Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Mar. 29, 2011

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 18 Apr 2011 23:38

gurus, i m sorry if I have missed any debate on why pak is building so many nukes. Any reason why?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 18 Apr 2011 23:39

abhijitm wrote:gurus, i m sorry if I have missed any debate on why pak is building so many nukes. Any reason why?

go to west asia dhaaga and read up rudra dev's hypothesis.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 18 Apr 2011 23:50

khwaja wrote:India should follow a foreign policy with its pillars on the following points:

(1) Open and tacit support to the liberals of Pakistan, whose views could match with the larger Indian society. Help liberal / secular / socialist institutions in Pakistan - the present liberal class is a class of scotch sipping, armchair revolutionary aristrocrat and intellecuals; This could be a force to reckon with if they build organisational strength and offensive capabilities. India could fissures in the arrangement between the civilian ruled and military ruled institutions of Pakistan.

...

After all this time, we know too much about the true nature (feudal mentality, Muslim supremacism etc.) this class of people in general, to believe in the possibility that there is anything to be gained by "sponsoring" them as a counterweight to Nizamat-e-paki. They are simply supremacists with better manners and lifestyle, that's all.

Having said that, if any of them is willing to openly renounce Jinnah, Nazariya-e-pakistan etc., and declare his intention to fight for downfall of the same, I see no reason why we shouldn't support such people. I count Salman Rushdie in this class; there's one academic ex-paki dude in Canada who also fits the category, maybe Irshad Manji; Pervez Hoodbhoy is almost in that category of truth-tellers, but he is not a fighter.

The model should be Vibhishana--a person who listens to his conscience, rebels against evil and his own people, breaking his own heart in the process, and commits to reassembling it in alliance with the forces of good.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 18 Apr 2011 23:55

shiv wrote:Request help from BRFites

Folks - I put up a video on YouTube about Pakistani army excesses and genocide in Pakistan. It has been taken offline with a warning. Completely unfairly - clearly it is causing takleef to some Pakis. Good. I am requesting people who have "disposable" YouTube ids where you have no intention of uploading any videos to email me on bennedose AT hotmail.com. I will email you a place where you can download that video and I ask you to upload it. Let that video appear on multiple YouTube ids with no publicity and let it go viral.

And you paklurks - if you email me - I will know

What about protesting youtube censorship?

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 18 Apr 2011 23:59

GuruPrabhu wrote:What course of action do folks here prefer? So far, as far as I can tell, GOI has followed only two courses:

A. Talk

B. Not talk

It is not as if either A or B has some well thought out follow-up scenarios that have been worked out and put into action. IMO, both are equally useless options and major time-pass chai-biskoot for experts.

I get the impression that folks here prefer B. So, may I ask what are the perceived gains and benefits from following plan B, and how can India achieve its objectives (whatever they are)?

Not talking upsets the RAPE and puts them in their place QED

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 19 Apr 2011 00:05

War is a real option and is on the table in Nai Dilli.

When I say war, I don't mean a WW2 style invasion, city by city takeover and destruction. Neither a 71 style gherao and gangbang operation.
The netas and military high command understand Pakistan's establishment's psychology well.
I suspect that war in the indo pak context means delivering a resounding Jhapad, that will publically shame the establishment there, and after delivering that Jhapad will quickly withdraw and dare them to take it to the next level.
IOW Cold Start.
The pakistani establishment will be shamed enough publically that their position will be untenable thereafter. And India can easily coat that Jhapad by saying that Pakistan hasn't acted against the terrorists, so we are taking out the terrorists onlee. An indication that this is on the minds of the powers that be is the repeated threats that our netas hold out to the international community that if the US can do XYZ against terrorists, we reserve the right to do so too.

This is why the Pakistanis have been severely bitching about something like cold start. The problem from their POV is, what will they do if India carries out airstrikes? or the Strike corps come rolling across the IB, take out muridke or lay some big airbase to waste and then withdraw?

The Pakistanis can't go nuclear because India already withdrew, they don't have the balls or the military might to retaliate, meanwhile the abduls are baying for someone's blood. The generals don't want to make the choice between catching a flight to Dubai with their families and fighting India.

MMS, I suspect is a typical babu.
I understand that the US interlocutors who happened to stop by his office after 26/11 saw a person who was literally screaming.
IIRC his response to a question by a journalist about weather he will discuss POK with the pakistanis was, "The time has not arrived that we should ask the pakistanis to give us POK" or words to that effect.
I believe that no PM of India is as naive as we make the current one out to be. He has his reasons, and he thinks that is the best way forward for his country. I dunno if his reasons are something that we are willing to accept.

It is very difficult to judge a person when he is in power. He doesn't have a coiterie of chamchas who will extoll his virtues after he is gone. I hope we can some day know for sure.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 19 Apr 2011 00:14

For getting over You tube ban, create many e-mail ids and then load the same video multiple files.. notify us here so we can download the FLV file and we can do the same load it multiple times as well and they would have 100s if not 1000s of that video up over a period of time.

Use this to download the video.

http://keepvid.com/

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 19 Apr 2011 00:21

abhishek_sharma wrote:
vina wrote: The difference will be like the current one between So-Ko and No-Ko economically.
Perfect. The only problem is that we will continue to face some problems like South Korea. It is not a big deal. People die due to all types of reasons. Just look at traffic/rail accidents. They have certainly killed more people than the 26/11 (or 9/11) event.

Vina you need to pay attention to core paki dna which is the drive to prevail over rich and soft cultures through unrelenting briGANDage.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 19 Apr 2011 00:24

I still don't get it. So India becomes rich in next 10-15 years and then what...Suddenly TSP falls off the 3.5 BFF wagon? The whore suddenly loses all its tricks and charms? China is where India wants to be in next 10-15 years, so has USA dumped Taiwan in favor of China?

If India becomes too rich then same thing will happen as it has happened from last 2000+ years. foreigners will pool their resources together to invade and weaken India.

So! any money must be matched with defensive (as well as offensive) armed forces capability.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 19 Apr 2011 02:09

I was ROTFL a few months back when there was a discussion on undie TV titled "What kind of superpower will India be"?

Apart from the usual pious leftist pronounciations, the general consensus amongst most was that India will be a "Soft Superpower"

Someone seriously needs to hammer some sense into these WKK idiots.

IMHO the term Soft Superpower is an oxymoron.
A nation becomes a true superpower only if its rise rests on at least 3 legs.
1. Political
2. Economic and
3. Military poweress

Take one of the legs away and the facade comes crashing down due to its unsustainability and instability.

Further, the nation in question has to demonstrate from time to time that it is willing and capable of using these three ruthlessly to further its national interests.

JMT

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Apr 2011 02:18

SBajwa wrote:
I If India becomes too rich then same thing will happen as it has happened from last 2000+ years. foreigners will pool their resources together to invade and weaken India.
So! any money must be matched with defensive (as well as offensive) armed forces capability.

Offer the the option of new Mahabharta= Mahasansar Sangraha and find out how many dare to take it. Doubt any of them want to sacrifce their own existence for Poaks . Start with Indian ocean"Manthan", kick the posion out and expand from there.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Apr 2011 05:37

KLNMurthy wrote: What about protesting youtube censorship?

This is one way of doing exactly that. Emails go unanswered. If you could point me to some feedback thread on YouTube I would be glad to use that thread was well. Is there a YouTube forum?

YouTube of course is a free service that is being used to build up an empire. It is their right to build an empire but it is equally perfecty OK for freebie users to utilize the freebies to the hilt. So its fair game.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Apr 2011 05:41

Gagan wrote:I was ROTFL a few months back when there was a discussion on undie TV titled "What kind of superpower will India be"?

Apart from the usual pious leftist pronounciations, the general consensus amongst most was that India will be a "Soft Superpower"

India is clearly attempting to use the SAS technique to dominate the world stage.

(SAS = "Supineness As Strategy")

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 19 Apr 2011 06:39

^
I likey!
That is uber chankiyan-ness on the powers-that-be's part

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 19 Apr 2011 07:16

Gagan - really enjoyed your post.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 19 Apr 2011 07:21

Meanwhile, Pak team returning without money
Let's all give a collective (sympathetic) "Awwww!!!!", and then read on to know why...

The Pakistani delegation to the International Monetary Fund-World Bank spring meetings is returning home without any understanding on the release of the final instalment of an $11.3 billion loan package.

“There are no indications that the delegation was able to convince the IMF to release the next tranche,” a diplomatic source told Dawn. “And until the 6th tranche is released, it is highly unlikely that the IMF will hold any negotiations on a future arrangement.”

Pakistan has borrowed more than half of its $50 billion external loans from the IMF, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

“But the country’s economic performance is so poor that it is difficult to imagine how they could have convinced the IMF to release the next tranche,” the source said. “This was not a good trip for the Pakistani delegation.”

The IMF is believed to have warned the Pakistani delegation that if they did not take immediate remedial measures, their deficit may go up to 6 per cent by the end of the current fiscal year.

Experts noted that India also had a high deficit but their growth rate was also between 9-10 per cent compared to Pakistan’s 2 per cent.

Darn it, evil Yindoos! That equal-equal strategy failed again!

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 19 Apr 2011 07:29

Pindi Logic (and I am not making this up). US success linked to Pakistan: Gilani

Why, you ask? According to Groper al Gilani:

Success for the United States is linked to Pakistan

Therefore,

he had asked the US for drone technology

However,

predator strikes in the tribal regions were proving to be counterproductive against militancy

But, Because

Pakistan and Afghanistan had suffered the most due to terrorism

And,

a stable Afghanistan was in the best interest of Pakistan

So, it is logical that US success be linked to pa'astan getting the drone technology. For what purpose, don't ask. Get it?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 19 Apr 2011 07:35

Looks like the chalaki of the pakistani team didn't work.

They had it all planned out: They were going to 'tell' the IMF that in the event of IMF not releasing the last installment, to treat it as Pakistan's deposit for a further loan.

Looks like the IMF didn't bite.

Poor IMF, they don't know, they didn't recognize the martial ghazi pakistanis. Their loss. I tell you, that day is not far when pakistan will be a soopaar-power, pakistan will be on the moon, then you'll see this IMF crawl back and ask for mercy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Apr 2011 07:39

anupmisra wrote:Meanwhile, Pak team returning without money
Let's all give a collective (sympathetic) "Awwww!!!!", and then read on to know why...

The Pakistani delegation to the International Monetary Fund-World Bank spring me

Pakistan’s inflation rate, already between 13 to 14 per cent may also go further up. And in the current situation, taking more loans will bring more pressures on the economy, IMF experts warned.

<snip>

Experts noted that with population growth rate not slowing down, youth unemployment at almost 50 per cent, less than 5 per cent investment in public sector development and with a 10 per cent tax to GDP ratio, Pakistan could not hope to revive its economy without drastic reforms.

If Pakistan was a sick company, it would either close down, or parts sold off/taken over by the creditors.

Recalling earlier statistics - 75% of Pakistan's economy is black - so the money is there. The government cannot/will not access that money and lenders continue to support the government.

What is it about the integrity of Pakistan that stops the "world" from allowing the government to collapse and allow Pakistan to achieve its "natural state" as 2-3 different countries? After all the "failure" of Pakistan does not mean that the place is going to explode or disappear. it is a the failure of government which should be replaced by 3-4 representative regional governments that govern their areas well and not be held together by artificial infusions of money hat keep the Paki army alive. This I guess is the core of Christine Fair's rant. No matter what, Pakistan must be supported for the US to succeed in Afghanistan.

Naturally if the US succeeds in Afghanistan, Pakistan has had it. So Pakistan will blame India and not allow the US to succeed in Afghanistan.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 19 Apr 2011 07:44

I see no alternative for the Poak govt. but to raise defense spending.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Apr 2011 08:11

Drone strikes aren't the real issue in U.S.-Pakistan relations

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

One area of the relationship that Pakistan would like to revise is the ongoing secret (or not-so-secret) talks with the Taliban. President Asif Ali Zardari's recent trip to Turkey, believed to be a facilitator in the talks, followed by the visit of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, along with General Kayani and ISI Chief General Ahmad Shuja Pasha to Kabul, indicate that the Pakistani government is attempting to insert itself into the talks with or without U.S. consent. Members of Karzai's inner circle have indicated privately that the conversations were fruitful, and both sides expressed satisfaction with the meeting, in which both sides agreed to set up a "joint peace commission" to help end the Taliban insurgency.

The Pakistani army also wants to continue working to decrease the substantial Indian leverage with the Afghan leadership; the army is the key force handling the country's Afghan, India and U.S. policies in addition to several other key areas of "national interests," and the generals will likely not accept a solution in Afghanistan that does not keep India at bay.

And while the presence of a "large number" of CIA operatives in Pakistan may bother the country's intelligence services, as evidenced by the objections raised during meeting with Panetta last week, the real issue with the CIA's presence in the country is the specific intelligence gathering operations related to the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a key concern for America's military and intelligence services, as well as Pakistan's nuclear program. According to Pakistani electronic media and various reports, CIA contractor Raymond Davis was gathering intelligence on the Pakistani nuclear program and the LeT operations inside and outside Pakistan when he allegedly shot and killed two men in Lahore in January.

As part of a new deal, Pakistan will likely push for guarantees for its nuclear program and a reduction in U.S. efforts against LeT, both considered key strategic pillars for the country's security establishment, and both part of efforts to constrain Indian influence in what Pakistan considers its backyard.

Finally, the condemnation of drone attacks and harsh statements about America's military and covert presence in Pakistan - despite military and government's heavy involvement with both - serve currently to bolster the image of both the army and the government with the Pakistani public. Both have recently lost trust of the people in the face of the prevailing lawlessness, terrorism and military operations in different parts of the country, and the release of Raymond Davis after the payment of "blood money" to the victims' families.

While the current government is often a target of media criticism, private Pakistani television stations no longer go out of their way to praise the army, which has recently been subject to critiques over several issues, including the army's refusal to rein in warlords such as the Khyber-based Mangal Bagh and even the army and intelligence support for militant groups such as the Haqqani Network and LeT. By constantly bolstering a negative image of the U.S. in Pakistan, the armed forces can regain its "hero" image with the people, while obscuring the double game it plays with the United States, alternately combating militant groups and keeping others at the ready for future use in Afghanistan, Kashmir, or even India.

The political leadership, on the other hand, has had no other option but to submit to the army's will, and joined the chorus of condemnation of the United States only after the army took the lead. Both Gilani and Zardari believe that public opposition to the drone strikes will keep parties like Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam or the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) from scoring political points because of the issue.

Ultimately, the current round of opposition shows once again the willingness of the Pakistani leadership to alternately "push" and "pull" in their relationship with the United States, constantly reacting to the changing domestic, regional and international political situation. Pakistan will tolerate or encourage the drone strikes in the future, as long as its status as a regional fulcrum and its strategic interests remain protected in the long-run.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 19 Apr 2011 08:26

shiv wrote:What is it about the integrity of Pakistan that stops the "world" from allowing the government to collapse and allow Pakistan to achieve its "natural state" as 2-3 different countries?

How does one negotiate with a nut case who has a nuke device strapped to his back, has a gun pointed to his own head and is standing on a nuclear trigger set to go off if the weight is removed? I don't have a firm answer to this one. Probably, first render the nuke inoperative. Then let the nut blow his head off.

The question about three or four independent States is not a workable option to the lenders in the short run (although, for many neighboring countries it sure sounds like a good idea). Why? Who assumes the debt that the beggar nation carries on its balance sheet? No new nation wants to start out with heavy debt accumulated by their predecessor. If the only option is that IMF and others can write it off, then they are probably prepared to do it anyway (with pakiland remaining in one piece). What's the difference? Higher probability of getting it repaid in some other kind based on a bigger economy. Also, this way the nukes stay in one zoo (not distributed amongst three smaller zoos).

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 19 Apr 2011 08:30

tejas wrote:I see no alternative for the Poak govt. but to raise defense spending.

The natural precursor in pakiland to that has always been more sensational terrorist attacks on its soil, more kidnappings, more inter-faith and inter ethnic strife, more urgent appeals for the military to step in to save the nation and, in last desparation, people willing to forsake social development for additional defence spending. "We will have a nuclear device even if we have to eat grass" kind of deja-vu.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 19 Apr 2011 08:50

shiv wrote: What we should be doing has been mooted on BRF as
1. Attack Pakistan
2. Don't talk to Pakistan
3. Encourage "liberals"

What are the pros and cons of these tactics? Any takers?

We should develop significant deterrence ability against Pakistan. By deterrence, I dont mean new-clear detergent. I mean the ability to bump off a few high ups after every terror attack, ability to turn off the aid pipe from IMF, ability to do mischief in Baluchistan and other soft underbelly.

Then we leave the Pakis to stew in their own juices for 10-15 years. If they manage to build a functioning country (self-sustainable, without the Khakhis driving from the back seat), we can start all pappi-jhappi, walk the extra mile, give our hand of friendship ityadi. If they break up, bad for them.

Indians somehow think that are required to and can prevent Pakis from sinking deeper into Pakistan. This IMHO is the biggest mistake.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Apr 2011 08:54

Anujan wrote:. By deterrence, I dont mean new-clear detergent. I mean the ability to bump off a few high ups after every terror attack, ability to turn off the aid pipe from IMF, ability to do mischief in Baluchistan and other soft underbelly.

More is needed. Some bombs. Some artillery guns.

----

India sticks to May-end schedule for Pak talks

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/India ... ks/778003/

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 19 Apr 2011 08:57

abhishek_sharma wrote:
More is needed. Some bombs. Some artillery guns.

No saar. What is needed as Anujan pointed out, is irrational behavior - SDREs are too rational and predictable. Next time some LeT op happens in India, just blow up some random ISI or Paki army fella - does not matter if he/she is even remotely connected with said incident. A couple of times this happens and Pakis+3.5 go WTF, the rationale behind it all, starts to settle in.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Apr 2011 09:02

Two sides of the Durand Line: C. Raja Mohan

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/two-s ... ne/777861/

U.S.-Pakistan Partnership in Peril: Daniel Markey

http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/us-pakistan ... ril/p24669

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 Apr 2011 09:12

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Apr 2011 09:44

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... t-pakistan
Boehner, House delegation visit Pakistan for 'frank' talks on extremism

The group met with Prime Minister Yousaf Gillani and Gen. Ashfaq Kayani and had a "frank and productive discussion" about the battle against Islamic extremist groups like the Taliban and al Qaeda.
"While the relationship between our two countries has seen its challenges, we discussed the importance of working through these issues and renewing our partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect," Boehner said in a statement. As the Afghan war has worn on, the U.S. has placed heavy pressure on Pakistan's government to root out extremist groups that occupy large swaths of land along its border with Afghanistan. "We recognize that the Pakistani military and the Pakistani people have made great sacrifices in recent years in the struggle against extremism and terrorism," Boehner said. "Al-Qaeda and its extremist allies have made Pakistan a target, and the Pakistani nation has suffered deeply as a result. We appreciate the efforts of the Pakistani military and the sacrifices of those troops and the Pakistani people."Boehner's group is taking advantage of the congressional recess to visit key strategic sites in the Middle East. The lawmakers stopped in Iraq over the weekend to visit U.S. troops and Iraqi officials.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Apr 2011 09:48

Has Pakistan dug its own grave in Afghanistan?
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/has-p ... 110418.htm

At the early stage after 9/11, Afghan Taliban needed Pakistan's support, especially during the winter season they needed hideouts in the tribal areas of Pakistan. But now they enjoy good enough support inside Afghanistan.

After fighting for almost 10 years, the Afghan Taliban are emerging as an invincible power; they could lead their war against the US-led forces without Pakistan's help. Earlier, they were silent but now the Afghan Taliban openly speaks against Pakistan and its policies.
They think that it was difficult for the US to invade Afghanistan without the help of Pakistan. All allies of the US should be treated as the same -- whether they are Muslims like Pakistan or non-Muslims, says the Taliban.
'Fight Pakistanis like you fight Americans'
Recently, a jihadi book Shamseeri Bay Niyam (a sword without scabbard) has emerged amongst the Afghan Taliban. The book is widely distributed amongst the fighters, which sheds light on the situations under which jihad should be waged and against what type of enemy. The book reveals that jihad against Pakistani forces is to be fought in the same manner as it is fought against the Americans.In a chapter of the book, titled Addo Wasayel (confronting enemy), a question is raised by the author on the difference between fighting against the Afghan forces and Pakistani forces. The author then explains that there is no difference between the two, as both are fighting for the sake of the US. The book reveals, "Under Shariah, there is no difference in fighting against Afghani forces or Pakistani forces. Both obey the same master (US). Both are committing the same crime and have played havoc with innocent people's lives. There is no such Shariah that terms jihad in Afghanistan valid and in Pakistan invalid."The book further reveals that in Islam, there is no concept of a boundary when it comes to jihad.The chapter is concluded stating, "Afghani, American and Pakistani forces are involved in the same crimes. So the fate of all should be the same. In this way, jihad is valid against Pakistani forces."

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 19 Apr 2011 10:41

Singha wrote:war could be waged not just for a clear cut WW2 style win.

weakening the enemy politically (1962)
teach a lesson (patent pending)
send a signal that someone is pushing us up against a hard limit from which automatic repurcussions will follow
to selectively claim chunks of territory

No war could be one unless political objectives are clear. It is very clear from ages. What do you think could be clearly defined political objectives?

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 19 Apr 2011 10:59

shiv wrote: What we should be doing has been mooted on BRF as
1. Attack Pakistan
2. Don't talk to Pakistan
3. Encourage "liberals"

What are the pros and cons of these tactics? Any takers?

1) Attack Pakistan: I think this is a non starter from the word go. As I stated above, you can't go to war without having clear political objectives. Now what could be clear objectives?

a) Land Grab: Like Israel we claim a security zone of 20 Km inside Pak territory all along the border. Will this result in better situation? I don't think so. If by any stretch of imagination we do pull off Militarily this particular facet then holding on to the territory is going to be a nightmare. Plus it will not improve security in India.

b) Destroy Terrorist infrastructure: well Americans are trying to do this years in Pakistan. It's a non starter too. Setting up / moving / rebuilding terror camps is NO big deal. Further unlike in the case of US, we will receive a massive response. Could lead to nuclear brinkmanship. So we would incur huge cost and the result will be intangible with a massive downside.

2) Don't talk to Pakis: This is the only policy which holds ground. No talk / No Visa / No kirkt/ No +ve vote in IMF and World Bank / Economic policy specifically designed to hurt RAPEs / Some tax incentives to Star Plus. This infuriates the Paki Abdul to no end. US will build pressure, but I guess we have to just take the pressure and don't budge. Lay out clear steps that Pakis need to take to resume dialogue or else GTH. This also requires good leadership and effective diplomacy. No talk policy has kept India safe since 2008 onwards.

3) Encourage Liberals: Do you know any in Pakistan? There are no brave 'liberals' in Pakistan. If anything encourage Balochs...

anandsgh · Post by **anandsgh** » 19 Apr 2011 12:27

anupmisra wrote:Meanwhile, Pak team returning without money
Let's all give a collective (sympathetic) "Awwww!!!!", and then read on to know why...

The Pakistani delegation to the International Monetary Fund-World Bank spring meetings is returning home without any understanding on the release of the final instalment of an $11.3 billion loan package.
“There are no indications that the delegation was able to convince the IMF to release the next tranche,” a diplomatic source told Dawn. “And until the 6th tranche is released, it is highly unlikely that the IMF will hold any negotiations on a future arrangement.”
Pakistan has borrowed more than half of its $50 billion external loans from the IMF, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.
“But the country’s economic performance is so poor that it is difficult to imagine how they could have convinced the IMF to release the next tranche,” the source said. “This was not a good trip for the Pakistani delegation.”
The IMF is believed to have warned the Pakistani delegation that if they did not take immediate remedial measures, their deficit may go up to 6 per cent by the end of the current fiscal year.
Experts noted that India also had a high deficit but their growth rate was also between 9-10 per cent compared to Pakistan’s 2 per cent.
Darn it, evil Yindoos! That equal-equal strategy failed again!

See IMF, If you do not release the next tranche of loan, Pakis are doing this and will keep on doing!!

http://www.dawn.com/2011/04/19/pakistan ... ssile.html

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 19 Apr 2011 12:34

See IMF, If you do not release the next tranche of loan, Pakis are doing this and will keep on doing!!

http://www.dawn.com/2011/04/19/pakistan ... ssile.html

Exactly - the Pakis have the next set of blackmail aids ready - its gonna be - "give us interest free loans or forgivable loans or we'll have to barter our nuclear toys" = - hence, the expediency in building bombs and missiles.

The Pakis understand that their ploy of holding access to Afghanistan has run its course - so, now the next approach to global blackmail is being worked out.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Apr 2011 13:05

Gagan wrote:The netas and military high command understand Pakistan's establishment's psychology well.
I suspect that war in the indo pak context means delivering a resounding Jhapad, that will publically shame the establishment there, and after delivering that Jhapad will quickly withdraw and dare them to take it to the next level.
IOW Cold Start.

The pakistani establishment will be shamed enough publically that their position will be untenable thereafter. And India can easily coat that Jhapad by saying that Pakistan hasn't acted against the terrorists, so we are taking out the terrorists onlee.

1971 was as big a jhapad as they come! It taught them a lesson, that full-fledged wars can be injurious to their territorial integrity. So the full-fledged wars went off the table. Now we want that terrorism too goes off the table for the Pakis.

The publicly shaming of the establishment is a bit complicated. It involves a lot of PR assault along with the military Jhapad, and considering the fact that the Pakistani Establishment controls the TV channels and the English print media through the RAPEs, the streets through the mullahs, and the Urdu media most thoroughly through its various proxies, the chances of India getting its message across that it was a punitive action would, I think, be lost on the Pakis. It is a bit throwing a stone at the wasp hive. I am not even sure the DDM would support such action.

The question is what is left behind in the dust?

A "Land for Terror" Strategy changes facts on the ground. Pakistanis would have to "demand" of us to return the territory we capture. If they do that, they involve themselves in a dialog/debate with us, enabling us to put forth our point of view - that it was a punitive action to tell the Pakistanis that terrorist acts on their part on India would have consequences. That would make the message from India stick!

Using "Land for Terror" Strategy we are able to deliver both the jhapad as well as the message, and both would be having a lasting effect, and just in case they don't there will be a repetition of the Strategy until the message sinks through that they are stupid to use terrorism against India, for they are only losing "Ummah" land!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Apr 2011 13:43

Sri wrote:
shiv wrote: What we should be doing has been mooted on BRF as
1. Attack Pakistan
2. Don't talk to Pakistan
3. Encourage "liberals"

What are the pros and cons of these tactics? Any takers?
1) Attack Pakistan: I think this is a non starter from the word go. As I stated above, you can't go to war without having clear political objectives. Now what could be clear objectives?

a) Land Grab: Like Israel we claim a security zone of 20 Km inside Pak territory all along the border. Will this result in better situation? I don't think so. If by any stretch of imagination we do pull off Militarily this particular facet then holding on to the territory is going to be a nightmare. Plus it will not improve security in India.

b) Destroy Terrorist infrastructure: well Americans are trying to do this years in Pakistan. It's a non starter too. Setting up / moving / rebuilding terror camps is NO big deal. Further unlike in the case of US, we will receive a massive response. Could lead to nuclear brinkmanship. So we would incur huge cost and the result will be intangible with a massive downside.

2) Don't talk to Pakis: This is the only policy which holds ground. No talk / No Visa / No kirkt/ No +ve vote in IMF and World Bank / Economic policy specifically designed to hurt RAPEs / Some tax incentives to Star Plus. This infuriates the Paki Abdul to no end. US will build pressure, but I guess we have to just take the pressure and don't budge. Lay out clear steps that Pakis need to take to resume dialogue or else GTH. This also requires good leadership and effective diplomacy. No talk policy has kept India safe since 2008 onwards.

3) Encourage Liberals: Do you know any in Pakistan? There are no brave 'liberals' in Pakistan. If anything encourage Balochs...

1) An attack on Pakistan should have a clear objective.

1.a) Land Grab - There is no reason it has to be some 20 km security zone inside Pakistani territory. They have enough territory, that the 20km security zone does not really mean anything, if the objective is to provide India with a higher level of security. Moreover a 20 km zone over the whole breadth of the international border would indeed be a tall calling, and from the point of view of military tactics perhaps not recommendable at all.

Far better would be to capture some 2000 km² area somewhere just over the international border, preferably in Punjab Province, which has some strategic worth, but primarily, hurts, say some important Pakistani Zamindar close to the military or defense colony or some land held by some crore commanders.

Just grab and sit on it and don't let it go - no matter what, citing Pakistan's terrorist activities in India.

1.b) Destroy Terrorist Infrastructure - Agree, it doesn't help much attacking that, because they can always relocate, rebuild, recover. Far better is to hurt the image of their masters in GHQ, as competent and strong protectors of the Ummah land.

2) I on the other hand, want that India and Pakistan should talk and talk often. We should always have some velvet rag on our fist! As long as we seriously pursue punitive action on Pakistan, e.g. the Land for Terror Strategy, we should always be willing to talk to them, even in a cordial manner! In view of the jhapads, any talks with Pakistan, would only undermine the Pakistani side, who would look like beggars, trying to win back what they have lost in the battleground.

3) Encourage Liberals - "Liberals" are no path of resolving our problems with Pakistan. That we should be very clear about. However having acknowledged and internalized it, there should be no problem in cultivating pockets in Pakistan, which help in the dissemination of Indian culture and Indian message to the Pakis.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 19 Apr 2011 15:58

I on the other hand, want that India and Pakistan should talk and talk often. We should always have some velvet rag on our fist! As long as we seriously pursue punitive action on Pakistan, e.g. the Land for Terror Strategy, we should always be willing to talk to them, even in a cordial manner! In view of the jhapads, any talks with Pakistan, would only undermine the Pakistani side, who would look like beggars, trying to win back what they have lost in the battleground.

Even after all these, Israel doesnt have any peace, are you saying India will be different? Also pakistan can send rockets to India (bigger and better) like Hizbullah and then we would have no answers other than sending few back. Basically equal equal

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Apr 2011 16:19

It's a myth that Pakistan gets billions in US aid - Pakistani Finance Minister

"There is a perception that there is a lot of money going to Pakistan," Shaikh told the Woodrow Wilson Center policy think-tank.

"It is largely a myth that Pakistan is a beneficiary of tens of billions of dollars. The truth is that in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman arrangement this year we have not even received $300 million," he added.

"We're saying let's open our markets to each other," he said, pointing to successful negotiations with the European Union that have expanded areas of trade.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 19 Apr 2011 16:24

The Kerry Lugar Berman bill hasn't yet taken off fully. Some legal hassle about certifying that Pakistan no longer sponsors terrorists.
Not insurmountable in US-Pakistan relations.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Apr 2011 16:35

symontk wrote:
RajeshA wrote:I on the other hand, want that India and Pakistan should talk and talk often. We should always have some velvet rag on our fist! As long as we seriously pursue punitive action on Pakistan, e.g. the Land for Terror Strategy, we should always be willing to talk to them, even in a cordial manner! In view of the jhapads, any talks with Pakistan, would only undermine the Pakistani side, who would look like beggars, trying to win back what they have lost in the battleground.
Even after all these, Israel doesnt have any peace, are you saying India will be different? Also pakistan can send rockets to India (bigger and better) like Hizbullah and then we would have no answers other than sending few back. Basically equal equal

There are several differences in the two situations:

Hezbollah considers itself as fighting the Israeli Goliath, and as such justifies its guerrilla tactics. Pakistani Army portrays itself as being at par with Indian Army
Hezbollah lives within the Shi'a areas of Lebanon. It lives amongst the populace, and it is difficult targeting them and them alone. Pakistani Army has numerous isolated bases which can be targeted and hit. Pakistani Army's footprint on the ground is much too visible, for them to be so foolhardy as to attack India with missiles.
Hezbollah is a militia. Lebanese Army are powerless against the Hezbollah. Hezbollah can afford to prick the Israelis. They do not answer to the Lebanese people as a whole, and is not required to abide by international norms. Pakistani Army is the national army of Pakistan. Can it really be seen as constantly, openly and directly provoking a war with India without any layers of plausible deniability.