Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

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.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby arun » 07 Feb 2010 18:13

JE Menon wrote:Masaru, where did you get those maps from? Pls post link. Haven't seen them before, and story related as well...


That would likely be a waste of your time.

Reading the article using the link posted by Shravan in the post immediately below yours does nothing to allay my suspicion that these maps are anything more than a ploy by a thoroughly obscure Delhi based magazine to boost circulation by peddling sensationalism to the Indian public.

shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby shravan » 07 Feb 2010 18:29

Five family members of ex-PAF official killed

Unknown intruders opened firing in the house of a retired official of Pakistan Air Force killing five members of the family and injured two others, a private TV reported.

Unknown gunmen entered in the house of retired PAF official Aslam at Liaquat Colony in Cantt police station precinct in Sargodha when he had left the house to offer prayers.

The armed men opened indiscriminate firing in the house killing wife, three daughters and a son of Aslam. A daughter and a son were seriously injured in shooting and transferred to Civil Hospital in precarious condition. Police investigating into the incident.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby JE Menon » 07 Feb 2010 18:31

Yes, it is an exposure by powerpolitics. Self-exposure.

Still, the maps can come in handy.

Even the story :twisted:

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23913
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby SSridhar » 07 Feb 2010 18:46

A Review of the book, "Foreign Policy Making Process"
In a paper he contributed to a workshop on the subject Lt. General (retd) Asad Durrani bluntly asserts that our foreign office ‘does not make the policy. It, however, is responsible for its management.’

Discussing the role of intelligence agencies in policy formulation, he admits the foreign office’s primacy, but that is only in principle. In practice, the defining inputs are provided by the military, since Pakistan is a ‘security state’.

The foreign office where our career diplomats sit has simply a secondary managerial role, at the stage of implementation or presentation only, which amounts to saying that our embassies in world capitals are retail sale counters for a product it has had no or little share in manufacturing.


None of the participants of the workshop organised by Karachi University’s department of international relations comprising former ambassadors, foreign policy experts and analysts differed with the general on this conclusion.

Their papers published in a collection edited by Moonis Ahmar, the department’s chairman, more or less corroborate this opinion, sometimes more strongly.
Former ambassador Tariq Fatemi, while discussing the packing of the foreign ministry with military officers both serving and retired notes with amusement a favourite joke of the Zia days.


Foreign diplomats in Islamabad gloated in repeating they ‘come cross more military officers in the foreign office than in the defence ministry!’ Fatemi speaks of ‘two separate and parallel policies’ that ‘were pursued, one by the foreign office and the other by the intelligence agencies’ in relation to Afghanistan and India.


He also holds that ‘while both prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were desirous of normalising relations with India and favouring gradual disengagement from Afghanistan’s domestic politics, they were prevented from undertaking these tasks by the intelligence agencies.’
Foreign Policy Making Process
Edited by Moonis Ahmar
Department of International Relations, University of Karachi
ISBN 8550-05-9

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8282
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby anupmisra » 07 Feb 2010 18:49

Pakistan beat India to win hockey gold AoA.
I am now waiting for Zaid "New Mahdi" Hamid (pbuh) to spin this earth shattering news into a new found reason for pa'astanees to pick themselves up, pull up their socks, and not lose any further hope in the year 2010. As you know Allah throws the purelanders one morsel of good news every year which fills their hungry stomachs, lifts their sagging morales and keeps them going like charged-up beavers for another twelve months.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby A_Gupta » 07 Feb 2010 18:52

shiv wrote:Let me give you a rating scale:
I) Dangerous/Grave injury threatening loss of life?
II) Grievous injury that threatens loss of a limb or eye?
III) Severe injury like a deep cut that can lead to severe blood loss or reduced function of a body part?
IV) Trivial injury that can be sustained indefinitely?
V) Bee stings?
VI) Mosquito bite?


There is another analogy - of immune system response. Sometimes, the inflammation becomes a bigger threat to the body than the problem that caused the inflammation. Or e.g. think of an allergic reaction.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Dipanker » 07 Feb 2010 19:12

Can we move all SRK related discussion to Nukkad or some other thread?

shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby shravan » 07 Feb 2010 19:20

Inspector Bomb Disposal transferred to Sukkur as punishment

KARACHI: Inspector Bomb Disposal Squad Karachi, Munir Ahmed Sheikh has been transferred to Sukkur for what appears to be the punishment for telling the truth. :lol:

He was serving as Karachi Incharge for Bomb Disposal Squad which reports directly to IG Police.

Munir Ahmed Sheikh had briefed media on the Karachi bomb blasts on the occasion of Chehlum of Imam Hussain (AS). He also spoke about the dearth of resources in the Squad which were not liked the high ups and he was transferred to Sukkur on the pretext that a seat of inspector is vacant there.

Talking to Geo News, Inspector Munir Ahmed had said that the Squad did not have any modern equipment and that he performed his assigned responsibilities by leaving all the matters to the will of Allah almighty.

Bheem
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 10:27
Location: Vyom

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Bheem » 07 Feb 2010 19:29

Paul wrote:
I hope MEA, MOD and INC/BJP play their roles in checking MMS and protecting Indian interests.


Fast changing events in Afghania post withdrawal will bring MMS to his senses (Is he doing this because he sees PRC looming threat as highest priority with Pak as manageable for time being???). In the meantime the indian awam will pay the price for putting economic development as higher priority above national security....reminds me of the story in Mahabharat where people of a village sacrifice one person to a danav as hafta so that other may live on (until Bheema puts a stop to it).

IKG had also shown signs of coming to reality by the time he was leaving office (BTW....he personally played a role in asking NS to desist from passing MANPADS to the terrorists in valley). While IKG may be seen in WKK crowd with his paki friends, I do not see him amongst the prominent advocates advocating uni-concessions to Pakistan (I could be wrong here). There is a difference here...is he playing this role in his personal capacity only?

One key difference this time in the pressure to talk to Pakistan is that we do not see other Indian lefties/libs like Vinod Mehta (of "ABV: Pick up the line and talk to Mush" fame) Frontline/JNU profs - Kamal Chinoy etc. pressuring GOI to talk to Pakistan. Is it becuz' they know that the anger against Pakistan due 26/11 is reaching point of no return?

Is this cause of hope.... :((



I don't want to give up on MMS. My alternative theory is that MMS is letting Foreign office mouth platitudes while doing "to be or not to be" on talks. He is telling Chids to be prepared for further attacks. While his Chanakiyan self might be doing somethings through "secrets ops" what Pakistanis deserve. I was talking to an ex-high official from Pakistan few months back and he was telling me that Pakistan has lost control over vast swats of territory in NWFP and Baloch i.e. why they use PAF, as Army cannot reach a lot of places.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby shiv » 07 Feb 2010 19:36

Masaru wrote:
Why do they not color B'desh and what do those random color gradients signify?
Somebody was too high while photoshopping? :D

In 2012
Image

In 2020
Image

If wishes were horses ... [please fill in]


Sorry to quote the whole original post. And I will be frank with my thoughts

If wishes were horses I would be able to indicate those borders with a pee stain while relieving myself on a map of the world and write the label "Pakistan" on the same map in real-time using my own crap and appropriate body movements.

Sorry. It's nearly time for me to retreat to my dark narrow hole for prayers. Needed to cleanse my mind..

JEM the pics are from here
http://www.powerpolitics.in/Issues/012009/

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby shiv » 07 Feb 2010 19:41

A_Gupta wrote:There is another analogy - of immune system response. Sometimes, the inflammation becomes a bigger threat to the body than the problem that caused the inflammation. Or e.g. think of an allergic reaction.



This is the 80000000000000000000 deaths and rapes in Kashmir analogy. The defensive force is being accused.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby A_Gupta » 07 Feb 2010 20:36

shiv wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:There is another analogy - of immune system response. Sometimes, the inflammation becomes a bigger threat to the body than the problem that caused the inflammation. Or e.g. think of an allergic reaction.



This is the 80000000000000000000 deaths and rapes in Kashmir analogy. The defensive force is being accused.


No, I think you misunderstood me. The point is does GOI tolerate the relatively minor loss of control that is made evident by terrorist attacks out of the fear/or calculation that a strong response will likely result in events going totally out of control?

PS: as a simple-minded example - India could start militarizing society to deal with the terrorist threat, future threat of China, etc.. But militarization itself can have negative effects that cannot be contained.
Last edited by A_Gupta on 07 Feb 2010 20:39, edited 1 time in total.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23913
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby SSridhar » 07 Feb 2010 20:38

The proposed talks
India has proposed February 18 and 25 to Pakistan for Foreign Secretary-level talks as part of a “practical and pragmatic” approach to seek redressal of its core concern of cross-border terrorism but warns that there will be a huge setback if 26/11 is repeated.

According to sources India underlines that the proposed Foreign Secretary-level talks would not mean resumption of composite dialogue even though it is ready to discuss whatever issue Pakistan raises, including Balochistan, as it wants to deal with the situation in a “mature” and “confident” manner.

From the Indian side, cross-border terrorism and infiltration, which witnessed a marked increase last year, will be the “centre-piece” of the proposed meeting.

The offer of talks is a “practical and pragmatic approach” to seek redressal of India’s concerns with regard to cross-border terrorism, the sources said, adding the intention is to convey its point of view directly to the Pakistani establishment rather than “firing salvos.”

India has made it clear that there cannot be any “meaningful dialogue” or “normalisation” of relations until its prime concern of cross-border terrorism is addressed by Pakistan.

Rejecting Pakistan’s contention that it would not be able to prevent a repeat of 26/11, the sources said that if such an incident takes place again, there will be a “huge setback” to the efforts to normalise relations.

Sources here underlined that meaningful dialogue cannot take place in an environment of terror or even the threat of terror and put the onus on Pakistan government to address these issues.

“Pakistan must take all necessary steps to prevent any incident like Mumbai attacks,” the sources said.

In this regard, India highlights its concern over the February 4 joint public meeting in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir of various terror groups, which was addressed by Hafiz Saeed, chief of banned Jamaat-ud-Dawah and talked about jihad against India.

India’s disappointment over Pakistan’s inaction over the public provocative speeches will be put across the Foreign Secretary talks.

India emphasises that the Pakistan government cannot throw its hands up on this and those “in-charge” or “taking decisions” in Pakistan will have to think about these aspects.

shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby shravan » 07 Feb 2010 20:42

http://twitter.com/smitaprakash

sources have also indicated that opening of communication has ok from all major pol.parties(yes even BJP behind closed doors)-not my wrds

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), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Dilbu » 07 Feb 2010 20:57

We are only talking about overt reaction against TSP here. The effectiveness of covert action needs to be debated. The diminished capability of our assets and past gaffes like gujral doctrine etc are well documented but recently there is an evident spike in the readiness levels and activities. IMHO we should read this in connection with PC's 'different ball game'. In some other dhaga someone was saying how we successfully used covert ops to bring down terrorism in Punjab, during Rajiv Gandhi era. (I know, if wishes were horses porkis would ride but then again..)

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby shiv » 07 Feb 2010 21:16

SSridhar wrote:The proposed talks
India has proposed February 18 and 25 to Pakistan for Foreign Secretary-level talks as part of a “practical and pragmatic” approach to seek redressal of its core concern of cross-border terrorism but warns that there will be a huge setback if 26/11 is repeated.



What India is doing is telling Pakistan the threshold below which India will not complain of pain.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Satya_anveshi » 07 Feb 2010 21:59

if India does not get its way or pak gets it too much, we should tell big bad guy...stay put fukka and you ain't going no where. a few more incidents in afghanistan and public messages from present afghan govt will divide the janta in big bad land.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby harbans » 07 Feb 2010 22:03

By now it should be clear to the most obtuse cold war all American idiot sitting in the Pentagon and US State Department establishment, that there is no stabilizing Afghanistan or destroying AQ/ Taliban till one takes on Terror Central of the region and beyond: The PA. Clear as daylight now for those folks to see the problem is in/ is Pakistan not India, Kashmir, Afghanistan.

Masaru
BRFite
Posts: 242
Joined: 18 Aug 2009 05:46

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Masaru » 07 Feb 2010 22:27

JE Menon wrote:Masaru, where did you get those maps from? Pls post link. Haven't seen them before, and story related as well...


JEM sir, the source is here, which itself quotes from here. Not sure about genuineness of either, however, 'India 2020 map' in google throws up lots of other references too.

Added later: Saw that members have already dug out the references. :)

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6948
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Anujan » 07 Feb 2010 22:36

This is from Pakistani FM Shah Mehmood Qureshi

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/18-india-wanted-to-isolate-pakistan-diplomatically-am-03

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that it was Islamabad's stance that pushed India to the negotiating table. "Pakistan did not bow down before India. In fact, it was Islamabad's stance that brought India to the negotiating table," stated Qureshi on Sunday. Earlier, in an interview to a private television channel, Qureshi had said that India wanted to isolate Pakistan diplomatically, but they failed due to effective diplomatic efforts by Islamabad.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10030
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby sum » 07 Feb 2010 22:47

There is something weird going on. The amount of bragging is a bit too much, even for Paki standards.

No sane( even by MMS standards) govt will tolerate such nonsense being hurled at them by the other side even before actual talks have begun.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby RamaY » 07 Feb 2010 22:55

Boy this thread moves fast!

On the question on the “Purposeful-ness of GOI response” and associated reasoning. I start with my Gurudev’s quote!

shiv wrote:You know people if you look at India as a human and the GoI as the brain (or mind) of the human, what would you rate Pakistan's action against India as, and what rating do you think the GoI gives the injury the nation receives from Paquiland. Please expand with reasoning if possible.

Let me give you a rating scale:
I) Dangerous/Grave injury threatening loss of life?
II) Grievous injury that threatens loss of a limb or eye?
III) Severe injury like a deep cut that can lead to severe blood loss or reduced function of a body part?
IV) Trivial injury that can be sustained indefinitely?
V) Bee stings?
VI) Mosquito bite?


It is correct that GOI is the central nervous system of Indian physical body of consciousness. Now the scale given to measure Pakiness ranges from an existential threat to a mere mosquito bite. This analogy/analysis seeks to justify India’s non-responsiveness by undermining the threat perception. I do not see any other reason for such a illogical question, especially the mosquito/bee/paki pronounces you an existential threat and proclaims to carry a thousand year, thousand cut war. It is very important to note that the so-called mosquito possesses a nuclear device (owned/borrowed/stolen).

At the end, the problem boils down to the nature of GOI that not only misjudges the paki-problem, but also issues unrelated and insufficient responses. Some part in India’s central nervous system believes that it must not hurt the nuke-capable, terrorist bee as it has the means to survive as a nation with the continual attacks from the bee. Sounds very benign as is.

However the fundamental error in this analogy is that it doesn’t treat Pakistan as another human entity (with TSPA as its central nervous system) and instead sees it as a mere bee/mosquito. If we apply the body/mind analogy to India then it is dealing with a nuke-armed, sadistic, terminally-ill Paki.

Once we get the model/analogy correct, this question becomes meaningless.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6794
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby CRamS » 08 Feb 2010 00:15

shiv wrote:You know people if you look at India as a human and the GoI as the brain (or mind) of the human, what would you rate Pakistan's action against India as, and what rating do you think the GoI gives the injury the nation receives from Paquiland. Please expand with reasoning if possible.

Let me give you a rating scale:
I) Dangerous/Grave injury threatening loss of life?
II) Grievous injury that threatens loss of a limb or eye?
III) Severe injury like a deep cut that can lead to severe blood loss or reduced function of a body part?
IV) Trivial injury that can be sustained indefinitely?
V) Bee stings?
VI) Mosquito bite?


I would unequivocally say "I". Just a few targeted bombs sponsored by TSPA/ISI in India's metros with the help of "Indians" has the potential to wreack economic havoc & communal blood-letting.
Last edited by CRamS on 08 Feb 2010 00:46, edited 1 time in total.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Postby ArmenT » 08 Feb 2010 00:22

Pakistan's Baghdad Bob
This is a hilarious read. :rotfl:

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4127
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby pgbhat » 08 Feb 2010 00:47

^IIRC Anujanullah had posted this weeks back.... repost but still good for laughs. :lol:

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6794
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby CRamS » 08 Feb 2010 00:51

Coming back to lack of nationalism in India; see the difference, in US football elist to go & fight half way across the world, albet foolishly, in a rage of crass nationalism to fight the terrorist who attacked them; while in contrast, Indian sportsmen like this guy who have a demi God status cant even call into question terrorism sponsored by TSP: Politics shouldn't interfere in cricket bhai chara.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6794
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby CRamS » 08 Feb 2010 00:53

Refreshing, frank talk by a secularist.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8282
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re:

Postby anupmisra » 08 Feb 2010 01:51

ArmenT wrote:Pakistan's Baghdad Bob
This is a hilarious read. :rotfl:


Why does Pindi Paul look like an SDRE? New convert from the Gangetic plains?

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7089
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Muppalla » 08 Feb 2010 02:30

TWIW
India caves in, ready to talk Balochistan

PTI | New Delhi

Proposes dates for Foreign Secy-level talks with Pak


India has proposed February 18 and 25 to Pakistan for Foreign Secretary-level talks as part of a “practical and pragmatic” approach to seek redressal of its core concern of cross-border terrorism but warns that there will be a huge setback if 26/11 is repeated.

India underlines that the proposed Foreign Secretary-level talks would not mean resumption of composite dialogue even though it is ready to discuss whatever issue Pakistan raises, including Balochistan, as it wants to deal with the situation in a “mature” and “confident” manner.

From the Indian side, cross-border terrorism and infiltration, which witnessed a marked increase last year, will be the “centre-piece” of the proposed meeting. Under the composite dialogue eight issues, including Jammu & Kashmir and terrorism were discussed in four rounds of talks before it was “paused” in November 2008 in the wake of Mumbai attacks.

The Foreign Secretary-level talks are “not composite dialogue but just dialogue” to “unlock” the channels of communication frozen since 26/11 attacks, sources said on Sunday.

The offer of talks is a “practical and pragmatic approach” to seek redressal of India’s concerns with regard to cross-border terrorism, the sources said, adding the intention is to convey its point of view directly to the Pakistani establishment rather than “firing salvos”.

In the ice-breaking decision, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao has invited her Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir here for talks and proposed February 18 and 25 for the same.

While offering Foreign Secretary-level talks as an “incremental step”, India has made it clear that there cannot be any “meaningful dialogue” or “normalisation” of relations until its prime concern of cross-border terrorism is addressed by Pakistan.

Rejecting Pakistan’s contention that it would not be able to prevent a repeat of 26/11, the sources said that if such an incident takes place again, there will be a “huge setback” to the efforts to normalise relations. {what if Ghatkopar type and Gokul chat type events happen then it is ok? Only if rich, mighty and goras are attacked then it is not Okay?}

Sources here underlined that meaningful dialogue cannot take place in an environment of terror or even the threat of terror and put the onus on Pakistan Government to address these issues.

“Pakistan must take all necessary steps to prevent any incident like Mumbai attacks,” the sources said.

In this regard, India highlights its concern over the February 4 joint public meeting in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir of various terror groups, which was addressed by Hafiz Saeed, chief of banned Jamaat-ud-Dawah and talked about jihad against India.

India’s disappointment over Pakistan’s inaction over the public provocative speeches will be put across the Foreign Secretary talks.

India emphasises that the Pakistan Government cannot throw its hands up on this and those “in-charge” or “taking decisions” in Pakistan will have to think about these aspects. “But we need to talk to each other, rather than at each other,” the sources said.

However, for any meaningful talks, Pakistan “will have to be conscious and sensitive” to India’s concerns and crack down on terror groups and individuals.

In response to India’s proposal for talks, Pakistan High Commissioner Shahid Malik met Nirupama Rao on Thursday to know what would be the agenda and was told that “difficulties” like terrorism would be the issue to be discussed.

There was “nothing contentious” during the 45-minute meeting between Rao and Malik, the sources said, adding Pakistan is expected to respond to India’s offer in a couple of days.

Rejecting the contention that timing for the talks was premature, the sources noted that Pakistan had taken “some steps” to prosecute seven of those involved in 26/11 attacks but underlines that the process has to be taken to logical conclusion in terms of punishing them and unveiling the entire conspiracy.

India also expects Pakistan to arrest Hafiz Saeed and 13 others, who were also involved in the Mumbai attacks. There is need to build “trust and confidence” in the “complex relations,” they said.

Insisting that the proposal to hold talks after 14-month gap was “dictated” by India itself without anybody else suggesting it, they said it reflects the country’s “maturity” and “confidence” to deal with issues that concern it. “We have to give peace a chance,” the sources said, while noting India was not entering talks with any “illusions”.

On whether the talks between the Foreign Secretaries could lead to comprehensive dialogue on identified outstanding issues or India would like to wait till prosecution in 26/11 is taken to logical end, the Government here is not willing to pre-judge such aspects.

With regard to 26/11, India continues to believe that some elements in Pakistani establishment were “aware” or “privy” to plans of attack, particularly since Lashkar-e Tayyeba has been used as an instrument of state policy, which is now recoiling on Pakistan itself.

Justifying the decision to have talks, the sources said India had never shut the door for dialogue while always maintaining that any meaningful dialogue cannot take place till its concerns on terrorism are addressed by Pakistan. {what is complex statement that we will talk but not meaningfully :) until ..... }

The sources revealed that the Foreign Secretary had been in touch with her Pakistani counterpart, talking over phone, even before she invited him to Delhi for talks about a week back, discussing “how to unlock” the process of engagement.

“Relations between countries never remain “static” but these are dynamic... We can’t completely erase what makes relations exist between neighbours,” they said.

“Clearly the infrastructure of terror continues to exist in Pakistan but we can’t ignore the steps Pakistan has taken although it has not taken all steps,” they sources said.

“Dialogue is the only way forward to seek redressal to our concerns... Engaging Pakistan is the only way forward,” they said, adding the FS-level talks were intended to deal with various aspects of the relationship like people-to-people contacts, confidence building, trade and consular access.

Refusing to accept that India had changed stance and mellowed down, the sources said absence of communication had not helped Pakistan and the neighbour needed to introspect.

Expressing India’s readiness to “listen” if Pakistan has “any concerns” on Balochistan, the sources said India need not be scared of it as it has done “nothing untoward” anywhere in Pakistan.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby harbans » 08 Feb 2010 02:39

Anup ji, have you ever compared the Indian cricket team to the Paki cricket team for example. I did so with a friend. Both team pics were in a sports magazine. I asked her an inane question who did she think were the more handsome team. Now what do you think a girl would say? You know with Chuckther and Kaneria and frankly i don't even know their names..and can't now distinguish them with their flowing beards, she said the Indian team was hundred times more smarter and handsome looking. Now that was one subjective thing i never seriously delved into till i started going through deff n dumb type fora for understanding Paki piskology.

I mean even talking about generalized things like looks/ color compared to ability seems so idiotic here amongst what i consider civilized folks defending the best traditions that humanity can and has thrown up, irrespective of having sdre or tfta features, against a set of mongrels who want to claim to be some tfta closer to 'master white race' syndrome. It seems so utterly idiotic and racist. Coming to think about that, i always thought the average Indian young cricketer had a better and more positive aura than the Paki team members. My friend i know was not a cricket fan, and she commented in less than 5 seconds,. I guess on hindsight she was right. Paki lurks show the girls team photographs of the 2, and they'd prefer the Indian ones.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby harbans » 08 Feb 2010 02:44

India caves in, ready to talk Balochistan


Do the Paki's know what happened when India decided to last talk about East Pakistan? :mrgreen:


deWalker
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby deWalker » 08 Feb 2010 03:31

shiv wrote:
What India is doing is telling Pakistan the threshold below which India will not complain of pain.


Shiv,

Your earlier game theory email is the right way to approach this problem. Your starting point may not be detailed enough - it may need a "Sim City" virtual game to truly play out all the possibilities. "What happens if we start a war? What happens if we start an insurgency in Baluchistan / Karachi?" The fact is, all actions have consequences. But such a complex program would take too much time to write...

Additionally, we are dealing with an adversary that (relatively speaking) has nothing to lose. While an attack might be emotionally gratifying, the resultant impact on Paqui trade & commerce will be negligible when compared to India's loss in the same realms. Point being - the responses to various circumstances need to be carefully evaluated before acting.

One way we can play this game is to appoint "players" on this forum to represent Indian and Paqui sides. And pose them a starting point - say Mumbai 26/11 attacks. This might be a very interesting thread! No comments, only observing 2 players who make their moves (and tell us why they do so). I expect that some scenarios will play out very quickly, and the aam junta on this forum (including myself) will quickly learn something from this experiment. Once one scenario is completed, we can explore alternate responses to the same starting point.

Diwakar

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby A_Gupta » 08 Feb 2010 04:15

From an appeal to the Prime Minister not to " reward Pakistan's twenty-two year old state policy of mass murder" or its "even older strategy of irresponsible grievance mongering by the Pakistani elite which dates from before India's independence" and to note the following "historical stances that peaceful settlements cannot be built upon appeasement of the excesses indulged by the other side."
B.R. Ambedkar wrote in his 'Pakistan or the Partition of India':
"It seems to me that the Congress has failed to realize two things. The first thing which the Congress has failed to realize is that there is a difference between appeasement and settlement, and that the difference is an essential one. Appeasement means buying off the aggressor by conniving at his acts of murder, rape, arson and loot against innocent persons who happen for the moment to be the victims of his displeasure.

On the other hand, settlement means laying down the bounds which neither party to it can transgress. Appeasement sets no limits to the demands and aspirations of the aggressor. Settlement does. The second thing the Congress has failed to realize is that the policy of concession has increased Muslim aggressiveness, and what is worse, Muslims interpret these concessions as a sign of defeatism on the part of the Hindus and the absence of the will to resist.

This policy of appeasement will involve the Hindus in the same fearful situation in which the Allies found themselves as a result of the policy of appeasement which they adopted towards Hitler. This is another malaise, no less acute than the malaise of social stagnation. Appeasement will surely aggravate it. The only remedy for it is a settlement.

If Pakistan is a settlement, it is a proposition worth consideration. As a settlement it will do away with this constant need of appeasement and ought to be welcomed by all those who prefer the peace and tranquillity of a settlement to the insecurity due to the growing political appetite shown by the Muslims in their dealings with the Hindus."


B.R. Ambedkar also wrote in 'Pakistan or the Partition of India':

"All I would like to say in this connection is that the Hindus before determining their attitude towards this question [of Pakistan] should note certain important considerations.

In particular they should note that there is a difference between Macht Politic [Power politics] and Gravamin Politic[in which the main strategy is to gain power by manufacturing grievances.] ; that there is a difference between Communitas Communitatum and a nation of nations; that there is a difference between safeguards to allay apprehensions of the weak and contrivances to satisfy the ambition for power of the strong: that there is a difference between providing safeguards and handing over the country.

Further, they should also note that what may with safety be conceded to Gravamin Politic may not be conceded to Macht Politic. What may be conceded with safety to a community may not be conceded to a nation and what may be conceded with safety to the weak to be used by it as a weapon of defence may not be conceded to the strong who may use it as a weapon of attack.

These are important considerations and, if the Hindus overlook them, they will do so at their peril."


Sardar Patel is quoted by N.P.A.Smith in mid-1946 on the same subject(The Tranfer of Power Volume VIII, Nicholas Mansergh and Penderel Moon):

I told him[Sardar Patel]...that any attempt to force the Muslim would result, through the disintegration of the police and Army in the loss of NW India. His reply was that, if I thought that generosity would placate the Muslim Oliver Twist, I did not understand either the Muslim mind or the situation. With which statement I am tempted to agree...


After the barbarity of Direct Action Day August 16 1946, Pandit J.N. Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi were told by Viceroy Wavell that unless Congress signed on the dotted line accepting the British(and Jinnah's) interpretation of the Cabinet Mission Plan, India's Constituent Assembly would not be summoned.

Mahatma Gandhi later wrote (28 August 1946, The Transfer of Power, Vol. VIII, Nicholas Mansergh and Penderel Moon):
"Nor can the Congress be expected to bend itself and adopt what it considers the wrong course because of the brutal exhibition recently witnessed in Bengal. Such submissions would itself lead to an encouragement and repetition of such tragedies. The vindictive spirit on either side would go deeper, biding for an opportunity to exhibit itself more fiercely and more disgracefully when occasion occurs. All this will be chiefly due to the continued presence in India of a foreign power strong and proud of its arms."


Jawaharlal Nehru later wrote to Viceroy Wavell (28 August 1946, The Transfer of Power, Vol. VIII, Nicholas Mansergh and Penderel Moon)

"All of us are extremely anxious to do everything in our power to promote communal harmony, but the way you suggest seems to us to lead to a contrary result. To change our declared policy, which is generally acknowledged to be fair, because of intimidation is surely not the way to peace but is an encouragement of further intimidation and violence. We
are therefore unable to accept your proposal.

I should like to add that we have been considerably perturbed at this new approach and its implications. If we are to form the Provisional Government, we must necessarily shoulder great responsibilities for the peace and progress of our people. No Government can function if it is treated as if responsibility lay elsewhere and it had to submit in vital matters to proposals with which it was in disagreement.

Your reference to the non-summoning of the Constituent Assembly, unless the course suggested by you was adopted by us, seemed to us extraordinary and this produced a feeling of resentment in my colleagues. If this is your view and is going to be acted upon by you then the whole structure built up during recent months falls to the ground.

We are clearly of opinion that it is both a legal and moral obligation now to go on with the Constituent Assembly. It has already been elected and though it has not met, it exists already and must start functioning at an early date.

It cannot be held up because some people do not choose to join it and disturbances take place in a country. We agree that it would be desirable for all concerned to join it and we shall make every effort to win the cooperation of others. But if they refuse to join, then the Constituent Assembly must proceed without them. .."


JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic RepubliFc of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby JE Menon » 08 Feb 2010 05:15

Harbans, that's the funny part.

The Paks want to talk about Baluchistan... We'll talk to them about it.

Here's how it will go...

Pakisatan: Now on to the subject of Baluchistan, specifically terrorism event XYZ perpetrated by ABC, with funds and weapons from IB :twisted:

Chankianbania: What do you want to discuss exactly?

Pakisatan: Why are you supplying money and weapons to Baluchistan?

Chankianbania: Government :twisted: will never do anything of the kind. It is our firm policy that such actions will lead to blow-back of the kind you are now facing up and down your country. But we can tell you that if you continue as you are doing in Baluchistan you will be making things worse for yourself.

Pakisatan: You are lying. We have the evidence, the PROOF that you are supplying money and weapons.

Chankianbania: We appreciate your candour sir. Please furnish the proof - a dossier will do just fine, in triplicate if you don't mind (so many agencies, so little time) - and we will look at it thoroughly and take any action if such activies are found to be happening. We have no non-state actors. So if such a thing is happening, it must b state actors. Of course, we are speaking with the full confidence that we are doing nothing against your interest in Baluchistan. As prime minister after prime minister has said, a stable Pakistan is in our best interests. (Takes a sip of tea, and pushes the biskoot plate towards the Pakisatan which is now showing early signs of apoplexy).

Pakisatan: How dare you say that our actions in Baluchistan will make things worse for us? You are interfering in our internal affairs. Baluchistan is not Kashmir. It is not a disputed territory.

Chankianbania: Of course not. We agree. Baluchistan is not a disputed territory. We don't want to interfere in your internal affairs, god forbid. What is your analysis of the situation there? As far as we are concerned there are too many external players involved there, and this may be part of the problem. You know Iranians, Americans, Chinese and others too. Why would we get involved there. Baluchistan is not Kashmir. (Takes a biskoot). Tea?

Pakisatan: (Now veins bulging and unsure exactly where he's at in the discussion...) You kow there will be a heavy price to pay for your support for the Baluchis. He warns "you cannot rule out another Mumbai"

Chankianbania: (Now chewing on a biskoot and looking about with an air of bored indifference)... Sir, we are well aware of your capabilities. We are quite aware that you can carry out another Mumbai, even if you lock up Hafeez Said. That's why we are not offering even moral and diplomatic support to the Balochis. They are on their own as far as we are concerned. But killing all those Marris was simply not right. What can we do if they think their only hope of salvation is India. We recently had some Balochis sayig that if East Pakistan broke away, why can't Baluchistan whose people are treated worse than the Bengalis ever were (at least until the last year or so before their independence).

Pakisatan: You have no right to talk about Baluchistan.

Chankianbania: Sure. Biskoot?

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Airavat » 08 Feb 2010 05:49

Seraikis and Punjabis

The Seraiki-speaking nomads harmoniously share the region with ethnic Punjabis, mostly landowning farmers and sharecroppers who migrated from neighbouring districts of India upon independence from British colonial rule in 1947. Residents said the nomads’ preference for living on the margins of village communities and a general tendency of limiting their religious practice to visiting Sufi shrines have kept them apart from the Punjabi-dominated militant groups that have been fighting India in the disputed territory of Kashmir since 1988.

Mr Mohammed shrugged in response to queries about the effect of the militant groups’ activities in the area on his community’s lifestyle. “It has got nothing to do with us,” he said, puffing vigorously on a cigarette as he reclined on a wooden cot, the local substitute for chairs. “Those people are aliens to the Roohi and could never succeed here because of our traditions.”

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 953
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Guddu » 08 Feb 2010 05:54

shiv wrote:Is nobody wiling to hazard an opininion on this?

shiv wrote:You know people if you look at India as a human and the GoI as the brain (or mind) of the human, what would you rate Pakistan's action against India as, and what rating do you think the GoI gives the injury the nation receives from Paquiland. Please expand with reasoning if possible.

Let me give you a rating scale:
I) Dangerous/Grave injury threatening loss of life?
II) Grievous injury that threatens loss of a limb or eye?
III) Severe injury like a deep cut that can lead to severe blood loss or reduced function of a body part?
IV) Trivial injury that can be sustained indefinitely?
V) Bee stings?
VI) Mosquito bite?

I would rank them as category IV. The risk is not whether we can sustain them indefinitely, but that it started in category VI and has risen to IV. Another few decades and who knows where we are then. I for one am not sure this death by a thousand cuts is very innocuous. Every cut costs something, multiply it 1000 x that adds up to some thing. This needs to weighed against doing the hard thing now, so that the problem is solved once and for all. With time, pak will obtian more advanced weapons, and the costs will become unmanageable to us.

We need to hit them when they are down (does not have to be militarily). There is a lot India can do to tighten the screws..

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Gerard » 08 Feb 2010 06:28

Pious Pakistani chastises less pious Pakistani
Varsity bodies resent thrashing of professor
The Federation of All Pakistan Universities Academic Staff Associations (FAPUASA) has strongly condemned the thrashing of Prof Tahir Malik by Brig (retd) Obaidullah Ranjha at the National University of Modern Languages (NUML).

In a statement, Prof Kaleemullah Barheech (President), Dr Abdul Quddus Suhaib (Vice-President) and Badar Soomro (General Secretary) condemned the harsh treatment of an academician by a retired military officer, who was “illegally appointed” in the NUML.

asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby asprinzl » 08 Feb 2010 07:43

So, I have to ask where is the peace constituency in Satan state? I would think that it would be the lawyers because the lawyers are supposed to believe in the rule of the law and would like to see democracy flourish in Satan's own land. More so these are the people who were out in the streets protesting against the Musharaf regime for ditching a judge.

So the lawyers would be the prime group for this BS ki Masalla right? Not so fast!!!!

The head of the Bar association had been arrested on the charge of raping and murdering a 12 year old Christian domestic slave in his house and his lawyer friends have threatened to burn alive any lawyer who gives assitance to the victim's family. So much for upholding the rule of the law. Islamist thugs all of them. The difference is in the degree of their desire and capacity for violence. No difference if they are Sindhis or Pakjabis or whatever.

Avram

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby abhishek_sharma » 08 Feb 2010 07:46

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27130

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Sunday said it is in the process of framing a response to India’s offer to resume talks but indicated that it would prefer to stick to the established composite dialogue process that was stalled in the wake of the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

“We are still in the process of holding internal consultations (on the Indian offer) and have not really formulated a response. It is important to know what we are getting into the trajectory of the (proposed) talks,” Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit told PTI.

Referring to the stalled composite dialogue process, Basit said: “We already have an established framework and it would not be desirable to reinvent the wheel.”The spokesman made it clear that Pakistan was not against engagement with India but said talks for the sake of talks would have no meaning. “All parleys would have to be constructive and meaningful,” he said.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests