Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

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.

With the US indirectly supporting terror against India I would like to see:

Poll ended at 06 Apr 2010 09:00

The US getting hit by those same groups
58
39%
India taking more internal security steps to stop terror
53
36%
India retaliating against Pakistan
33
22%
India appealing to the US to stop supporting terror
4
3%
 
Total votes: 148

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

Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby shiv » 30 Mar 2010 09:00

In the light of the US funding of the Pakistan army and the close links between the Pakistan army and terrorist groups like the Lashkar e Toiba I would like to see what people feel about the issue. The issue raises emotions in India and the poll questions are designed to get people to express those emotions.

Two choices per user.

Poll runs for 7 days

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby a_kumar » 30 Mar 2010 10:32

- The US getting hit by those same groups

They are already getting hit by "Pakistani terrorist groups". But, that just resulted in bombing of the small fish and letting off the big fish (Konduz for example). I don't think it would matter either way for India.

- India taking more internal security steps to stop terror

Partially Yes. This is the blunt stick that needs bulking up a little anyway, but there is only so much we can get out of this without loosing a lot more.

- India retaliating against Pakistan

Yes. I don't necessarily mean "surgical airstrikes". Like Bill Clinton said.. "Its the economy stupid!". While at it, make it too hot to handle for the 3 and one half.

- India appealing to the US to stop supporting terror

Better off praying for a meteorite or an asteroid that is destined for the land of pure. Probably has better probability of success.

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

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby shiv » 30 Mar 2010 17:13

"up" for attention

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

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby Sanku » 30 Mar 2010 18:02

Not a good poll, we dont wish evil on others so 1 is out, heck I dont even wish terror strikes in Pakistan, however there are terror strikes in Pakistan and on US in Afg so clearly that is not helping.

4 is a non starter so 4 is out.

2,3 are the only options, so we go with that. Unfortunately there has to a be better way of solving the US angle -- the current set of moves by India does not suffice.

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby Vikas » 30 Mar 2010 18:19

The poll has in-built bias in assuming that US is supporting terror against India directly or indirectly. What if I don't agree with the basic assumption here ?
By same token, Wouldn't GoI be complicit in indirectly funding the terror activity in India because they encourage trade with TSP and the money fills the coffers of PA who supports the terror network.

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

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby RamaY » 30 Mar 2010 19:17

Shiv-ji

We should have another option that would force US to stop doing that. We need to find that approach and implement it.

Any ideas?

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

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby shiv » 30 Mar 2010 19:21

Best is to abstain if you disagree with the choices. The poll is not compulsory and has no claim of saying anything that is not indicated in the poll. The poll option is available to all users who want to assess opinions of any group or sub group within BRF.

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

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby Sanku » 30 Mar 2010 19:36

shiv wrote:Best is to abstain if you disagree with the choices. The poll is not compulsory and has no claim of saying anything that is not indicated in the poll. The poll option is available to all users who want to assess opinions of any group or sub group within BRF.


Ok any idea how to un-vote if already voted?

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby A_Gupta » 30 Mar 2010 19:48

Old, ancient, from time beyond memory - this was found on the walls of Ajanta-Ellora:

Image

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby Gagan » 30 Mar 2010 20:18

How about an option - India discouraging the US from investing in the Pak Army?
I tend to agree with 2 & 3. But India needs to do more to dissuade the US from this path. Both active and coercive methods need to be employed to make the foggies at foggy bottom see the light.

Very apt A_Gupta
SAME - TO YOU

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby a_kumar » 30 Mar 2010 22:13

One thing sorely missing in India's strengths is "leverage" and it reflects in the poll options of this thread. Disappointment with poll-options should actually be directed towards that state of ours (no-leverage situation).

At the root is "Access to CAR", which helped Pakistan create plenty more levers. Got to give it to them for seeing their strength and minting every bit of juice out of it. That will most likely trump anything India can throw at it vis-a-vis US of A or UK. So India is stuck with
- appealing to nobleness and kindness of other nations.
- pleading and throwing dossiers at everything that moves.

As for options like convincing US to stop funding PA, honestly, what is in it for US? or for that matter what is in it for 3.5 friends? Why should they help India? Everybody feels that they can control the tap of PA, just like PA thinks it can control the tap of Jihadis.

--Modified later--
So, if we are unhappy with the options, maybe we should start another poll/thread on how India could build effective "leverage" first so that 10 years later, we have better options!

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby A_Gupta » 31 Mar 2010 04:07

Following Vijay Kumar, Republican candidate to the US House of Representatives (Tennessee 5th district), we should understand "US funding of Pakistan" as jaziya.

We see Pakistan as going to the US with a begging bowl - it is really the impotent Islamists' demand for jaziya. The Paki sense of triumph which is on display on getting something from the US has neither the glee nor the gratitude of the beggar getting something; it is that of the (still impotent) Islamist ruler who has this time, successfully levied his tax on the infidel.

The eternal rage springs from the inability to levy this tax at will.

Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby Bhaskar » 31 Mar 2010 04:15

I doubt if US is indirectly supporting Pakistani terror groups against India. It is very well aware of it. And still continues to fund them in hopes of a retaliation by India towards Pakistan. A full-scale war between India and Pakistan would result in the complete destruction of Pakistan and would also mark an end to India's growing economy. This would send both countries back to 1947. Where we fought like dogs against each other. This way, US would end both terrorism (which starts from Pakistan) and a potential Super-Power which would have eventually been a competition for supremacy over US.

To avoid this (What India needs to do now) : 1. Make heavy investments in national security. 2. Embroil Pakistan and US over Afghanistan/Balochistan.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16148
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby SwamyG » 31 Mar 2010 04:31

Unkil is selling arms to both countries. Desh should stop buying from Unkil, develop the need arms on its own or buy from elsewhere.

Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby Bhaskar » 31 Mar 2010 04:38

SwamyG wrote:Unkil is selling arms to both countries. Desh should stop buying from Unkil, develop the need arms on its own or buy from elsewhere.

Why just unkil? We are spending millions buying bogus tanks from Russia which are simply not good enough to even counter Pakistan, forget China, when we have a much better tank made indigenously.

Instead of spending billions to foreign companies, we should spend that to strengthen TATA, Mahindra, etc. (whoops, srry, off-topic)

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

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby shiv » 31 Mar 2010 06:44

a_kumar wrote:So, if we are unhappy with the options, maybe we should start another poll/thread on how India could build effective "leverage" first so that 10 years later, we have better options!



Go ahead Arun create a poll and I will cheerfully kill this thread myself or send a request to mullahsnagar for it to be killed.

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

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby shiv » 31 Mar 2010 06:45

Bhaskar wrote:
SwamyG wrote:Unkil is selling arms to both countries. Desh should stop buying from Unkil, develop the need arms on its own or buy from elsewhere.

Why just unkil? We are spending millions buying bogus tanks from Russia which are simply not good enough to even counter Pakistan, forget China, when we have a much better tank made indigenously.

Instead of spending billions to foreign companies, we should spend that to strengthen TATA, Mahindra, etc. (whoops, srry, off-topic)



Well this news item sort of gets it back on topic
http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/Reprior ... dke_300310

Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby Bhaskar » 31 Mar 2010 08:02

shiv wrote:
Bhaskar wrote:Why just unkil? We are spending millions buying bogus tanks from Russia which are simply not good enough to even counter Pakistan, forget China, when we have a much better tank made indigenously.

Instead of spending billions to foreign companies, we should spend that to strengthen TATA, Mahindra, etc. (whoops, srry, off-topic)



Well this news item sort of gets it back on topic
http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/Reprior ... dke_300310

A good read. It amazes me how we Indians are so dependent on the United States and expect it to straighten things out in our country. Even the decisions we made after 26/11 were double checked twice to make sure we are pleasing the Americans. India needs to realize it is high time for it to start strengthening its base in the world forum and should take the right decisions and to what it feels is necessary against Pakistan to counter terrorism instead of barking up to Obama.

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby a_kumar » 31 Mar 2010 12:04

shiv wrote:Go ahead Arun create a poll and I will cheerfully kill this thread myself or send a request to mullahsnagar for it to be killed.

No saaaar, I think this poll is pretty important. I second your view.
The poll option is available to all users who want to assess opinions of any group or sub group within BRF.

Will start a poll after this closes at end of the week.

sreeji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 19 Jan 2009 19:27

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby sreeji » 31 Mar 2010 12:53

It is not Unkil that is supporting the pakis against India. It is pakis who are supporting Unkil against India.
How can a reintier state like pa'istan even think about having and independent policy to attack India?

tarun
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 27 May 2009 17:45

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby tarun » 31 Mar 2010 13:03

Imposition of anti-terror tax on US firms operating in both India and Pakistan, should be another choice in the poll IMNSHO

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby bhavik » 31 Mar 2010 13:20

I would be delighted if knowledgeable BR members could confirm if this really happened

-----------------------------
An ingenious example of speech and politics occurred recently in the United Nations Assembly that made the world community smile.

A representative from India began: ‘Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Rishi Kashyap of Kashmir, after whom Kashmir is named. When he struck a rock and it brought forth water, he thought, ‘What a good opportunity to have a bath.’ He removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water. When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. A Pakistani had stolen them.

The Pakistani representative jumped up furiously and shouted, ‘What are you talking about? The Pakistanis weren’t there then.’

The Indian representative smiled and said, ‘And now that we have made that clear, I will begin my speech. ‘And they say Kashmir belongs to them


-----------------------------

Jai Hind,


Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7236
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby Amber G. » 31 Mar 2010 23:57

Shivji - Did not see this poll, was away from BRF, and I heard about this poll from intere stingly other sources. (Yes, this poll is being quoted/analyzed in other internet sources too)-

Interestingly, a friend, of Indian origin is starting his campaign for US congress in my district. As you know apart from Jindal and other isolated case, this is one of a very rare occasion when a person of Indian Origin is running for US congress. Ironically the results of this poll can come as a sound byte as in the candidate comes from a place where 40+% of responses wish terrorists attack on me, my family and place I live.

All I can say, brilliant! Needless to say, not only pundits in BRF will debate these poinst, but also monitors who normally monitor such forums, likely, are paying attention too.

Regards.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16148
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby SwamyG » 01 Apr 2010 00:25

Bhaskar wrote:
SwamyG wrote:Unkil is selling arms to both countries. Desh should stop buying from Unkil, develop the need arms on its own or buy from elsewhere.

Why just unkil? We are spending millions buying bogus tanks from Russia which are simply not good enough to even counter Pakistan, forget China, when we have a much better tank made indigenously.

Instead of spending billions to foreign companies, we should spend that to strengthen TATA, Mahindra, etc. (whoops, srry, off-topic)


It is like you are walking on the street and encounter two people fighting on the streets. You see an opportunity to make money. So you sell a broom-stick to one guy to beat the s*it of the other guy. The other guy looks around, he does not have a good broom-stick to hit back or counter. He looks at you, and you say "hey, I have this wooden danda, want it?". The guy says "what the heck, and buys it from you". The guy with broom-stick, now asks you "Do you have anything better?". You say "I have this sword". He buys it from you. The second guy then buys a crowbar from you. The cycle goes on.

You watch and sell them things from a safe way. Your family lives on another street. And if I ask you why are you selling them those? You say "why should i not?. I did not start the fight, they were fighting. They needed something, so I sold them something". So I decide I want in too. And I start selling them stuff too.

It is easy to see that the fighters have been sucked into this buying game; they are fighting harder and better now. But there is no end in sight. If the fight ends, the sellers have to pack the bags and go home, no? What will happen to the GDP, uh?

The cycle will end only if
1) The fight ends
2) Both fighters decide to not buy things from the sellers.

Doesn't the leadership in Desh see all these? If I can see, then I am sure smarter people than me in bureaucracy and politics see them. My hasty conclusions have these options:
1) They don't care.
2) They are making money or derive other benefits.
3) They do not know how to come out of this cycle, without damaging desh.

Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby Bhaskar » 01 Apr 2010 01:14

SwamyG wrote:
It is like you are walking on the street and encounter two people fighting on the streets. You see an opportunity to make money. So you sell a broom-stick to one guy to beat the s*it of the other guy. The other guy looks around, he does not have a good broom-stick to hit back or counter. He looks at you, and you say "hey, I have this wooden danda, want it?". The guy says "what the heck, and buys it from you". The guy with broom-stick, now asks you "Do you have anything better?". You say "I have this sword". He buys it from you. The second guy then buys a crowbar from you. The cycle goes on.

You watch and sell them things from a safe way. Your family lives on another street. And if I ask you why are you selling them those? You say "why should i not?. I did not start the fight, they were fighting. They needed something, so I sold them something". So I decide I want in too. And I start selling them stuff too.

It is easy to see that the fighters have been sucked into this buying game; they are fighting harder and better now. But there is no end in sight. If the fight ends, the sellers have to pack the bags and go home, no? What will happen to the GDP, uh?

The cycle will end only if
1) The fight ends
2) Both fighters decide to not buy things from the sellers.

Doesn't the leadership in Desh see all these? If I can see, then I am sure smarter people than me in bureaucracy and politics see them. My hasty conclusions have these options:
1) They don't care.
2) They are making money or derive other benefits.
3) They do not know how to come out of this cycle, without damaging desh.

I am sure the government is aware of this. There seems to be no way of getting out of this. As Pakistan would not care if it gets totally destroyed just to scratch India a little bit. Cooperation with Pakistan is out of the question.
The best way to avoid this i believe is to arm yourself against Pakistan, make sure no other terrorist attack happens in India and tangle Pakistan's ISI over other issues such as balochistan and afghanistan. The government is working on all of these three fronts.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby negi » 01 Apr 2010 01:58

2 and 3 alongside a MIRV or even FOBS like delivery systems (land and sea based) capable of delivering flowers anywhere on the globe ; we need to deter the bunch of paranoid 'chootiyas' who had the cajones to come with their 7th fleet in Indian waters without any provocation .

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

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby shiv » 01 Apr 2010 07:06

Amber G. wrote: monitors who normally monitor such forums, likely, are paying attention too.

Regards.


Well I certainly hope they are for what it is worth..

There is a strange link between what is expressed on this thread with a parallel discussion in the India-US thread where I have stated that it is my contention that the US, like earlier imperial powers have found the Islamic ummah to be a pliable bunch of pea brained yahoos who will all dance to the same tune as long as you tell them "Hey you dogs - it is good for Islam if you hit this guy and blow yourself up in the name of Islam under that guy's backside. Here eat these scraps " - and the US throws some money and weapons.

For those who don't know - for lurkers who may monitor this, the word "ummah" means "all Muslims" the collective group of all followers of islam is called "ummah"

This has happened all over the world. Basically ummah has been used against ummah (Iraq/Iran). Ummah has been used against the Soviets (Af-Pak-USSR), and ummah is being used against India (India-Pakistan). The biggest joke which carries the deepest irony is that the ummah has been used against Israel as well. (Guess who gets to use F-15s and AWACS?)

Sooner or later, by sheer accident one member of the ummah has to wake up and develop a brain bigger than a pea and is going to see this game played by the US. Guess who woke up? Bin Laden. Now again - drawing from a discussion in the India-US thread - one comment stated that the US has spent a trillion dollars on the "Global War of Terror" and is hardly laughing or happy about it.

Well what can one expect? The single superpower of the world has consistently taken on issues that are basically too big for it to handle, and when things get hot they pull out and leave the warring yahoos to handle things whichever way they want.

The US is getting hit by angry Muslims. What is the US doing in Pakistan? The US is paying off the Pakistan army whose motto is "Jihad in the name of Allah" to make them fight those Muslims who are anti-US and continue to support those Muslims who are anti India. Two related PR propaganda offensives are used by the US while trying to do this

1) It is "Hindu India" that is at fault for upsetting Muslims
2) The Pakistan army is "secular"

If you look at US policy you will never find either of these ideas very far from the surface. They keep popping up in various references - Cohen is just one of them. As long as "Hindu India" is upsetting Muslims, the US has a handle on the brainless hypnotized ummah to do some work for them.

We on BRF have always and still do concentrate on cleaning up the ummah. That is not necessarily correct.

We (India) can:

1) Use the ummah if we can realise that the ummah are pliable. As long was we carry our own anti-ummah ideological baggage - we will not be able to use them. In doing that we are in effect Hindus helping the US screw us.

2) Make the ummah see how they are being raped because the brainless buggers go blind the minute someone says "This is anti-Islamic"

The US is sure to get it backside chewed. And the US is intelligent enough to know that. They will do whatever they can to keep he angry ummah busy with each other. The Iran attack may be the next step.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Apr 2010 07:27

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archiv ... in_the_co/

For the time being, however, America's out-of-touch foreign policy establishment continues to favor the policy of expanding America's geopolitical frontiers while allowing our self-interested industrial rivals to hollow out the American economy. Policies that made sense in the early years of the Cold War emergency continue to be followed out of inertia, when their original strategic rationale has long since vanished. In the words of the philosopher George Santayana, "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."


Meanwhile, in a different part of the building, the economic establishment was living in a fantasy world, ignoring the markets-for-bases swap and pretending that every country in the world believed in Chicago School free-market fundamentalism. A version of the markets-for-bases deal was extended to China, which, it was hoped, would acquiesce in U.S. military hegemony in its own neighborhood, in return for unlimited access to American consumers.

George W. Bush made the deal explicit in his 2002 West Point address: "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge -- thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless and limiting rivalries to trade other pursuits of peace." U.S. to other great powers: We make wars, you make cars.


For half a century America's economic establishment, turning a blind eye to Asia's crude and Germany's subtle mercantilism, pretended that American protectionism was the greatest threat to the world economy. It is gradually dawning even on former free-trade fundamentalists that you cannot have a liberal global trading system in which three of the four largest industrial capitalist countries -- China, Japan and Germany -- pursue policies that permit them to enjoy perpetual trade surpluses, which require perpetual trade deficits by the U.S. and other countries.


By declaring that the new deficit commission would not consider any cuts in military spending, only in entitlement spending, President Obama reflected the preferences of America's policy elite. Its members would gladly cut Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for bases and "nation-building" abroad. In the same way, for half a century, America's foreign-policy elite tolerated the targeted deindustrialization of America by Asian mercantilist states, as long as those countries did not challenge America's global military hegemony.

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

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby shiv » 01 Apr 2010 08:14

As a corollary to my previous post, I would like to hark back to 1918 when the Ottoman Empire - and the Caliphate which served as the nominal HQ of the ummah was defeated by the British. I say "nominal HQ" because the word "Caliphate" (or "Khilafat") has great symbolic meaning to Muslims and many of them can be made to turn into brainless angry half-monkeys by using certain key-words like "against Islam", "Restoration of the Khilafat (Caliphate)" etc.

Once you get a bunch of angry Muslims fighting for Islam - it becomes a real win-win for those who control them because this angry lungi-dancing Islamic bunch are ready to kill themselves! How convenient!! :lol: Any semblance of planning and thought are set aside in favor of the aim of getting killed and going to jannat (Islamic name for heaven) :roll: Islamic leaders use this madness for their benefit and others can use these Islamic leaders for their own ends.

But i digress..

The British were masters who first aided the Arab rebellion against the Turkish Caliphate (Lawrene of Arabia) weakening the Caliphate. They later destroyed the Caliphate. The Arab rebellion led to Mecca going out of the control of the Turkish Caliphate and came under control of one yahoo whose name is important only for history buffs. This yahoo had an opponent - Ibn Saud and the British were paying and arming Ibn Saud to defeat the yahoo in charge of Mecca - just like the US pays the Pakistani army. In 1925 Ibn Saud captured Mecca.

With the Caliphate having been defeated, the "center of the world" for the ummah was no longer the Caliph - but Mecca. And when oil was discovered in KSA in 1938 Ibn Saud had a Brit adviser Philby who "helped" them grant authority over the oil fields to the US.

As an aside - we move to India and we find that the Brits, having defeated the Caliphate had to curry favor with the Muslims of India who were upset about the defeat of the Caliphate and the control of Mecca by a Wahhabi. Gandhi saw and opportunity and thought he would put ungli up British backside by playing the "Khilafat" card. But the Brits countered that by playing the "Hindu enemy" card via Jinnah. We then got Pakistan. The US still controls Saudi, and the US still controls the old British whore, Pakistan. In effect the US has inherited the structures set up in an imperialist era. I think a lot of true blue Americans are upset at being called "imperialists" when the US was an opponent of imperialism. But the US rules over and benefits from, and still uses the tactics and structures of imperialism.

S.Gautam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 22:00

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby S.Gautam » 01 Apr 2010 08:39

Interestingly, a friend, of Indian origin is starting his campaign for US congress in my district. As you know apart from Jindal and other isolated case, this is one of a very rare occasion when a person of Indian Origin is running for US congress. Ironically the results of this poll can come as a sound byte as in the candidate comes from a place where 40+% of responses wish terrorists attack on me, my family and place I live.


Are we supposed to give a rat's ass? If they're running for US Congress, they're American citizens i.e. foreigners with foreign loyalties running for a position in a foreign government. Their "Indian origin" is irrelevant.

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

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby shiv » 01 Apr 2010 08:50

On the question of not enough choices being available for voting and not liking a particular option (eg hoping the US gets hit) let me post a couple of observations.

At this point in time there are 98 votes. Since every voter gets 2 votes one can assume reasonably that 49 people have voted. Of that 49, Forty seven (94%) hope the US gets hit by the very terrorists it has funded. In fact that is actually happening.

This vote of course leaves out those who don't like the options. But even those who don't like some of the options can skew the vote by casting only one vote in case they agree with one option.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1894
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby wig » 01 Apr 2010 09:00

the problem is that the usa is funding pakistan. as a nation pakistan is directly responsible for global acts of terror. they have successfully deluded themselves into believing that murder, rape and pillage is the basis of honour dignity and probably the reason for their existence. a warped, perverse belief in their manifest destiny.

we need to strengthen our internal security. atttacking pakistan is probably good for revenge. but i doubt it will have any effect on their will to sponsor terror. the roots go too deep. they have convinced themselves that we jsut need a shove to break up. much like the late Gobbels ( German Propaganda minister during WW2) observed, mindless repeating has lead pakistan to convince itself that we are down and almost out. but if we could somehow through some kind of dirty trick squad derange the top honchos of the terror machinery that i think in the short run will make a world of difference.

in the long run it is only the growing clout of the indian economy which will draw in more and ever more investments. over the next few decades it is the global economy which will integrate with the indian economic dynamo. that will effectively ensure that the global funders of the pak terror machinery are persuaded by their own funders that funding pakistan is not good economic sense.

the saddest part is that we lose our best, bravest and brightest lads to pakistan trained and usa funded terrorists. and this is what i fervently hope ends. young soldiers dying in the prime of their life is awful.

towards this end we must turn to technology ( i suppose) to prevent casualties and probably as many learned gurus here have observed from time to time keep the pakistan kettle boiling.

just my thought process.

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

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby Pranav » 01 Apr 2010 10:38

x-post from future strategic scenario thread:

Pranav wrote:Here is a possible solution to the mess that might satisfy both the Afghans and Americans:

* Talibs reconcile with Karzai and the US, and accept long-term presence of some US troops, as in Japan or South Korea.

* An independent Balochistan for access to Afghanistan

* Afghans and Balochis play ball with the US with respect to pipelines and minerals

* As a corollary, the US totally abandons the illegitimate and artificial state of Pak, leading to its demise due to economic reasons and internal strife.

* Area controlled by the Pakjabi military-jihadist elites dissolves into 6 or 7 independent nations, most of which enter into a South Asian Economic Union.

But all this first requires the US to abandon the long-standing policy of propping up the Paks to put a leash on India. That wrong policy is keeping the whole region unsettled.

One thing that's wrong with this picture is that one can replace "Balochistan" by "Pakistan" and western elites can still get their desires fulfilled. With the added bonus of preserving Pak as an entity to keep India down.

This may indeed be the route that the US has chosen to go -

In the April 2010 edition of The Atlantic magazine, Maj-Gen Michael Flynn, director of intelligence, US Central command, was quoted as saying that militant leaders Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar were both “absolutely salvageable”.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... ion-us-140


Recall the moves by the ISI and CIA to block Karzai's efforts to reach a reconciliation with some elements of the Taliban, by arresting Mullah Barader. This is what Karzai had to say about it:

Some prominent Afghans say that Mr. Karzai now tells associates that the Americans’ goal here is not to build an independent and peaceful Afghanistan, but to exercise their power.

In January, Mr. Karzai invited about two dozen prominent Afghan media and business figures to a lunch at the palace. At the lunch, he expressed a deep cynicism about America’s motives, and of the burden he bears in trying to keep the United States at bay.

“He has developed a complete theory of American power,” said an Afghan who attended the lunch and who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. “He believes that America is trying to dominate the region, and that he is the only one who can stand up to them.”

Mr. Karzai said that, left alone, he could strike a deal with the Taliban, but that the United States refuses to allow him. The American goal, he said, was to keep the Afghan conflict going, and thereby allow American troops to stay in the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/world ... l?ref=asia

So it appears that the US is sabotaging any attempts at peace except on terms acceptable to the ISI and itself. Mullah Barader was taken down, but Haqqani, the ISI poodle, who is hated by ordinary Afghans, is "absolutely salvagable".

The main problem is that the US sees no costs associated with its anti-India policies. Big purchases by India of nuclear reactors and trojan-infested defense equipment will only increase US influence on India rather than vice-versa.

The least any patriotic Indian government would do is to stop financing US efforts to destroy India. However Indian leadership may be under their own compulsions.

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1266
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby Nihat » 01 Apr 2010 12:15

S.Gautam wrote:
Interestingly, a friend, of Indian origin is starting his campaign for US congress in my district. As you know apart from Jindal and other isolated case, this is one of a very rare occasion when a person of Indian Origin is running for US congress. Ironically the results of this poll can come as a sound byte as in the candidate comes from a place where 40+% of responses wish terrorists attack on me, my family and place I live.


Are we supposed to give a rat's ass? If they're running for US Congress, they're American citizens i.e. foreigners with foreign loyalties running for a position in a foreign government. Their "Indian origin" is irrelevant.



have you ever heard of the "Jewish Lobby" in U.S. , how it became so prominent and how it impacts American foreign policy towards Israel.

I suggest you do give a "rats ass" as being just opinionated is not good enough.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3172
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby vera_k » 01 Apr 2010 12:58

shiv wrote:We (India) can:

1) Use the ummah if we can realise that the ummah are pliable. As long was we carry our own anti-ummah ideological baggage - we will not be able to use them. In doing that we are in effect Hindus helping the US screw us.

2) Make the ummah see how they are being raped because the brainless buggers go blind the minute someone says "This is anti-Islamic"

The US is sure to get it backside chewed. And the US is intelligent enough to know that. They will do whatever they can to keep he angry ummah busy with each other. The Iran attack may be the next step.


Following this line of thought, it follows that backing the ummah was essentially what India was doing all those years when the country took an anti-American stance. However the Pakistanis were the fly in the ointment since they were unwilling to go along with us. Ergo, peace with Pakistan is essential to present a unified front against the US. Probably best course of action is to have Congress appoint a Muslim Prime Minister and then have him do the needful.

:P

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7236
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby Amber G. » 02 Apr 2010 02:41

Deleted.. (This is not April 1 anymore)
Last edited by Amber G. on 02 Apr 2010 09:19, edited 1 time in total.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby negi » 02 Apr 2010 06:42

^ What is the second link about ?

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

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby shiv » 02 Apr 2010 09:07

The language used by the propaganda apparatus of various powerful nations says something about whatthey are up to.

Ask any informed BRFite and he will tell you that Pakistan is a condom for the US. But we speak of condoms with contempt - as a ancillary in obtaining pleasure to be discarded after use. But the US refers to Pakistan with great respect. Check the language of this cross post

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... round_zero

To a large extent the success or failure of the Pakistani drive to rid North Waziristan of pro-al Qaeda militants will depend on whether they are willing and able to persuade the Haqqani network to stop providing sanctuary to al Qaeda. Any continued vacillation over North Waziristan will be dangerous both to Pakistan and to its allies in the West.


In Western terminology the word ally has deep and emotive meaning. Every independent nation that joined the US, UK and other Western nations against Nazi Germany or Hirohitos' Japan was an "ally" .

Check news reports of the Korean war. Those that were arrayed against the communists were "allies"
The word came up again in Gulf war 2 against Saddam. they were "allies"

Pakistan gets the status of an "ally" in a world where Iran and North Korea get the status of "rogue state" Now what has Pakistan done to be an ally. This is not rhetorical. It is a serious question. Clearly Pakistan is giving the US a lot of what the US wants.

Of course - part of the answer lies in the article itself:
Despite the fact that recent weeks have seen a surge in the number of drone strikes in North Waziristan, increasing the pressure on al-Qaeda and its allies and making it more difficult for the terrorist groups to plot attacks in the West


It is attacks in the "West" that concern the west. But is that all there is to it? After all didn't one forum member point out that the US does not need Pakistan to take out Al Qaeda? The US clearly has some very definite reasons to support the Pakistani army. As long as the "West" is not attacked, the Pakistani army will be supported.

Very few people seem to be seeing what I am seeing. But Islam may be our ally here. If we are able to scrape up the required degree of ideology-free Chankianism. Especially now that it is clear that it is not Islamic ideology but Pakistaniyat (hate India) that drives the LeT. If Islam wins over the Pakistani army guess who benefits and who loses? It is only the dollar greed of the Pakistan army brass that keep them acting secular and serving US interests. If they go against the US how much is can the US be expected to support them militarily?

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

Re: Poll: Indirect US funding of Pakistani terrorist groups

Postby Airavat » 02 Apr 2010 15:28

shiv wrote:Ask any informed BRFite and he will tell you that Pakistan is a condom for the US. But we speak of condoms with contempt


The used condom term was brought up by the Pakistani dictator Musharraf; there are many other terms to describe the Pakistan army on this forum. Besides that, BRFites do not believe that the Pakistan army is used by the US alone.

shiv wrote:Clearly Pakistan is giving the US a lot of what the US wants.


Over the last ten years Pakistan has fed little scraps to the oversized gorilla, while meekly accepting drone strikes on its own soil. In return it is getting military hardware and funds. It also got MuNNA status in 2004. The US is coming to grips with the reality that fighting terror overseas is simply a low intensity conflict. Opinion in the US is divided over whether their military can sustain such a conflict for long.

So the real question is: what does the US want?

shiv wrote:Especially now that it is clear that it is not Islamic ideology but Pakistaniyat (hate India) that drives the LeT. If Islam wins over the Pakistani army guess who benefits and who loses?


LeT is part of the Pakistan army and LeT cells have been uncovered in the US. Jihad is part of the Pakistan army's motto, and far from "fighting Islam" they are using Islamist terror groups to subdue the Pashtun people. And they have been using Islamist terror groups against India and Afghanistan. The Pakistan army wants an end to drone strikes because their Islamist assets deployed against the Pashtuns are being blown apart, while ordinary Pashtuns want such strikes to continue.

I don't think many Pakistanis have realised this, but Afghanistan will be the graveyard for their own nation if they continue to harbor fantasies of strategic depth. Defeat in Afghanistan will be followed by the slow but gradual break-up of Pakistan. Sadly some of these fools are simply deluded:

Defeating Indo-US alliance

Had Musharraf acted in wisdom, with a visionary strategic plan and judicious political discourse, Pakistan today would have emerged as a leading player in geopolitical mediation and arbitration :lol: . Consequently, Pakistan is faced with an uncertain future - an expanding encirclement threatening its survival: a rising India to the east, uncertain relations with Iran because of American-Western pressure and growing Indian influence in Afghanistan to the northwest.

Pakistan can emerge as an arbitrator in the Afghan conflict and in the overall strategic political dimensions of South Asian politics. Obama needs to win a second term in 2012. He needs Pakistan’s help to scale down the Afghan conflict to a low level intensity and to a political profile that in some way indicates a US-NATO victory. But getting India out of the political loop of Afghanistan and the US-initiated military political endgame will not be an easy task. The US will not compromise its Indian alliance (containment of China) for the sake of Pakistani national interests.

Pakistan should clearly inform the Obama administration that it intends to go to the Hague in case the drone attacks continue against its citizens. It is an appropriate time that Pakistan exercises its full sovereignty in its political decision making and foreign policy management.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests