan is doing to their efforts.

Talking to India through a protest note will not do. The NATO-US states, now deployed in Afghanistan, have to be brought in on the implications of what India is doing. New Delhi is following a strategy that is going to hurt India in the long run. This must be made clear to the global alliance against terrorism.

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4081
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby pgbhat » 04 Nov 2009 09:00

Talking to India through a protest note will not do. The NATO-US states, now deployed in Afghanistan, have to be brought in on the implications of what India is doing. New Delhi is following a strategy that is going to hurt India in the long run. This must be made clear to the global alliance against terrorism.

:rotfl: Run now, go complain to mommy.

archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6821
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby archan » 04 Nov 2009 09:02

pgbhat wrote:
Talking to India through a protest note will not do. The NATO-US states, now deployed in Afghanistan, have to be brought in on the implications of what India is doing. New Delhi is following a strategy that is going to hurt India in the long run. This must be made clear to the global alliance against terrorism.

:rotfl: Run now, go complain to mommy.

And to think it is the same suckers who wanted to "bleed India with a thousand cuts". :roll:
Ab phat rahi hai..

amdavadi
BRFite
Posts: 1468
Joined: 16 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby amdavadi » 04 Nov 2009 09:10

Aab aaya hei oont pahad ke niche

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby V_Raman » 04 Nov 2009 09:19

archan wrote:
V_Raman wrote:so secularism is the strategy is to isolate the vermin and let it decay? at what point does the plural side find out that the isolation is not going to work and the vermins might ask for a land for themselves?

Jai ho! can you please elaborate what do you mean by this?


secularism is the strategy to isolate the islamists and let the plural side develop to a point where the islamist followers will no longer find it attractive to follow them. then the islamists can be disposed off. meanwhile, the plural side might give more carrots to islamist followers to follow them instead of the islamists.

this will work under below assumptions
plural side remains plural
plural side is numerically bigger
vermin side is isolated from any foreign-vermin interference
plural side can effectively deter foreign-vermin adventures
plural side can effectively control any internal vermin dissent
plural side can put fear in the vermins about any adventures against them
plural side continues to reform itself to be some entity that one aspires to be part of

this is a monumental task!

if any of these assumptions cant be pulled off then the plural side will become increasingly non-plural and at some point react. then it might be too late as the key advantages could have been neutralized.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby negi » 04 Nov 2009 09:28

Who needs Islamists when we have Secularists ? This is not even funny.

And oh yes will the said lahori or who ever devised this convoluted logic explain as to how to ensure "plural side remains plural" unless of course everyone who is classified under 'plural' is an idiot.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1930
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby AdityaM » 04 Nov 2009 09:36

pgbhat wrote:Not only unique, astonishing too ---- Kamran Shafi


for we have long been hearing American envoys saying things merely to please their ‘tight’ buddies, mostly army dictators and their henchmen.


‘tight’ buddies, as in TFTA :rotfl:

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby Rahul M » 04 Nov 2009 10:03

V_Raman wrote:
archan wrote:Jai ho! can you please elaborate what do you mean by this?


secularism is the strategy to isolate the islamists and let the plural side develop to a point where the islamist followers will no longer find it attractive to follow them. then the islamists can be disposed off. meanwhile, the plural side might give more carrots to islamist followers to follow them instead of the islamists.

this will work under below assumptions
plural side remains plural
plural side is numerically bigger
vermin side is isolated from any foreign-vermin interference
plural side can effectively deter foreign-vermin adventures
plural side can effectively control any internal vermin dissent
plural side can put fear in the vermins about any adventures against them
plural side continues to reform itself to be some entity that one aspires to be part of

this is a monumental task!

if any of these assumptions cant be pulled off then the plural side will become increasingly non-plural and at some point react. then it might be too late as the key advantages could have been neutralized.

yes, very enlightening indeed.

and I guess vermin in this case refers to IMs ?

santoshriyer
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 16:06

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby santoshriyer » 04 Nov 2009 10:09

ISLAMABAD: The parliamentary committee on national security was provided on Tuesday evidence of Indian involvement in terrorist activities in Pakistan.

The committee, comprising senators and MNAs of all parliamentary groups, recommended setting up of a national counter-terrorism authority to analyse and assess reasons for rapid spread of terrorism and to suggest ways of eliminating it.

A meeting of the committee, presided over by Senator Mian Raza Rabbani, called for highlighting the proof of Indian support for terrorists at international forums and bringing it to the notice of Indian authorities.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik briefed the committee on the security situation in the aftermath of successful military operation in Malakand division and the ongoing operation Rah-i-Nijat in South Waziristan.

The committee asked the agencies concerned to expose foreign hands behind terrorist activities. It decided to have another briefing from the Foreign Office on the situation emerging from reports of Indian involvement in tribal areas as well as Balochistan.

According to insiders, Mr Malik said that objectives of the South Waziristan operation would be achieved soon. He said that foreign elements were helping the Taliban, but security forces were determined to flush them out.

‘There is no place for the Taliban in Pakistan. The entire nation is supporting the operation,’ the minister added.

Mr Rabbani told reporters that the meeting had been called to review the situation after the return of displaced people to Swat and Malakand and to urge the government to complete payment of compensation to the IDPs


Guys I think pakistan ISI is planning something big. All this saying India prpagates terror is that, when the terrorists attack india and many people are killed, when india points the finger towards pakistan, then pakis will do the same.

Leave cancelling of all army personnel in pak, Naval exercise. Chidambaram's statement all are following a pattern

Hari
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 29 Jan 2009 10:34
Location: Kerala

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby Hari » 04 Nov 2009 10:10

Pakistan: A Presidential Crisis at an Inopportune Moment
November 2, 2009 | 2128 GMT

VINCENZO PINTO/AFP/Getty Images

Summary
Various Pakistani opposition groups in the parliament announced that they would oppose the approval of a law that made it possible for Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to take office. The moves represent part of a bid by the Pakistani military to remove Zardari from office in a seemingly constitutional manner, and signal a showdown ahead in Islamabad while the state is struggling to fight a jihadist insurgency.

Analysis
Pakistan’s government announced Nov. 2 that it would not be tabling the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). The announcement came after an ally of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), issued a statement Nov. 2 that it will oppose the NRO in the parliament, and after MQM chief Altaf Hussain called on Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari of the PPP to sacrifice for democratic stability in the country



Other Pakistani opposition parties, most significantly the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), already have announced their opposition to the NRO, a highly controversial law promulgated by former President Pervez Musharraf in October 2007 to shore up his weakened hold on power as part of a deal with the PPP. The NRO granted amnesty to politicians accused of corruption and other criminal activity, including murder, making it possible for Zardari to seek office.

The opposition moves signal a showdown ahead in Islamabad, one which could well undermine the counterjihadist offensive currently under way in Pakistan.

While the NRO did not shore up Musharraf's hold on power, it did facilitate the return to power of the PPP leadership, most significantly Zardari. The current president assumed the mantle of the PPP after the December 2007 killing of his wife, former two-term Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, subsequently winning the presidency in September 2008. The PPP also won control of other key government positions, such as the office of prime minister and parliamentary speaker and the chairmanship of the Senate.

Despite these wins, Zardari has remained unpopular: He is widely perceived as using his office for personal gain. He also faces considerable opposition from within the national parliament; the government in the largest province, Punjab; the Pakistani judiciary; and the military. The military as an institution also has remained deeply opposed to Zardari, though it has continued to work with the president. This is due to the fact that the army and the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate feel no good alternative to Zardari exists capable of leading Pakistan. (PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif is seen as unreliable given his past struggles with the army and his recent moves to emerge as the torchbearer for democracy.)

Making Zardari even less palatable to the opposition and security establishment are the expanded presidential powers he now enjoys. Musharraf altered the system such that the Pakistani president wields more power than the prime minister. One key power of the enhanced presidency is the ability to appoint high-level army officials. This power will come into play when current army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani retires in October 2010. (Pakistan's other four-star general, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Tariq Majid, is due to retire at the same time, and current ISI chief Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha could retire as early as March 2010.) The Zardari government would like to use this opportunity to appoint generals of its own choice to these top military and intelligence posts, something the armed forces deem extremely unacceptable. The military thus would like to see Zardari's departure from office before that can happen.

Further complicating the situation is the aid package for Pakistan recently signed into law by U.S. President Barack Obama. The package calls for civilian supremacy over the military in Pakistan, and represents a bid by Washington to work with the Zardari government to rein in the Pakistani military. The Obama administration feels that unless the army is brought under civilian control, Washington cannot deal with the region's Taliban problem. This is because the Pakistani security establishment draws a distinction between "good" Taliban that fight in Afghanistan and "bad" Taliban that wage war in Pakistan. The Pakistani military, a historic partner of successive U.S. administrations, sees the alignment of the Obama administration with the Zardari government as further undermining its position at a time when the Pakistani military's power within the country already has weakened because of the rise of civilian forces and a raging Taliban insurgency.

Both this domestic situation and pressure from Washington have placed considerable limits on the military's ability to send Pakistan's government packing. Consequently, the establishment has sought to use its influence to help align forces against the president, forcing him out of office with a veneer of legality. The goal is thus not to unseat the current government, but to get rid of Zardari in such a way that looks like the byproduct of a constitutional process rather than of a coup -- a return to the times when the military dismissed four different governments between 1985 and 1999. Riling up the opposition against the NRO is thus a means of forcing the president into a corner.

Now that the government has decided against submitting the law for parliamentary review, the situation has become even more complex. It is likely that the NRO will now be brought before the Supreme Court. But even if the judiciary were to strike down the amnesty law, it will not automatically lead to the dismissal of the president.

It will, however, create a crisis of legitimacy for Zardari, making it difficult for him to continue as president. It is too early to predict the outcome of the moves to oust the president, especially since Zardari -- who has spent several years in jail in the past -- is not expected to quit without a fight. But it is not too early to predict that the current struggle bodes ill for U.S. objectives in the region and for Islamabad's own war against jihadists.

http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/148188/analysis/20091102_pakistan_presidential_crisis_inopportune_moment

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby negi » 04 Nov 2009 10:16

This is completely OT but Raman's take on secularism is faulty for appeasement and pandering to unjustified and wrong ideas/people is only justified when the situation has deteriorated to a point where confrontation is not in Nation's interest (in my case Nation also belongs to the 'plurals').

Since we are talking about a real world problem whose origins are known to one and all , it is needless to say that the so called rogue Islamists and other fundamentalists did not appear overnight , they infact thrived on a socio-political atmosphere where 'plurals' were taken for granted and so called 'minority' pampered for no reason (in word word 'Secularism').

The fundoos have gone out of control and the years of pampering and obvious indifference of the 'plurals' will only push a common and otherwise innocent IM deeper into the clutches of the fundoos. Secularists have only acted as pimps all this while creating imaginary monsters out of those who opposed them .

ps: Secularism in Indian context is not what english lexicon says it is.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby RayC » 04 Nov 2009 10:22

V_Raman wrote:
secularism is the strategy to isolate the islamists and let the plural side develop to a point where the islamist followers will no longer find it attractive to follow them. then the islamists can be disposed off. meanwhile, the plural side might give more carrots to islamist followers to follow them instead of the islamists.

this will work under below assumptions
plural side remains plural
plural side is numerically bigger
vermin side is isolated from any foreign-vermin interference
plural side can effectively deter foreign-vermin adventures
plural side can effectively control any internal vermin dissent
plural side can put fear in the vermins about any adventures against them
plural side continues to reform itself to be some entity that one aspires to be part of

this is a monumental task!

if any of these assumptions cant be pulled off then the plural side will become increasingly non-plural and at some point react. then it might be too late as the key advantages could have been neutralized.


Please answer Archan in clear language.

Your statement:

so secularism is the strategy is to isolate the vermin and let it decay?

obviously does not mean Pakistanis, since Pakistan is NOT a secular country. It obviously means what Rahul M has wondered with his - I guess vermin in this case refers to IMs.

We await clarification.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby negi » 04 Nov 2009 10:25

I guess as per Raman Vermin=Islamists (Islamic fundamentalists) not IMs . However I would wait for him to clarify.

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

Postby milindc » 04 Nov 2009 10:29

santoshriyer wrote:Leave cancelling of all army personnel in pak, Naval exercise. Chidambaram's statement all are following a pattern

Per Times Now, Army Chief Deepak Kapoor, issued a statement today, India can't afford another 26/11 type attack. The GoI is openly communicating to Pakis to desist from another attack.
I definitely think they have some solid intel on impending attack.
btw, there is heavy security for the Ind-Aus match tomorrow at Hyderabad.

I'm taking my kid for his first match tomorrow :D


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests