Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 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.
BijuShet
BRFite
Posts: 1575
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 23:14
Location: under my tin foil hat

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby BijuShet » 16 Jun 2010 02:01

A_Gupta wrote:http://www.icrier.org/page.asp?MenuID=24&SubCatId=175&SubSubCatId=280
...

Thanks Guptaji. ICRIER website has more docs on the non tarrif measures adopted by India.
this is the link to the full working paper : http://www.icrier.org/pdf/Working%20Paper%20200.pdf

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Nayak » 16 Jun 2010 02:05

mullah mahdi take a bow your comment was picked up by paki rag yawn

blog.dawn.com/2010/06/14/u-turns-and-double-u-turns-please-were-pakistani/

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54175
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby ramana » 16 Jun 2010 02:10

Original article in Ciricinfo. See comments section.

U Turns Please, we are the PCB

MurthyB
BRFite
Posts: 704
Joined: 18 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: "Visa Officer", Indian Consulate #13,451, Khost Province, Afghanistan

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby MurthyB » 16 Jun 2010 03:59

ramana wrote:Original article in Ciricinfo. See comments section.

U Turns Please, we are the PCB


So this does mean that sometimes irony and sarcasm are indistinguishable from reality? Someone had posted a theory about this sometime ago...

ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby ajit_tr » 16 Jun 2010 04:09

Seven injured in two Quetta explosions
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... ons--bi-04

ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby ajit_tr » 16 Jun 2010 04:10

Afghan Taliban denies link to Pakistan’s ISI: report
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... port-hs-04

ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby ajit_tr » 16 Jun 2010 04:15


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7897
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Gerard » 16 Jun 2010 04:34

British woman Naheeda Bi 'held captive in Pakistan for 10 years'
Women were separated from men and made to work. She said: "There were parts of guns and every day we would work, no matter how ill we got. We would polish gun handles, filing them, cleaning them."

khan
BRFite
Posts: 568
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby khan » 16 Jun 2010 06:09

Gerard wrote:British woman Naheeda Bi 'held captive in Pakistan for 10 years'
Women were separated from men and made to work. She said: "There were parts of guns and every day we would work, no matter how ill we got. We would polish gun handles, filing them, cleaning them."


Wouldn't surprise me if she went Jehad for a while, got sick off it and needed some excuse to explain her absence...

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2010 06:39

Kamboja wrote:

While I agree that Taliban and the broader Pakistani community are united in the desire for 'sharia' (whatever that means), do you not think that the Talibani interpretation of sharia is far harsher than what Pakis are accustomed to? Currently 'sharia' to the Paki aam adbul means having to buy liquor illicitly rather than openly, going to the local mullah for arbitration on all matters both public and private, donations to 'the cause' in Kashmir/Palestine/other 'oppressed' Muslim lands, and the monthly 'massacre a minority' party (i.e. Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Ahmedis, Shias, Barelvis, Sufis, your neighbour with the hot wife). In other words Pakis currently enjoy a rather easy-going fundamentalism.


Correct, but pardon me for saying that your statement sounds pretty much like what I hear on the Paki "liberal" sites. They too claim as you do that the average Paki is more liberal than the Taliban

It's very simple. We can feel what we want but when it comes down to brass tacks, unless elections are held in Pakistan and held repeatedly and regularly we will never know what Pakis actually want. After all the Taliban do want strict sharia,. And the Taliban are Pakis too. What is it that makes you think that the average non Talib Paki has a moderate version of sharia in his mind? No assumptions should be made in the absence of this.

Look at the other side of the picture. The Taliban are fighting inside Pakistan. It is now being widely claimed that the average Paki has "realised" how bad the Taliban are. Fine. Fine. I'm so happy to hear that. But what is being done about the Taliban? Diddly squat. The fight between the "Oh so sweet and gentle" Pakistani sharia and the Demonic Taliban sharia is being postponed. If the sweet and gentle sharia men don't fight, the demonic sharia Taliban will win. Show me where the sweet and gentle ones are fighting to eliminate the Taliban?

I think we are doing ourselves a serious disfavor by unthinkingly supporting the Paki army/Paki liberal version of how Pakis think as you have done. It is to the Paki army's advantage (and to the advantage of Islamists) to state that Pakis are moderate and want sharia with liquor. I would not fall for that crap. It is possibly a complete lie/taqiya being stated to put the idiot Americans off the scent.

We of all people should not be falling for that. The only way that can be figured out is by elections. Right now the people who want to claim that Pakis are moderate are being paid by the Americans to say that. And elections will not be held because the Americans are demanding defeat of the Talibs. Islam per se does not allow dilute sharia.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby A_Gupta » 16 Jun 2010 06:49

^^^
The turnout in the 2008 elections in Pakistan was 44%. This is quite low; in the US, full of non-enthusiastic voters, the non-Presidential election year turnout matches this. It is entirely possible that the mango abdul sees the Taliban as excessive; but it remains to be seen.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2010 06:52

Anujan wrote:
(1) US
(1a) Is neither weak nor afraid of Pakistan
(1b) US wants to solve their most pressing problem with money & toys
(1c) Cares to hoots about long term, especially when characterized by vaccuous terms like "democracy, shared values" ityadi

(2) Pakistan
(2a) Is neither strong nor a total weakling.
(2b) They can really hurt people -- but if they do, they commit soosai
(2c) RAPEs are immune to pressure. If it gets too out of hand, they will take whatever they made so far and go home.
(2d) Like a crack addict, they want one thing only. Willing to give up anything for that

(3) India
(3a) is neither strong so as to comprehensively whack Pakistan without substantial damage to ourselves
(3b) Is neither a weakling enough to agree to GUBO to the US


Anujan what you have left out here is that Pakistan is whacking the US and the US is getting whacked.

I am sorry I made too many posts but you are doing exactly what I said people were doing:i.e calling US weakness as strength

India gets hit by Pakistan but does not pay Pakistan a single paisa and you call India weak.
The US gets hit by Pakistan and pays protection money to Pakistan to stop getting hit and you call the US strong?

This way of viewing things in my view is completely wrong. You have a US that is getting whacked, not succeeding in anything it says and does and you claim that it is bringing a whole lot to the table. It isn't. No need to hold up US echandee by believing that.

Sorry. We are not going to be seeing eye to eye when I differ on a most fundamental aspect of what is being defined as "strength". The US has an echandee show going on. Nothing more.

No need for anyone to agree or disagree with you or me. Events will show exactly whose strength is working and where it works.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2010 06:54

A_Gupta wrote:^^^
The turnout in the 2008 elections in Pakistan was 44%. This is quite low; in the US, full of non-enthusiastic voters, the non-Presidential election year turnout matches this. It is entirely possible that the mango abdul sees the Taliban as excessive; but it remains to be seen.


For exactly the same reason a "Taliban" government may water down its demands if elected. But they are not being invited for elections. They are being fought at the US's behest. That is what I have been trying to point out.

The Taliban are being fought in a hot war and they are not being fought in an election. Why?

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby arun » 16 Jun 2010 07:02

X Posted from the International Nuclear Watch thread. US State Department spokesperson Philip Crowley responding to a question by PTI’s Lalit Jha on the deal between PR China and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the supply of the CHASNUPP 3 & 4 nuclear reactors.

The US appears to be not buying the PR Chinese argument that the deal was grandfathered at the time PR China joined the NSG:

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 15, 2010 …………………….

QUESTION:The China-Pakistan nuclear deal – we understand that the U.S. will oppose or plans to oppose that in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. I’m wondering, what are the arguments for opposing that? And secondly, how do you respond to those who say that the U.S. opened the door to this kind of agreement with the U.S.-India deal?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we have asked China to clarify the details of its sale of additional nuclear reactors to Pakistan. This appears to extend beyond cooperation that was grandfathered when China was approved for membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. We believe that such cooperation would require a specific exemption approved by consensus of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, as was done for India. So we’re not looking at any difference between the two.

QUESTION: And maybe China informed you about the sale of these two nuclear plants?

MR. CROWLEY: I think, Lalit, this was an issue that we’ve had periodic discussions with China for some time.

US State Dept

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby abhishek_sharma » 16 Jun 2010 07:10

About LeT

Militant Group Expands Attacks in Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/world/asia/16lashkar.html

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2010 07:11

Anujan wrote:So there is a father who has 3 sons.
<snip>
J. Is beating up the youngest, collaborating with the middle to secure his future the best long term strategy?
K. If you were dad, would you do (J) or would you use the eldest to placate the youngest. Give some money to the youngest and try to avoid the middle son while giving speeches about Buddha and Gandhi when he gets upset?


Arguing with analogies is a mistake - it creates a needless torn shirt open fly. But the fatal flaw in this analogy is that the youngest son is beating up the middle and eldest sons and the eldest son is paying his youngest brother to avoid getting beaten. Also the youngest son allows his eldest brother to sleep with his wife, but will not lift a finger to make things easier for eldest.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby RamaY » 16 Jun 2010 07:13

ramana wrote:Am going to post above two posts in the good posts thread.

Please do post the answers too!

Middle son is India.


Ramanaji

This game is a text book non-cooperative game. India's problem is that it doesnt have/state its preferences (rational choices) and it goes in circles with the spoken [may not be real] preferences.

As long as Indian leadership fails to outline (to all the stake holders) its preferences and to what extent it can go to fulfil those preferences; it will stand to lose in this multi-party game.

In a multi-player non-copperative game, "modivaadu rajukannaa balavantudu"

I asked this question in other threads as well. What are India's preferences w.r.t Af-Pak region and what price it is willing to pay for each of its choices? India need not reveal its cards to others but atleast it should have clarity of its purpose to have a chance in this game...

Vril
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 20:05

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Vril » 16 Jun 2010 07:15

i dont know if its the correct thread to post but i dont care cause am fuming right now.

National News Channel of TSP, Times Now showing report on Nuclear reactor sale to TSP from China showed PoK as part of Pakistan while showing their nuclear sites. :x :evil: :eek:

we need more emoticons to express what am feeling right now. this one is too feeble.





Mods please can we have separate thread where can discuss Indian media :cry:

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby RamaY » 16 Jun 2010 07:20

negi wrote:Anujanwa the story re-affirms my stand on this whole issue it is the middle son who deserves a size 13 boot up his behind (in this case the GOI) .


Negi-ullah,

India is pre-aranyakanda Hanuma. Doesn't know its purpose and capabilities. It is running along with Sugreeva rock to rock and tree to tree. While Sugreeva could be the vanara king, it is Hanuma who set the house of Rama and Ravana in order.

Takshana kartavyam is to organize seetapaharan (Daivakaryam). It will put things in motion. {Hint: Sita is Rama's life as well as sakti. Without Sita, Rama is incomplete}. Sita-viyukta Rama will be on search for his true self and need vanara help. Sundara and Yuddha kandas follow that.

Added Later: If you read Valmiki Ramayana carefully; you will notice that Rama is equipped and directed by various Rishis starting with Vashista and Viswamitra. All these Rishi's had was vision (drista) and deep desire for dushta-sikshana and sishta-rakshana.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Pranav » 16 Jun 2010 07:30

Kamboja wrote:
JE Menon wrote:>>Is it really so bloody hard for GoI to send in a sniper to take this ******** out?

No

>>Is it that GoI doesn't have the means or the will or both?

Maybe it's a deliberate choice.


Menon-ji,

Upon reflection I realize it wouldn't achieve much to wipe out that filth anyway, since there's plenty more rabid cannon fodder to replace him. Ignore that flare of anger from me, sometimes the idiocy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan really gets to me...


What is driving pakistaniyat?

(1) a belief in islamic supremacism
(2) hopes of easy success in terrorist Jihad against Kaffirs (1 Momin = 10 Kaffirs etc)
(3) external support that is pouring oil on the flames

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Anujan » 16 Jun 2010 07:43

shiv wrote:I am sorry I made too many posts but you are doing exactly what I said people were doing:i.e calling US weakness as strength
India gets hit by Pakistan but does not pay Pakistan a single paisa and you call India weak.
The US gets hit by Pakistan and pays protection money to Pakistan to stop getting hit and you call the US strong?
Sorry. We are not going to be seeing eye to eye when I differ on a most fundamental aspect of what is being defined as "strength". The US has an echandee show going on. Nothing more.


Shiv-ji
We have to agree to disagree.

In my textbook (and the crux of the story I had written), perception of strength and strength for all practical purposes is defined by getting your way with things. Gandhi was strong because he got his his way - not because he whacked a few. US is strong, because it is getting its way through the cheapest route (giving Pakistan money, half of which is spent on Unkil's own companies to re-sell weapons to Pakis -- a form of "internal corruption" by Unkil).

If you think that Unkil lost and the Pakis have taken them for a ride, look at the fact that the Pakis are happily invading their own territory, going through the motions of flattening villages, creating IDPs and killing innocents. Also look at the joy with which the national bird of Pakistan flies wherever it wants to and puts bird droppings on the heads of whoever it wants to. Name me one self respecting country which has allowed aerial bombing of its own territory in return for money. Name me one "weak" country which has managed to convince someone that it is okay for them to bomb whoever they want whenever they want in the other fellow's territory.

Indians havent gotten what they want - keeping the citizens safe. Yes we didnt pay the Pakis a single paisa -- but is it because (a) we thought of that option and decided to show our strength by not paying off the Pakis or (b) we never had that option. And you come back, turn around and tell me "India is strong because we didnt pay the Pakis a single dime". Reminds me of my UP Bhaiyya friend who told me once "Be Patriotic!! Speak Hindi!! Look at all of us in the north who are so Patriotic & Speak Hindi!!"

Pakis are strong. We still sing the tune of "A strong and stable Pakistan is..." and they havent arrested a single 26/11 attacker. We have our MMS singing the "trust deficit, biss in south asia" tune. Remind me once again where else in the world you see a supposedly "strong country" dealing with a supposedly "weak country" this way, when the "strong country" is a victim of terror? The only strength in Indians I see is the strength in our legs and musharrafs, now that we have exercised them a lot by climbing up and climbing down the high horse so many times.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7453
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Prasad » 16 Jun 2010 08:06

shiv wrote:
India gets hit by Pakistan but does not pay Pakistan a single paisa and you call India weak.
The US gets hit by Pakistan and pays protection money to Pakistan to stop getting hit and you call the US strong?

This way of viewing things in my view is completely wrong. You have a US that is getting whacked, not succeeding in anything it says and does and you claim that it is bringing a whole lot to the table. It isn't. No need to hold up US echandee by believing that.


Shiv,
I'm not sure why you see it that way. The US is paying paquistan money. Dollars which it can print with gay abandon and keep sending shiploads of. However we are paying pakistan with the lives of our citizens. I'm not sure why our cost is lower than that of the US.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3050
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby vera_k » 16 Jun 2010 08:06

kittoo wrote:arent we in a place right now where we fear to tread? The place where there is no powerful enough opposition to 'Delhi'. BJP is almost in tatters (at least as far as national appeal goes). Narendra Modi (even BJP) will never get any support at all from media and BJP allies (even though he is the best CM of India ATM), same goes for RSS. I am pretty sure that Gujarat will remain Modi's bastion, but thats not exactly what we need. We want a nationalistic govt that holds views opposite to 'Delhi'.
The way media works, it will make sure that urban India doesnt accept Modi, and Congress has enough tricks to divide and take most of the rural votes. So is it really realistic to hope about a powerful opposition, especially Modi and RSS et al, emerging?


It depends. Electoral arithmetic does not play much role in this equation. The last time someone was upset over Congress domination, they managed to get a country of their own. Already the Maoists have announced that they intend to break free of Delhi rule.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2010 08:07

Here is one way to view events in our region.

170 million Pakis want something. We don't know exactly what because they are not allowed to vote. They are held in control by the Paki army who tell us
1) Pakis are Islamic
2) Pakis are moderate and progressive
3) Their goal is to fight India and help Muslims. They have no other goals. They are happy enough otherwise

We are supposed to believe the Paki army and establishment when they say that. In the absence of elections we will never know the real answers to points 1, 2 and 3 above.

The Paki army in turn needs support to survive. That support comes from the US. Until about 2001, the US found it good enough to support the Paki army which implemented everything the US wanted. The Paki army is an "ally" and to hell with democracy, and to hell with India. Who the faq is India in this relationship?

At this point it is worth recalling history and the fact that both the US and Pakistan are "bhench*ds" (For propriety I will use the term bchd, but the behavior of both the countries has been exactly that of a bchd). Let me explain.

In the 1980s the US wanted to fight the Soviets, but not directly. They paid Pakistan to set up a deniable force - the Taliban. Neither Pakistan nor the US could be blamed. The US controlled the Paki army. Army controlled the Taliban. Everyone was happy.

After 1990, like a true bchd the US withdrew leaving its partner bchd, Pakistan army to do what it wants. The Pakistan army "deniably" started hitting Afghanistan and India. Eventually someone from Afghanistan hit the US and Pakistan like a true bchd denied all responsibility. Pakis said "The Taliban are independent. We don't control them"

Fast forward to 2010. The US has no control over mango Pakis. The US has no control over Taliban. The US is still paying and bribing the Paki army to do two things
1) Keep mango under control as usual (Paki army to stay in power)
2) Fight the Taliban

Where does India fit into all this?

Please don't let events confuse you. The bchd Paki army DOES NOT want to fight the Taliban who are a Paki proxy. The US does not want to fight the Taliban directly, but would like the Paki army to do that. A Taliban victory is a Paki army victory, it is a defeat for the US, not India.

So the US tried bribing the Paki army with all the influence they could muster. The Pakis who never ever wanted to fight the Taliban tried to start war with India saying that India is a threat, not Taliban. The Parliament attack and all the increased terrorism in India up to 26/11 and Pune were attempts to pull India into the conflict. The Paki army knows that the US has always helped them against India and if there is war with India, the Pakis can claim inability to fight the Taliban.

How does it hurt the US if the Pakistan army fights India? It hurts the US because the Paki army will refuse to do anything about the Taliban in case of war and the US is reluctant to directly fight Pakistanis.

How to stop war between India and Pakistan. According to BRF. This is easy. Indian leaders are weak and can be pressured. This is what happened in 2002 when weak leaders backed out The only problem here is that even Indian leaders will be forced to talk war after a stage - if India gets hit too badly. After 26/11 India did not even mobilize. Never mind why - that is a separate discussion. But that helped the US. It foiled a Pakistani plan to wash its hands off from fighting the Taliban.

This is how India has acquired an indirect role in this game. All these decades the US was playing Pakistan off against India, arming them to make the Paki army do its work. Now Pakistan is playing India off against the US. Pakistan is telling the US "We are willing to provoke war with India".

What can the US do?
1) it can command India not to fight with Pakistan and scare Indian leaders like it did in 2002. But how far can that go if India is provoked?
2) It can pressure Pakistan to stop hitting India.
3) It can do both

I will stop here but leave with some questions:

What if something makes India a bchd and India attacks Pakistan in a war that does nothing other than just making the Pakistan army weaker. How will that affect the US? How will that affect Pakistan? How will that affect Afghanistan? How will that affect the Taliban. How will it affect India?

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2010 08:17

Anujan wrote:
Pakis are strong.

.
Talking about India's weakness is beside the point. I have never disputed that. You are changing the subject and doing a torn shirt vs open fly when you talk of India's weakness.

Pakis are strong enough to kick the US and no rationalization/cover up for the US on BRF is going to remove the fact that the US is getting kicked and will have to continue to pay Pakistan. All ths predator djinn business is peanuts. You will yourself recall that US military strength consists of aircraft carriers, F 22s, B 2s B 52s etc.

If you ask anyone one earth who is stronger Pakistan or the US he will obviously say the US. This powerful US is reduced a the pathetic use of a few drones that carry two bombs apiece to hit one truck at a time in Pakistan. How ridiculous. Indian soldiers have been killing more Pakis on the border every week for decades.

Are you seriously telling me that US actions are a sign of great power and strength :rotfl: . The US is bullshitting and you are falling for that. The US is powerless to make its former proxy the Pakistan army to do as it says. The Paki army has so many cards up its sleeve that the US is reduced to echandee saving.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2010 08:19

Prasad wrote:
Shiv,
I'm not sure why you see it that way. The US is paying paquistan money. Dollars which it can print with gay abandon and keep sending shiploads of. However we are paying pakistan with the lives of our citizens. I'm not sure why our cost is lower than that of the US.


Excuse me? Where have I said our cost is lower? Please don't conjure things up to try and support a view that the US is a great success in Pakistan. Just because India failed does not mean the US is succeeding. The US is also failing. We may get 2 on 100, They are getting 15 on 100.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21125
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Prem » 16 Jun 2010 08:26

No grant for defunct ‘JuD’ in budget: Punjab govt.
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=106732

LAHORE: Shooting down the media claims regarding allocation of grants for various institutes, schools, hospitals and organizations working under defunct outfit Jamaat-ud-Dawah, Punjab government has simply ruled out accepting any such claim as ‘true’.“No grant has been allocated for banned JuD in Punjab budget”, said Punjab government spokesman. While, according to media reports a total of 82.7 million rupees have been allocated for JuD in supplementary budget of Punjab.It may be mentioned, government had taken all schools, colleges, hospitals, dispensaries, and Madaris working with JuD under its authority after the outfit was declared defunct and governments’ administrators were appointed as head of those institutions.Later, the institutions were given grants for continuation of welfare jobs for public by government, but nevertheless, a huge amount of Rs 79.77 million have been allocated for the center of JuD located in Mureedkay in Punjab supplementary budget.Moreover, Rs 3 million have been fixed for 7 schools of JuD working in different districts of Punjab, media reports

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21125
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Prem » 16 Jun 2010 08:44

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/world ... shkar.html
Militant Group Expands Attacks in Afghanistan

Our concern is that there are still players involved that are trying to use Afghanistan’s ground as a place for a proxy war,” said Shaida Abdali, Afghanistan’s deputy national security adviser. “It is being carried out by certain state actors to fight their opponents.”
A number of experts now say Lashkar presents more of a threat in Afghanistan than even Al Qaeda does, because its operatives are from the region, less readily identified and less resented than the Arabs who make up Al Qaeda’s ranks. There were a few Lashkar cells in Afghanistan three or four years ago, but they were not focused on Indian targets and, until recently, their presence seemed to be diminishing.
A recent Pentagon report to Congress on Afghanistan listed Lashkar as one of the major extremist threats here. In Congressional testimony in March by Pakistan experts, the group was described as having ambitions well beyond India. “They are active now in six or eight provinces” in Afghanistan, said a senior NATO intelligence official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to speak publicly on the subject.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Anujan » 16 Jun 2010 08:46

shiv-ji

The point is, US has a range of options, each with its own cost. US has shown the willingness to do something about their problem. They are taking the cheapest option now -- They will come up with more solutions with different costs if provoked further. As of now, the one or two pakis who turn up in NY and mix gasoline with pakistaniyat and use a cheeni raakit to light it hoping it will go off -- can be handled with private threats, a few predator droppings and a few wads of money fresh from the printing press.

You give the US a 15 on 100. Why? Because they didnt make Afghanistan a modern functioning democracy? Because taliban might take over Afghanistan all over again? Because Pakistan did not become moderately enlightened? Were any of these ever on the agenda? Bush hunted for Bin Laden in Iraq. Ombaba is doing his "good taliban, bad taliban" dance. When did they ever try?

Why should Unkil give two hoots about the festering sh*thole that is Af-Pak when there has not been a single mass casualty terror attack in the US since 2001? Imagine that something like Mumbai attacks happened in NY & was traced back to Pakistan - that too with *official* patronage, umpteen "Quasaub is not Pakistani" speeches, everyone who had anything to do with it being chacha-bhateeja of some Paki jernail or other. Now tell me if you really think US will continue to be "powerless to make its former proxy the Pakistan army to do as it says".

US is not succeeding because they have no motivation or reason to put in more resources. As you correctly pointed out, US strength is its B52s. What can the Pakis ever do to the US, if Unkil turned up and emptied a few loads of B52s on Pindi and Isloo? Do you honestly think Fizzleya stands a chance or the TFTA jernails can do anything to Unkil -- especially when their kids are in the US and their loot is in Swiss banks or can the donkeys of tellibunnies swim across the pacific? Why isnt the US doing it then? The answer is: why fly a plane when you can run a printing press, print & hand out greenbacks.

Pakis better not give unkil a reason to fly that plane, because if they do -- Unkil will.

The US approach is "As long as US citizens are safe tomorrow if I hand out wads of cash today, I will do so". Now you might argue about the shortsightedness of that approach. But please dont measure the success of the US based on the inability of the US to defeat the taliban or make Paki army do what US wants. that was never on the agenda.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2010 09:01

Anujan wrote:
US is not succeeding because they have no motivation or reason to put in more resources.


OK let me take it from here.

"The US is not succeeding" because of blahblahblah reason
India too is not succeeding because of blahblahblah reason

India is here because it is geographically here. Why is the US in the region if it is not succeeding? Let me clear the fog

If you cut past the bluster you find that the US is doing exactly what US "experts" felt it was necessary to do in the post 9-11 months - that is to cultivate and protect the Pakistan army. Army, not Pakistan.

The Pakistan army is the last link that the US has for power over the region. If that link breaks, the US will be in worse trouble. So saving the Paki army is paramount.

The US is opposing anything that may damage the Pakistan army. What can damage the Paki army
1) India
2) Democracy
3) Rogue Taliban

The US cannot fight the Pakistan army. That would be a self goal. The Pakistan army was a US proxy. The Taliban is a Pakistan army proxy. But the Pakistan army is taking the US for a ride, knowing that it is vitally important to the US. There is bugger all the US can do about this.

The US is failing, but to its credit the US is not claiming success.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54175
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby ramana » 16 Jun 2010 10:02

Taliban was created in mid 90s to benefit from the mess in post FSU withdrawal from Afghanistan.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2010 10:13

The Pakistan army has succeeded in putting the US into a "heads we win, tails you lose" situation. The Pakarmy refuses to be forced by the US into fighting the Taliban.

1) If the US stops funding the Paki army - the army will voluntarily "lose" to the Taliban
2) If the US directly attacks the Paki army, the Paki army willl not rein in the Taliban and will stop providing logistic support to the US
3) If India hits Pakistan, the Paki army will "lose" and be absolved of all responsibility to the US.

It is the US that is on the hot seat. Like Humpty Dumpty - all the Kings horses and men - all the US's power cannot get what it wants from the Paki army.

The US has three choices

A) Admit defeat and pull out.
B) Fight the Taliban directly and bomb the crap out of Pakistan. The war will shift to Pakistan then
C) Try and retrieve the situation by not doing A or B.

But the US cannot control events. As long as it sits around making no decisions it is losing men and money in Afghanistan. Even if it prints more money it can't print men in war and there is a real war going on between Taliban and the US. Pakistan has fought the US to a stalemate. Naturally - Pakistan is fighting in its own backyard, as the Vietnamese did.

So what is the US losing by losing in Afghanistan?
1) I loses echandee
2) It loses Afghanistan
3) It has lost control over the Paki army

The only thing the US can do is to try and bribe the Paki army to make it stronger against India and hope the Paki army will do its bidding. The Pakis army is not doing its bidding despite that. The Paki army now has nukes and is quite confident of thwarting India without US arms aid. The US is fighting a losing battle here.

What is good for India?
1) Pakistan army
2) Taliban
3) US in Pakistan?

None of them are good. So far. But more on that below.

What can India do?
1) fight a war with Pakistan
2) Ignore Pakistan
3) Try and make peace with Pakistan?

All are bad options for India.

Is there any situation in which the US and India can cooperate given that India seeks progress and peace alone? This may be the most important question for us

Previously, when the US controlled the Paki army India's cooperation was not needed,

Now, with the US losing, India's support may be needed. Which of the following options would India support?
1) Pakistan army in power in Pakisatan
2) Taliban in power in Pakistan
3) US controllling Pakistan army and stopping terror against India

Which of these 3 options is best for the US?

I have left out one more option. Democracy in Pakistan. The US will not allow it. That will be the end of US influence in Pakistan. No election is possible in Pakistan that fails to allow the Pakistan army to wield power as long as the US has a say.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21125
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Prem » 16 Jun 2010 10:30

Uncle Paki conundrum started with Kaulin Powell 's embrace of his personal friend Musharraf and the air lift from Konudz.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 10:37

shiv wrote:I have left out one more option. Democracy in Pakistan. The US will not allow it. That will be the end of US influence in Pakistan. No election is possible in Pakistan that fails to allow the Pakistan army to wield power as long as the US has a say.


Then US wins right? I still dont understand what US loses if it pulls out of Afg. or what is US losing today.

US is losing money and soliders to achieve a geo-political goal 10000 km away from its nation.

How is it losing? US will lose ONLY if the following signs are seen

1) True democracy in Pakistan -- Taliban wins democratically and does a Iran on them

2) Break up of Pakistan.

3) US being forced to deal with third world like India on EQUAL terms, they queue up to sell us goodies like Russian are desperate too, no sign EUMA, CISMOA, blah blah and then we will see if we let you look at the brochure.

Whats H&D for US? It lost both H&D and much more in Vietnam, so what, one minor battle in a large war.

Losing a battle is not losing a war.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2010 10:51

Sanku wrote:Then US wins right? I still dont understand what US loses if it pulls out of Afg. or what is US losing today.

US is losing money and soliders to achieve a geo-political goal 10000 km away from its nation.

How is it losing? US will lose ONLY if the following signs are seen

1) True democracy in Pakistan -- Taliban wins democratically and does a Iran on them

2) Break up of Pakistan.

3) US being forced to deal with third world like India on EQUAL terms, they queue up to sell us goodies like Russian are desperate too, no sign EUMA, CISMOA, blah blah and then we will see if we let you look at the brochure.

Whats H&D for US? It lost both H&D and much more in Vietnam, so what, one minor battle in a large war.

Losing a battle is not losing a war.


Exactly correct.

If we say the US loses nothing by losing in Afghanistan, then the US is staying on because it hopes to gain something else.

All I am saying is that the US is staying to keep its influence over the Pakistan army, since Afghanistan is dispensable. ( Some people may disagree, but hey so what if Afghanistan goes?)

The US is unwilling to lose the little control they have over the Pakistan army. The US's influence in the region is dependent on the Paki army. It is that Paki army that is taking the US for a ride. OK the US is not losing. But it's not winning either. And it is paying money to the Pakistan army AND losing men to the Paki army's proxies.

What is good for India?

If the US stops supporting the Paki army, I think India stands to gain. Agreed the Taliban will gain too, but why should India worry about the Taliban? They can be no worse for us than the Paki army. I fully support a Taliban victory if that is what Pakstanis want. And I support democracy in Pakistan. I want the Pakistan army to lose power. As long as the Paki army and the US lose I am quite happy. To hell with Afghanistan.

If India's aim is to gain an advantage over Pakistan, that advantage will not come unless India somehow sabotages the US and its support for the Pakistan army.

For this to happen we have to recognise signs where the US is in pain and be ready to milk an advantage for ourselves. Can we milk the US to do something for us? That is why I asked in my previous post:
Which of the following options would India support?
1) Pakistan army in power in Pakisatan
2) Taliban in power in Pakistan
3) US controlling Pakistan army and stopping terror against India

2 may be the best option
3 is second best
1 is worst.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby RajeshA » 16 Jun 2010 11:54

shiv wrote:If India's aim is to gain an advantage over Pakistan, that advantage will not come unless India somehow sabotages the US and its support for the Pakistan army.

For this to happen we have to recognise signs where the US is in pain and be ready to milk an advantage for ourselves. Can we milk the US to do something for us? That is why I asked in my previous post:
Which of the following options would India support?
1) Pakistan army in power in Pakisatan
2) Taliban in power in Pakistan
3) US controlling Pakistan army and stopping terror against India

2 may be the best option
3 is second best
1 is worst.


shiv ji,

from the given options, I agree with their order of preference. I do believe, there are some other options, particularly those, where we do not have to consider the whole of Pakistan as one political entity.

As far as the discussion between you and Anujan ji goes wrt the weakness of the US, IMHO that is a discussion of how to mold our perception based on two different perspectives of the situation, rather than necessarily a disagreement about the facts on the ground, so I will defer on that.

Expanding on your preferences, I would humbly add a few points:

The main aim of the US in Af-Pak region is
1) to have the Pakistani Army at its beckoning (you mention this)
2) protect its echandee
3) get a few Al Qaeda types to show at home, that the fight against terrorism is going apace.

In order to protect its echandee, and for Al Qaeda No. 3s, its willing to pump the greenbacks up the backsides of the greeshirts. That is one reason why US is willing to finance the Pakistani Army.

So possible reasons are:
a) Fight Al Qaida et al
b) Keep India in check
c) Avoid the situation, that China takes over the Pakistani Army, which USA has so assiduously built up over the years.
d) Assure US access to Central Asia, for whatever reason, including engagement there with the regimes for crude Oil. If the regimes there find out, that US has lost logistical access to the region, they will fall back into the laps of Russia and may be China.

Is there a way to break the relationship between USA and Pakistani Army? That is the question! For that it may be important to see how one can nullify all these reasons.

a) Fight Al Qaida: Now the US knows that the Pakistani Army is hardly fighting the whole network that has come up there with all sorts of scorpions and snakes. But the American taxpayer still needs to be assured that the US Army is fighting the good war, the war against terrorism. That America is doing something. Al Qaida's No 3s may be a laughing stock on BRF, but they are vital importance to the sense of security of Americans.

Secondly BHO and HRC swear on 'smart power'. Something they are not really applying in Pakistan, as the RoI is getting skewed against them. This is the BIG SECRET in Washington, and the politicos want to keep it that way. The military want to keep it that way, because of the largesse to the military (but lets not go there).

The article from London School of Economics was a big exposé from a respectable source of the double crossing of Pakistanis. That is why there were quick denials of its credibility from Washington. Washington's bluff needs to be called and some have started doing just that.

The Europeans know that they don't know what they are still doing in Afghanistan. One day you are fighting the Taliban. Next day you want to talk to them. One day you catch them. Next day you let them go. European soldiers are dying and getting maimed and for what? The mission of doing nation-building in Afghanistan is off the table. The mission of destroying Islamic extremists in Afghanistan is off the table. The mission of stopping drug trade arising from Afghanistan is off the table. So what is left anymore? The Europeans want to get out. It is in Europe that the bluff needs to be called: that the Americans have lost a credible partner in the war against terror in Pakistan, and without Pakistan's cooperation the chances of NATO's have dwindled into nothing.

So the story about the double-crossing Pakistanis needs to flashed incessantly around the world, and that too from respectable institutions. If the coalition breaks, US will not stay much longer in Afghanistan. The question that arises, is how would US leave Afghanistan, in whose hands. From India's PoV, this should never be in Pakistan's hands. The story about Pakistan's double-crossing would help in that regard. The people of NATO countries should know, that their sons fell in Afghanistan because of Pakistan's double crossing. Some regimes, especially Britain would want to hand everything over to Pakistanis and get out, simply because that is the quickest way and saves them some echandee, but these stories about Pakistan's double crossing should make the Europeans think, that it is better to get out of Afghanistan without any such rubbish arrangements and echandee doesn't matter much.

Can the Indians help in prodding and getting European media and research institutions to print damning material on Pakistanis and their double-cross, articles of the same quality as LSE?!! American media may or may not indulge.

b) As far as the theory of US using Pakistani Army to keep India in check goes, I personally believe that MMS has done enough chaaploosi of USA to have that as a US priority.

c) The other question is, what happens if the Pakistani Army falls in the hands of the Chinese. To go into that, I would have to have the confidence, that the Pakistani Army would survive that long. 8)

d) Access to Central Asia is something to which there are no easy options, or is Kashmir one such option. I don't know, how that can be tackled. Unless of course, US sees that all this engagement with Central Asia was for nothing, and Russia will have monopoly over the Oil and other minerals regardless of whether USA is engaged or not. The CARs probably already know that the Emperor is naked.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 12:48

shiv wrote:If India's aim is to gain an advantage over Pakistan, that advantage will not come unless India somehow sabotages the US and its support for the Pakistan army.


Thank you Sir. My answer is the same broken record,

1) "Apply asymmetric warfare in Pakistan" take out the good guys in Pakistan, those Senior and sane Armed forces professionals who stop Taliban from encroaching (they may hate India or not does not matter) Then say cry about their death.

2) Take steps such that the Mullah in Pakistan goes crazy, "War on India today and those who block it must die" Openly talk about how Pakistan will starve of water.

3) Trade sanctions on Pakistan, I found out thanks to the thread, that we actually have implicit sanctions, wow, turn them up.

4) Weaken civil society more, rubbish them, say they dont speak for Pakistan etc etc...

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby shravan » 16 Jun 2010 13:03

5 shot dead in Karachi

KARACHI: Five persons, including a policeman, were gunned down in recent Karachi target, said sources in the police Wednesday.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Singha » 16 Jun 2010 13:32

Sanku, you can beat the patient but so long as saline bottle is there .... pinprick and harass the saline bottle too.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Postby Sanku » 16 Jun 2010 13:50

Singha wrote:Sanku, you can beat the patient but so long as saline bottle is there .... pinprick and harass the saline bottle too.


Sir Saline bottle has a big ugly nurse around it. My idea is to make the patient bleed from so many pores that saline bottle finish from the source.

They are not infinite after all.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests