Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2011

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.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23787
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby SSridhar » 18 Feb 2011 16:30

AjayKK wrote: US fears terrorists might provoke Indo-Pak conflict

The article/quote avoids saying how "terrorist groups might try to provoke a conflict between India and Pakistan" to destabilise the country (Pakistan). Maybe, it is assumed/pre-postulated that a terror attack will take place which will "provoke a conflict". So, is it time for another attack before the next round of talks ?


Another terror attack, sooner than later, is a foregone conclusion. I think what Robert gates is implying is that India should exercise restraint even if there were to be a terror attack because that would lead to a catastrophe otherwise. His references to six divisions being moved to Afghanistan and Mike Mullen's suggestion about the US playing a greater role in removing the 'mistrust' between India & Pakistan point towards that. The implication here is that if India were to take any action against Pakistan after another terror attack, when the Pakistani deployment on its eastern border is thin, Pakistan would be forced to use its 'strategic assets'. Pakistan is effectively using its assistance to the US to mount another terror attack with impunity on us.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby A_Gupta » 18 Feb 2011 16:47

Shiv, for your library:
http://criticalppp.com/archives/40226

A homestead land intervention called the Punjab Marla Scheme, which was first launched in the early 1970s, remains one of the few, perhaps the only, government programme which self-consciously targeted at the conditions of the most marginalised segments in the class-caste hierarchy of the Punjab village. This paper presents primary evidence from qualitative research in a number of villages in central Punjab to illustrate the continuing salience of the class-caste conjunction in rural housing and the impact of the Marla Scheme.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby RajeshA » 18 Feb 2011 17:30

SSridhar wrote:
AjayKK wrote: US fears terrorists might provoke Indo-Pak conflict

The article/quote avoids saying how "terrorist groups might try to provoke a conflict between India and Pakistan" to destabilise the country (Pakistan). Maybe, it is assumed/pre-postulated that a terror attack will take place which will "provoke a conflict". So, is it time for another attack before the next round of talks ?


Another terror attack, sooner than later, is a foregone conclusion. I think what Robert gates is implying is that India should exercise restraint even if there were to be a terror attack because that would lead to a catastrophe otherwise. His references to six divisions being moved to Afghanistan and Mike Mullen's suggestion about the US playing a greater role in removing the 'mistrust' between India & Pakistan point towards that. The implication here is that if India were to take any action against Pakistan after another terror attack, when the Pakistani deployment on its eastern border is thin, Pakistan would be forced to use its 'strategic assets'. Pakistan is effectively using its assistance to the US to mount another terror attack with impunity on us.


SSridhar garu,

As time approaches for the next wave of terrorist attacks on India, India needs to have a ready-made response to it, so that when the time comes, nobody wavers. If the GoI does not want to pursue that logical course of action or some similar action, then Indians need to call out loudly for such action.

My suggestion has always been, that for any terrorist act in India, India needs to appropriate for herself an appropriate amount of land from Pakistan, and push the Pakistani population back, and not to give up that land, no matter what. We need to have our own "Land for Terror" policy.

By making this the cornerstone of our policy, we are in fact telling the world, that it is not in our interest to escalate conflict with Pakistan and make it all-out war, but we would take our blood-money in land occupation. This puts the onus on Pakistan for any escalation, as any escalation is not required. They cannot credibly claim, that India wanted to destroy Pakistan, for all we wanted was our blood-money.

If Pakistani Army is seen to be losing land to India, it means a severe loss of face in front of the Pakistanis, and can mean disillusionment with the Pakistani Army and ultimately its disintegration.

Such an eventuality would in itself give both USA a good reason to see to it that Pakistan does not start another terrorist attack on India, for they may lose the Pakistani Army divisions on the Western border, as well as to the Pakistani Army for the loss of land and face would make their position weaker in Pakistan.

Consequences for a terrorist attack should be made very clear in forefront itself. Only clear and assured consequences for Pakistan can deter terrorist attacks on India.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11642
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Aditya_V » 18 Feb 2011 17:49

And how is that Land going to got when you miltary are relatively underprepared and Elite SHivering when Paki says Nukes. Paki border is full of Paki Solders and Mines. Trying to occupy and gain land through Miltary advances is not practical.

If you have the stomach for it be prepared for full fleged war killing vast amounts of Paki vermin Miltary personal( which could include the very real threat of Nuclear War and having Nukes on our biggest Cities, Pakis will threaten Nukes if we try and occupy any land)- otherwise this pipedream that we can walk in and take land is facrical. In any Miltary confrontation we will lose a of civilian and Miltary men. World pressure will be immense and we will anyways give up land acquired Miltarily. SO this Land case to me sounds very farcical.

Rajesh please also think about how inHuman Rights organizations, NGO's, WKK Media will have a feild day and end up completly getting vast sections of Indian public against our Army if we just try and occupy any part of Pakistan.

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Nihat » 18 Feb 2011 18:01

Occupying land as a response to terror attack sounds a tad far fetched to me too, first off it would be great if had the capability to do that within 72 hours of an attack but unfortunetly we don't . A more plausible response might be what Israel does to the gaza strip I. E. Whenever there is a rocket launched upwards southern Israel, a rapid air strike and artillery follows almost instantly.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby RajeshA » 18 Feb 2011 18:32

Aditya_V wrote:And how is that Land going to got when you miltary are relatively underprepared and Elite SHivering when Paki says Nukes. Paki border is full of Paki Solders and Mines. Trying to occupy and gain land through Miltary advances is not practical.

If you have the stomach for it be prepared for full fleged war killing vast amounts of Paki vermin Miltary personal( which could include the very real threat of Nuclear War and having Nukes on our biggest Cities, Pakis will threaten Nukes if we try and occupy any land)- otherwise this pipedream that we can walk in and take land is facrical. In any Miltary confrontation we will lose a of civilian and Miltary men. World pressure will be immense and we will anyways give up land acquired Miltarily. SO this Land case to me sounds very farcical.

Rajesh please also think about how inHuman Rights organizations, NGO's, WKK Media will have a feild day and end up completly getting vast sections of Indian public against our Army if we just try and occupy any part of Pakistan.


Nobody is saying it would be a walkover. And yes, one should be prepared for a full-fledged war with Pakistan. For that one may consider first some ways how to deal with the nuclear threat. Some suggestions were given by me.

But India needs options below the nuclear threshold, and a declared policy of "Land for Terror" is one such suggestion. Loss of Land and hence TSPA's echandee is the one of the few things that will really hurt TSPA, and mostly TSPA, and that too where it hurts them most, in their hold over the population. The conventional military advantage is tilting towards India.

If we go and attack some jihadi camps, there is going to be shifting of target from Pakistani Government to India for the Jihadis. If we go and sink some navy ships, TSPA would not have lost anything permanently but would gain people's support. But a declared "Land for Terror" policy with subsequent land loss by Pakistanis would make Pakistanis think, whether there is any net gain in terror.

It is also important that we do this. India needs to get out of nuclear fear. Nuclear fear has paralyzed us. Once we manage one such campaign of "Land for Terror", and reestablish an end of hostilities, perhaps through the involvement of USA, then it would have established our own policy.

It would give the Pakistanis the feeling that there was a lot of humiliation but other than that, they did not lose much in terms of country and lives. Just like the Pakistanis have made us accept terrorism without any associated fear of retaliation, similarly we have to force Pakistanis to accept retaliation for terrorism without any associated fear of total ruin.

A couple more of such responses, and both terrorism and Pakistan's nuclear weapons would become useless - terrorism would become useless because it would ensue costs that hurt, and nuclear weapons because we would have lost our fear. And most importantly it would weaken the Pakistani Army and its Jihadi policies.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11642
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Aditya_V » 18 Feb 2011 18:34

Would prefer an unannounced Bramhos attack which kills a few core commanders and then claim innocence, it must be some Jihadi group attack, we know nothing.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby shravan » 18 Feb 2011 18:44

Pakistani seeks arrest of second U.S. employee

(Reuters) - A Pakistani man is demanding the arrest of a second U.S. embassy employee in Pakistan, his lawyer said on Friday, adding fuel to an incident that has severely strained ties between Washington and Islamabad.
...

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby RajeshA » 18 Feb 2011 18:54

Aditya_V wrote:Would prefer an unannounced Bramhos attack which kills a few core commanders and then claim innocence, it must be some Jihadi group attack, we know nothing.
Other core commanders would take over and continue the same policy of terrorism towards India. It could also trigger off a series of attacks and counter-attacks. As the damage is localized and contained, both sides would feel emboldened to do it.

Loss of Land is something, that would sit like a thorn in the arse of the Core Commanders, and even though they would love to retaliate, they would think again about it because of the reaction of the Pakistani people, in whose eyes the core commanders would have lost substantial respect due to loss of land. Being conventionally weak, they may not have the stomach for it. Instead they would keep on crying with America and the "world community", about the loss of their land, but in response would only be told, they should have thought about that before they signed off on the terrorist attack against India.

Venkarl
BRFite
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Venkarl » 18 Feb 2011 19:11



An attack on World Cup events has THE POTENTIAL...and Cricket is more than a religion for Indians...

On a side note.....INC should focus more on National Security issues during this World Cup season...than its "Coalition Dharmas"....aam aadmi will not forgive if anything goes wrong....

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23787
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby SSridhar » 18 Feb 2011 19:44

RajeshA et al, land or LACM comes next. At what point will we feel that we need to retaliate, is the question. Will the next attack raise the bar once again, as the Pakistanis are wont to do ? Or, will they keep it at sub-26/11 level hoping that such an attack will not invite retribution ? Has India decided that one more attack, irrespective of the class or intensity of it, will provoke her to launch a counter attack ? Is the current ruling dispensation capable of withstanding the pressure from the US, especially the simple travel advisories ?

Rajdeep
BRFite
Posts: 491
Joined: 23 Aug 2010 20:48

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Rajdeep » 18 Feb 2011 20:12

Benis Thread Material onlee

ImageImage

Jabba the Poak before being less Jabbaesque.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby RajeshA » 18 Feb 2011 20:15

SSridhar wrote:RajeshA et al, land or LACM comes next. At what point will we feel that we need to retaliate, is the question. Will the next attack raise the bar once again, as the Pakistanis are wont to do ? Or, will they keep it at sub-26/11 level hoping that such an attack will not invite retribution ? Has India decided that one more attack, irrespective of the class or intensity of it, will provoke her to launch a counter attack ? Is the current ruling dispensation capable of withstanding the pressure from the US, especially the simple travel advisories ?


IMHO, Pakistan is prone to read a retaliation for a "massive" terror attack of the type Mumbai 26/11, as a potentially serious retaliation. India too would be forced to retaliate suitably, and thereby would need to appropriate sufficient resources to such an endeavor.

Should the response of India to a repeat of Mumbai 26/11 be taking over a handful of check-posts on the border, then we would really become a laughing stock. Nay, it would have to be proportional.

So I would suggest, we keep a very low bar on when to attack Pakistan. For a smaller attack, Pakistan would not be expecting an all-out war with India, and we should also not give one to them. A lower bar, a "smaller" terrorist attack by Pakistan followed by a swift Indian action on the border, with a consequent cooling off initiated by the Americans, would lead to our establishing the principle of "Land for Terror" in practice. That would be a shot across Pakistan's bow. If they are intelligent, they would heed to it, and it may become another issue like say Sir Creek - an issue, but not one of life and death.

This land appropriation by India would cause some takleef to the H&D of TSPA. They may or may not make it a big issue. If they keep it under wraps, or declare it as a minor skirmish, the H&D loss would be internal. If they make it into a big issue, they will only hurt their own popularity amongst the Pakistanis. It would give the TSPA pause for thought before they sign on another bigger attack. So we get to avoid a bigger terrorist attack on Indian soil.

The whole point is to establish a known dynamic - just like we have when we go and buy potatoes. You buy potatoes, you pay money. One does not think in terms of, when you take a potato from the vendor, he will get up and rob you of all your possessions. The transaction has to be made business-like. You make terror, we take land!

By establishing a low bar, GoI would only be saving us much in terms of nuclear holocaust, as well as terrorism. Besides it would be much easier for GoI to come out of inertia, if the land to be taken from the Pakistanis is not that much, but sufficient to set a precedent.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "LACM"!

vrbarreto
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 09 Sep 2009 01:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby vrbarreto » 18 Feb 2011 20:41

LACM = Land Attack Cruise Missile :)

Ananya
BRFite
Posts: 282
Joined: 27 Dec 2008 23:21

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Ananya » 18 Feb 2011 21:30

I amnot sure why war or sending in the military in case of a attack is the best option. The best retaliation would to squeeze them out and kill them .

some of the ways i could think off.

1. Cut diplomatic reations
2. make the indian passport a no go area for Pak and similary anybody who visits Pak would not be able to enter India .
3. No company which has trade with TSp wuld be allowed to do any business with India, parent or sister concerns etc etc
4. No defence company which has ties ups with any paki firm would be able to do any business with India
5. All sarc countries which issue to TSP when they arrive would be screened separately.
6. Block indian Airspace to TSP.
7. All back channel guys and Amman ki aasha types would be declated a Terrorist if they try to make peace,
8. Make the kashmir plan public.
9. Removal of 370 and kill any body who protest.
10. Make support for baluchistan open
11. Use Afgan mercinarys and covert operation in TSP and make this public.

simple option cut a diamond with a diamond.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Anujan » 18 Feb 2011 21:36

shravan wrote:Pakistani seeks arrest of second U.S. employee

(Reuters) - A Pakistani man is demanding the arrest of a second U.S. embassy employee in Pakistan, his lawyer said on Friday, adding fuel to an incident that has severely strained ties between Washington and Islamabad.
...


It is important to note that according to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (not THE vienna convention), Article 43 has exception to immunity for "damage arising from an accident in the receiving State caused by a vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

So the driver who gave a Paki his 72 has the strongest case against him.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby ramana » 18 Feb 2011 21:43

Despite all the BS from US they know Indo-Pak nuke stand-off is not a two -person game. So all these BS about TSP nuking India is hogwash to scare the gullible.

Lets not fall for that in this forum.

Ananya
BRFite
Posts: 282
Joined: 27 Dec 2008 23:21

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Ananya » 18 Feb 2011 21:49

agreed , but UPA/MMS/GOI should spel out the stance very clear and not be ambigous about retaliation as that brings up a sense of slakness from our part and everybody US and TSP go about BS .

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6684
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby CRamS » 18 Feb 2011 21:54



This is kind of nonsense that makes my blood boil. Where the f$%ck are these terrorists coming from? From planet Mars? No, they are coming from right under Kiyani's ass, and Gates can see them through his drone binoculars. And for people like Shiv, may I ask what stops the good PM in Delhi from questioning this nonsense? Why is TSP required to fight terrorists only on the western border? What is so sacrosanct abot fighting the terrorists that US wants, but nothing about the terrorists that Gates claims will provoke a war. Is it not the duty of the India PM to articulate this? If the there is casue for such scare mongering, then the cause must be dealt with. Why can't US policy, and India insist on the same, that there can be double standards on terorrism? Pakistant needs to fight all terrorists, and not just those that US deems important. This must by MMS's stand.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby svinayak » 18 Feb 2011 21:55

Aditya_V wrote:And how is that Land going to got when you miltary are relatively underprepared and Elite SHivering when Paki says Nukes. Paki border is full of Paki Solders and Mines. Trying to occupy and gain land through Miltary advances is not practical.

If you have the stomach for it be prepared for full fleged war killing vast amounts of Paki vermin Miltary personal( which could include the very real threat of Nuclear War and having Nukes on our biggest Cities, Pakis will threaten Nukes if we try and occupy any land)- otherwise this pipedream that we can walk in and take land is facrical. In any Miltary confrontation we will lose a of civilian and Miltary men.

This is all hogwash. Nuclear armed nations dont use nukes to grab land. This is not just India and Pak and it will be global.

The terror threat is a asymmetric warfare due to long term balance of power created by split of Pakistan in 1971.

Once the new generation in Pak get used the new version of Pakistn then it will change. Asymmetric warfare is also another blackmail tool for the Pak PA to work with the US,

Pakistan version of the Asymmetric warfare is a unique one and has different messages to different powers. Their long connection with US military for the last 40 years have given them tools for this Asymmetric warfare and also they have gamed it with US regarding Indian response to this Asymmetric warfare. This is the real true story behind the Pakistan state policy and use of jihad machinery.

Such news items are part of the psy ops they had gamed long before to create an escalation situation.
Last edited by svinayak on 18 Feb 2011 22:00, edited 1 time in total.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6684
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby CRamS » 18 Feb 2011 21:58

Ananya wrote:I amnot sure why war or sending in the military in case of a attack is the best option. The best retaliation would to squeeze them out and kill them .

some of the ways i could think off.

1. Cut diplomatic reations
2. make the indian passport a no go area for Pak and similary anybody who visits Pak would not be able to enter India .
3. No company which has trade with TSp wuld be allowed to do any business with India, parent or sister concerns etc etc
4. No defence company which has ties ups with any paki firm would be able to do any business with India
5. All sarc countries which issue to TSP when they arrive would be screened separately.
6. Block indian Airspace to TSP.
7. All back channel guys and Amman ki aasha types would be declated a Terrorist if they try to make peace,
8. Make the kashmir plan public.
9. Removal of 370 and kill any body who protest.
10. Make support for baluchistan open
11. Use Afgan mercinarys and covert operation in TSP and make this public.

simple option cut a diamond with a diamond.


Thee were my thoughts when I said that while US is responsible for India's travails to a good extent, India has to take some steps on its. It can't be a simple dichotomy between surrender and nuke war.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby shiv » 18 Feb 2011 22:16

CRamS wrote:

And for people like Shiv, may I ask what stops the good PM in Delhi from questioning this nonsense? Why is TSP required to fight terrorists only on the western border? What is so sacrosanct abot fighting the terrorists that US wants, but nothing about the terrorists that Gates claims will provoke a war. Is it not the duty of the India PM to articulate this? If the there is casue for such scare mongering, then the cause must be dealt with. Why can't US policy, and India insist on the same, that there can be double standards on terorrism? Pakistant needs to fight all terrorists, and not just those that US deems important. This must by MMS's stand.


Saar please excuse me. Manmohan Singh is my country's PM and Robert Gates is the ambassador appointed by your country. Your Ambassador makes a statement and you want me to say why the Indian PM is or is not responding to the US ambassador with questions that you, CRamS, are posing? What kind of interrogation is this? :shock:

You mean I have to answer you and tell you why the Indian PM is not asking questions that you want to ask your Ambassador? You're kidding sir! :rotfl:

Other than hilarious rhetoric and the inexplicable inclusion of my name in a fit of impotent pique on your part - your post sounds more silly than is the norm for you.

Why don't you ask your ambassador your questions rather than asking me why the Indian PM is not asking your ambassador your questions. Why are you involving me in this while you get your knickers in a horrendous twist? :D CRamS please cut the crap. You are sounding more and more shrill and I can almost see the flecks of spittle fly.
Last edited by shiv on 18 Feb 2011 22:24, edited 1 time in total.

Ananya
BRFite
Posts: 282
Joined: 27 Dec 2008 23:21

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Ananya » 18 Feb 2011 22:23

Why should PM respond , if there is a clear cut policy which is known to everybody as what are gong to be the consequences , Robet Gates would not talk and US gov would know and so would TSP . TSP would also be rained in by 3.5 friends.

In absence of such policy gives room for such BS talks,

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6684
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby CRamS » 18 Feb 2011 22:33

Shiv,

Our ambassador asks MMS to jum, and he asks how high saar. I am questioning that. You should be questioning that shouldn't you. If MMS himself accepts that "Al Queda" is the Gold standrad, then US ambassador just laps that up for free. You can't get get that logic?

Enough said.

Brad Goodman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2368
Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Brad Goodman » 18 Feb 2011 22:40

guys this is all we have for jumma

One killed in Pakistan bomb blast

Islamabad, Feb 18 (IANS) At least one person was killed and four people were injured Friday when a car bomb exploded near a police station in northwestern Pakistan, police said.

The driver of the explosive-laden car tried to crash into the police building in Bannu city but it went off before the target, Xinhua reported.


Last month, at least 20 people were killed when a suicide bomber rammed his vehicle into a mosque in Bannu city.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13105
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby negi » 18 Feb 2011 22:44

CRams to answer your question, the one's on western side are not in uniform but the one's on eastern side are a part of the TSPA and over last decade or so the line dividing the one's in TSPA and their agents in LeT/HuM/JuD has blurred so basically you are asking TSP to cut it's own hand.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby shiv » 18 Feb 2011 22:44

Actually that news item is almost as funny as CRamS' inane "drive by shooting" question aimed at me.

it was Washington's duty to build a long-term "partnership with each, and offer our help to improve confidence and understanding between them in a manner that builds long-term stability across the wider region of South Asia," he said.


:rotfl: Just look at that "Long term partnership" with India AND Pakistan. Pakistan gets F-16s, AMRAAMS, Harpoons and JDAMS and a wink an a nod while it develops nukes. india gets a civilian nuclear deal ad loads of advice and offers of US arms.

And then the US "worries" that Paki terrorist will provoke war and cause Pakistan to pull 140,000 troops to the Eastern border with India. Of course as Sridhar said it is an oblique statement that if a terrorist attack occurs India should not attack Pakistan.

But here is where I disagree with Sridhar and others. There_will_be_no terrorist_attack. Please make me eat my words. I will post a humble response that I misread the situation. A terrorist attack will benefit us in this stalemate and the US does not want that, and neither does the Paki army/ISI.

If there is a terror attack, the Pakistan army is toast whether India responds or not. Gates is saying that some Pakistani might attack India and make India respond and Pakis will stop doing our job. The Pakistan army is surviving on US aid and the US is helping to hold Pakistan together by assisting and supporting military action, even against civilians, in the areas of Pakistan that are now facing civil war. If US help stops those areas will break away. US help is contingent on Pakistan keeping those 140,000 troops in the North West. If a terrorist attack occurs Pakistan will pull them out even if India sits back and twiddles its thumbs as usual. That will spoil the US plans and the Paki generals' retirement plans. A break up of Pakistan now is not what they want to see - so they will cooperate with the US which is promising that Pakistan will remain intact as long as Pakis fight for the US.

I think a terrorist attack now would be useful if undesirable and tragic - perhaps even for me personally but it won't happen. Gates is merely firing a diplomatic warning shot at Pakistan as much as India.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby ramana » 18 Feb 2011 22:48

The GOI has spelled out the doctrine if one cares to read it.

All else is tamasha combined with maya.

OK whose credibility is being hit by such reports from US?

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby shiv » 18 Feb 2011 22:48

CRamS wrote:Our ambassador asks MMS to jum, and he asks how high saar. I am questioning that. You should be questioning that shouldn't you.
<snip>
You can't get get that logic?



:rotfl: How can I "get" this absurd prattle that you facetiously call logic?

You say you are questioning something and then saying that I should be questioning the same thing? What for? You have already asked the question. Why should I ask your question unless you want me to jump when you say jump? Is this the famous wisdom that you say you got in America? :D


Just put me on your ignore list.

Brad Goodman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2368
Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Brad Goodman » 18 Feb 2011 22:50

Post 9/11, Pak has received USD 18 bn in US aid

WASHINGTON: In less than a decade since the 9/11 terror attacks, Pakistan has received more than USD 18 billion in assistance and reimbursements from the US, about two-thirds of which is security related, a governmental report has said.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Pranav » 18 Feb 2011 23:02

SSridhar wrote:
AjayKK wrote: US fears terrorists might provoke Indo-Pak conflict

The article/quote avoids saying how "terrorist groups might try to provoke a conflict between India and Pakistan" to destabilise the country (Pakistan). Maybe, it is assumed/pre-postulated that a terror attack will take place which will "provoke a conflict". So, is it time for another attack before the next round of talks ?


Another terror attack, sooner than later, is a foregone conclusion. I think what Robert gates is implying is that India should exercise restraint even if there were to be a terror attack because that would lead to a catastrophe otherwise.


Actually in the immediate aftermath of 26/11 the message from the US was that they were OK with any Indian retaliation.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby ramana » 18 Feb 2011 23:08

Sure.

R Charan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 22:24
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby R Charan » 18 Feb 2011 23:10

Despite being on the verge of a crippling political and economic crisis and almost entirely dependent on aid from the US and Europe, Pakistan is building more nukes than ever in front of the international community's eye.

[url]link deleted[/url]
Last edited by archan on 18 Feb 2011 23:55, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: you are promoting your site using BRF. You have already tried to create a thread for it. A link once in a while is OK, but not in every post of yours. Warned.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6684
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby CRamS » 18 Feb 2011 23:25

shiv wrote: :rotfl: How can I "get" this absurd prattle that you facetiously call logic?

You say you are questioning something and then saying that I should be questioning the same thing? What for? You have already asked the question. Why should I ask your question unless you want me to jump when you say jump? Is this the famous wisdom that you say you got in America? :D


Just put me on your ignore list.


Oh really, and we have to take your condescending tripe against us NRIs seriously. You do the same, put me on your ignore list.

I ask one rhetorical question, which is central to the entire debate, namely, what explains India's ultra soft approach to TSP, and what explains India's acceptance of US formulation that Al Queda is the gold standard for terrorism, when India's nemesis is pigLeT under the tutelage of TSPA/ISI. It is that poilicy of India that allows US to run rough shod over India's interests when it comes to terrorism. Its the duty of the India PM to formulate this, and it is your duty as an intelligent Indian citizen to demand the same.

As for us NRIs, who have respect for both India & US, we will work at our end to educate Congressman, women, Senators, think tanks media etc, that pigLeTs are as evil as Al Queda and there should be no double standards on terrorism.

Enough said. I have no time to debate your condescending tripe.

NRN
(no reply necessary)
Last edited by CRamS on 18 Feb 2011 23:28, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby Muppalla » 18 Feb 2011 23:27

Pranav wrote:Actually in the immediate aftermath of 26/11 the message from the US was that they were OK with any Indian retaliation.


Yeah sure. Bush did the same after Parl attack. Meanwhile Amritraj started an excercise to save Pakis. India has fallen to the pressures and ABV talked to Mushy. However, there was a minor achievement to move the terror machine from JK towards Pak's west.

I still do not think what India did was right in talking to Pakis. India has sent a message that we are malleable.

However, under MMS regime though Obama said India has right to attack Pak, there is no need to make India malleable using someone like Amritraj as it is already liquified with India's own initiatives like let us make the borders irrelevant and other grand theories.

All these US utterances of Pak has 120 or it has longer tools etc., is all coercing India to make some compromises and make them fast. The US is seeing some instability in the India's regime and they don't want to wait anymore. What if along with Mbarak and others, MMS is also gone. In fact, I will go to an extent of saying that all these things by US are means to give fodder to folks like MMS to press the compromises during the cabinet meetings, security affairs meetings and also any place where they can talk.

Chandraban's post couple of weeks ago in JK thread where a Biz man of India arguing with "INC influencers" that we should handover valley to Pak so that he can do business in Pak gives the zist of mindset that is prevailing in the ruling combo.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby shravan » 18 Feb 2011 23:44



They received Aid because Pakis funded 911 attack & to kill American Soldiers in Afghanistan. :-?

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6684
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby CRamS » 18 Feb 2011 23:50

Pranav wrote:Actually in the immediate aftermath of 26/11 the message from the US was that they were OK with any Indian retaliation.


They speak with both ends. I think a terrorist attack like 26/11 called for US to throw its support fully behind India, just as India and many others did to US after 9/11, and sent a strong message to TSP. Instead, they were wishy wash, "nuke flashpoint", their puppy dog Miliband even had the audacity to talk about Kashmir, and heaven knows, had India really attacked, the spymasters and war experts at Pentagon & Langley would have remote controlled the situation by giving TSP arms, intelligence etc, so India would not run rough shod.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby shravan » 19 Feb 2011 00:09

Teenage would-be suicide apprehended in northwest Pak

Peshawar, Feb 18 (PTI) A teenage would-be suicide bomber was today apprehended in the restive Swat district of northwest Pakistan while a security personnel was killed when militants attacked a security check post in the volatile tribal belt, officials said.
--
In a separate incident, a Frontier Corps personnel was killed and four others were injured when militants attacked a security check post at Ghanam Shah in the Mohmand tribal region, officials said.

The rebels targeted the post with mortars, they said.
--
In yet another development, troops demolished the homes of three absconding militants Bajaur tribal region after they failed to surrender to local authorities.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby ramana » 19 Feb 2011 00:18

CRS, Relax dont get invovled in a blue-on blue fight. However do you thing.

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

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Postby shravan » 19 Feb 2011 00:40

Probe finds connection between Davis, drone attacks

KARACHI: Investigation teams were astonished to learn about Raymond Davis’s alleged connections in North Waziristan, sources told DawnNews.

Sources have revealed that a GPS chip recovered from Davis was being used in identifying targets for drone attacks in the tribal region.

It was also learnt during the probe that Davis made upto 12 visits to the tribal areas without informing Pakistani officials.

The 36- year-old US official was reluctant in giving out information about his visits to the tribal region, sources added.

The US Embassy officials were exerting pressure on the authorities, asking them not to expose the information received from Davis.

Meanwhile, the Punjab government has shared the investigation and the possessions recovered from Davis with the federal government, said sources.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests