"...And, this is how men dance in my country to avoid suspcion."Amber G. wrote:
Paging photoshopersanupmisra wrote:"...And, this is how men dance in my country to avoid suspcion."Amber G. wrote:
"...Since alcohol is haraam in my country, lets pretend for the masses that we are holding wine glasses".
'...The long Goodbye after the long Handshake"..
"...Hum yahan, Tum wahan"
"..You may be soon out of sight, but you will not remain out of my mind"
Whether its Pakistan Army or LET or taliban whoever is going to send rockets to India, India cannot do anything except attack Pakistan in general even if Pakistan is denuked. The same situation which we have now will continue even then. There is no way India can take action against Pakistan since any segment of population of Pakistan can start a war against India and as you mentioned just like in Israel's case, India will find that the attackers are merged with the general populace.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.
g.sarkar wrote:Anupji,
You are so wrong! He is just reassuring "After the US GUBO, this will go in like lightning, you will not feel a thing".
Gautam
IMO, the rabid anti-Indian stance of Pakistan is mainly due to the Army and the ruling elite. The sarkari Islamists and sarkari Jihadis are but arms of this establishment.symontk wrote:Whether its Pakistan Army or LET or taliban whoever is going to send rockets to India, India cannot do anything except attack Pakistan in general even if Pakistan is denuked. The same situation which we have now will continue even then. There is no way India can take action against Pakistan since any segment of population of Pakistan can start a war against India and as you mentioned just like in Israel's case, India will find that the attackers are merged with the general populace.
Idea of having set piece battles with Pakistan is over, its going to be 100 times of kashimir if India wants to intervene in Pakistan
Two water extraction pumps installed at the Pipri Pumping Statyon have developed fault.
It said that the repair of the faulty pumps was being carried out on emergent basis (Need-to-know-basis onleeee!!)
The water shortage would be to the tune of 17 million gallons of water.
I stand guilty as well of taking few liberties. A thousand pardons, adminullahs!g.sarkar wrote:I apologize. Sometimes one just gets inspired.
Gautam
How would it help to make such a declaration.shiv wrote:OK back to some pisko-rhetorical questions.
We all know that an intact Pakistan is not in India's interest.
Can the Indian government say this out loud and clear. Can the Indian government openly declare that an intact Pakistan is not in India's interest? What would be the consequences of such an Indian declaration?
While we are slashing our social services and making our children pay hefty university fees, why should we be giving all this money to a country that has reduced its education budget to 1.5% of GDP while spending several times as much on defence? A country where only 1.7m of a population of 180m pay tax? A country that is stepping up its production of nuclear weapons so much that its arsenal will soon outnumber Britain’s? A country so corrupt that when its embassy in Washington held an auction to raise money for flood victims, and a phone rang, one Pakistani said loudly: “That’s the president calling for his cut”? A country which has so alienated powerful friends in America that they now want to abandon it?
That would indeed be revolutionary, as for that India would have to redefine herself as a nation-state - not one that bases itself on British transfer of power - the Radcliffe lines and the terms of accession of various princely states. With that India would undermine its current positions - say on Kashmir, and say some states in Northeast.shiv wrote:OK back to some pisko-rhetorical questions.
We all know that an intact Pakistan is not in India's interest.
Can the Indian government say this out loud and clear. Can the Indian government openly declare that an intact Pakistan is not in India's interest? What would be the consequences of such an Indian declaration?
anupmisra wrote:How can you tell that pa'astan is turning into the one big, latter day wild west? Read the titles of news stories on any given day and you will understand. Here's a smattering of news from the Daily Noose (no pun) today .
14 outlaws arrested
Six outlaws held
Two outlaws held, liquor recovered
21 outlaws arrested
Capital police arrest 18 outlaws
105 outlaws arrested in city
I wonder who the new sherrif in town is?
how about a good cop/bad cop routine?? Get a lowly state minister for health mouth off bad stuff.suryag wrote:Shivji once India admits that a united pakistan is not in India's interest, it could trigger a cementing of their society and they might stand united against Indian intentions and it might turn counter productive(pious less pious notwithstanding). Next thing we might see is that their textbooks will carry this statement and every interior minister crowing loudly about injuns behind every protest in Pakistan. Rather than admitting in public working behind the scenes to further our interest is better. If your intention here is to hammer it in the aam janta in India that united pakis are not good we can possibly go for admitting the same via quasi government sources like some ex-foreign secy, generals
If I recall correctly, she was actually thrown out of Pakistan quite some time ago, for uncovering ISI links to the Taliban.Christina Lamb one of the Apologists for Pakistan, turns back!
Some of it could be legit. Their inflation is at least at 20% notwithstanding what the official position is. Just to keep ahead of last year's allocation, they would have to increase their budget by 20% in rupee terms. Then almost all their defence purchases are in US$ (even the taller than the....friends demand hard currency). That ruppe devaluation over the past one year has stabilized but all their purchases were made two to three years ago, whose payments are due now. On the other hand, they are invoicing America in US$, so some of that rupee devaluation could be negated. That's where the details of invoicing procedures could come in handy.ramana wrote:Its a scam to get more funds to them.
+1. Pakis hate herAnindya wrote:If I recall correctly, she was actually thrown out of Pakistan quite some time ago, for uncovering ISI links to the Taliban.Christina Lamb one of the Apologists for Pakistan, turns back!
Why does India have to state that?shiv wrote:OK back to some pisko-rhetorical questions.
We all know that an intact Pakistan is not in India's interest.
Can the Indian government say this out loud and clear. Can the Indian government openly declare that an intact Pakistan is not in India's interest? What would be the consequences of such an Indian declaration?
Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari has accused the army, which covertly supports the 2008 Mumbai attacks perpetrator Lashkar-e-Tayiba, of playing a double game in the ongoing war on terror, and an "abundance of evidence backs him up," Bruce Riedel, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer, has said.
Can you imagine the state of Zardari when he reads this? He might be pooping in his suit."The Pakistani Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence cannot be relied upon to fight all of the jihadi Frankensteins they have helped create over the past three decades. Even Pakistan's own president, Asif Ali Zardari, has accused the Army of playing both sides of the war on terror distressingly, an abundance of evidence backs him up," Riedel, the author of Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America, and the Future of the Global Jihad, wrote in Newsweek.
Take LeT, the terror group that attacked the Indian financial capital of Mumbai in 2008, killing 164 people. Today, LeT continues to enjoy Army patronage. Pasha, the intelligence chief, has even been summoned by a New York City court to answer charges that the ISI oversaw the Mumbai attack," he added.
The complexity and contradictions of Pakistani behaviour, most of which is driven by the Army's obsession with India, actually, lies at the heart of the dispute between Islamabad and Washington. There is no simple solution," stated Riedel, who is a senior fellow in the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution
He starts with right tone and then tells Pukes how weak the US is. Is he out of his mind? Is he laying out a strategy?Since Pakistan today has the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal in the world, Islamabad is growing more and more resistant to outside pressure and intimidation, and Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is well aware that unlike Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya, the US cannot even consider the use of force to pressure Pakistan, said Riedel, pointing out that the country also controls the main supply line for NATO forces from Karachi to Kabul in Afghanistan.
"So at the end of the day, Washington knows it needs Pakistan, no matter how frustrating and irritating the relationship may be. Meanwhile, India, the target of most of the worst of Pakistani-abetted terror and the target for its nuclear weapons, finds itself in much the same dilemma," Riedel said.
Now the secret is out... since unkil and yindoos can't do anything, give them kissmir and kiss their bottoms and hand over billions and more f16s, India withdraw from afghanistan, help them occupy Afghan and make them happy.He noted that while India demands that Pakistan destroy LeT and other militant groups, it has no means to force nuclear-armed Islamabad to do so.
"It doesn't want a failed state on its border armed with dozens of loose nukes, so it can't undermine Pakistan's fragile democracy with covert operations that would only strengthen the extremists. It can't intimidate a nuclear rival. So India last month resumed its engagement and dialogue with Pakistan, which had been suspended after the Mumbai attacks,
Pakistan Army troops rescued Turkish Ambassador at Ivory Coast Mr Yekcin Kaga Erensoi alongwith three other staff members, Mr Golant, Mr Mahmut (third Secretary) and Mr Ali Ahisk at Ivory Coast (Abijan) on 11 April 2011.
The Turkish Ambassador was trapped in a Hotel during a volatile situation in which an ongoing gun battle took place between rival factions. He asked Pakistani troops for help and they immediately rushed to the spot and rescued the Turkish Embassy staff.
Nine Nigerian citizens who were trapped in troubled area were also rescued by Pakistani troops.
It is pertinent to mention that Pakistan Army troops as part of UN Contingent are playing an active role in saving here the lives of the innocent people of Côte d'Ivoire.
Pakistani troops have performed extremely well by protecting foreign embassies and effectively controlling the situation in their area of responsibility.
United Nations have greatly appreciated Pakistani Peacekeeper’s contributions in restoring peace in the country.
Pakistan troops have been deployed in Ivory Coast since 2004 and their role as UN Peacekeepers has been commendable .
During last Presidential elections an additional batch of Pakistani troops was specially moved from Liberia to establish law and order in the most turbulent areas of Ivory Coast. Pakistani troops executed the assigned task in a befitting manner which was highly appreciated by UN authorities.
between india and pakis, under which india will offer (legitimate) nuke umbrella and military assistence to fight terrorism in return for paki nuke dismantling and reducing military budget by 75%.ISLAMABAD: Government has taken strong exception to writings of a former CIA officer Reidel, demonstrating an anti-Pakistan mindset by belittling and rejecting Pakistan’s tremendous courage and endless sacrifices in its ongoing fight against global terrorism.
The federal governemnt spokesman has termed the whole exercise of this individual turned recent expert on Afghanistan and Pakistan, as shockingly baseless, malicious and malafide in intentions, while he suggests that “Islamabad has something else in mind” other than to fight terrorism, that is taking a heavy toll of ordinary Pakistanis on a daily basis.
This is a severe insult to the National dignity of Pakistan. . Riedel has deliberately tried to create an imaginary wedge between Pakistan’s democratically elected civilian leadership and its military, which together form the Democratic Government of Pakistan...
This clearly negates the veracity of words attributed to the President of Pakistan, who being Commander-In-Chief of Pakistan’s military, how can never think of attacking his own army.
The official spokesman has declared Mr. Riedel’s piece short on facts and long on fiction, as he desperately tries to serve an ‘alien agenda’, which was a bad example of a figment of imagination and biased speculation of a typical spy mindset, which routinely articulates extremely negative perceptions against Pakistan, its leadership and its people.
The spokesman has declared that Pakistan and its civil-military leadership need no sympathy from such self proclaimed experts as Riedel; warning that articles penned by such highly placed people in the U.S. journals of international repute and respect, would/could not only harm Pakistan, but also the interests of the U.S and the International community.
If Pakistan looses, the whole world will lose.
menon s wrote:Christina Lamb one of the Apologists for Pakistan, turns back!
http://networkedblogs.com/gQAOp
Quotable quote:
Indeed, one-tenth of the world’s children not in school are in Pakistan.
It is no longer uncommon to read about attacks on progressive Pakistani intellectuals and politicians. Islamic scholar Muhammad Farooq Khan, who hosted a popular TV program on the Quran, was gunned down in his office late last year. Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, who challenged Pakistan's oft-abused blasphemy laws, was killed by a member of his own security detail this past January. And Minority Affairs Minister Shabbaz Bhatti, who was quietly working to improve the standing of Pakistan's small minority religious population, was brutally killed outside his home in Islamabad in March.
...
This story is true, but it is also incomplete. It is not just the liberals who are threatened in Pakistan. To the surprise of many, several high-profile Islamic political figures have been (unsuccessfully) attacked over the last few weeks. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, a pro-Taliban figure and leader of the largest faction of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) political party, narrowly missed two separate suicide attacks in the span of two days, in which several of his party members and supporters were killed. Days later, Shabbir Ahmed Khan, a senior provincial official in the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) party, was apparently targeted when a bomb was planted outside his residence in Peshawar. These leaders, and the parties that they represent, are not "liberal." Rhetorically supportive of Taliban ideology, they are strong advocates of expanding the scope of shariah, and fierce critics of the United States. The recent attacks have thus raised a host of questions: Are extremists now turning on their own supporters? Who is being targeted, and why? And does this represent a trend?
The JUI-F and the JI, as Pakistan's two largest Islamist parties, have a great deal in common. They both promote an agenda of legal, social, and economic Islamization. They both have political and rhetorical influence that far exceeds their consistently mediocre electoral showing at the national level. They both have been inclined to defend calls for jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir, and blame the United States for most of Pakistan's problems. And they both defend their commitment to the electoral process, and to the proposition that Islam is indeed compatible with democratic ideals.
These similarities aside, the two parties are in fact quite different. The JUI-F is a clerical party, Deobandi by tradition, rooted in the madrassah religious school system, largely ethnically Pashtun and rural, primarily lower and lower-middle class, and poorly organized. It was closely associated with the Taliban in the 1990s, and retains ties to certain Pashtun Taliban leaders today. The JI, by contrast, is a highly organized modernist party with similar intellectual roots as the Muslim Brotherhood, and is focused on the Islamization of Pakistan's legal system, with a support base that is multi-ethnic and largely urban and middle class. It has a long history of supporting jihadi groups in Kashmir and in Pakistan's Punjab, and in recent years has for political reasons increasingly turned its attention to the conflict in Afghanistan (as can be seen in its awkwardly-titled campaign against the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, "Go, America, Go!").
But why, despite their Islamist leanings, are these parties now being targeted by militants? In the first place, attacks against the JUI-F are not new, but are evidence of the slow deterioration of the party's relationship with Taliban groups over the last five years. While the Jamaat-e-Islami has done an impressive job of insulating itself from criticism by Islamic militants by opposing both former military ruler Pervez Musharraf and the current civilian government, the JUI-F has been far more accommodating to state elites. Fazlur Rehman, notwithstanding his heated rhetoric, is known to be a shrewd and pragmatic politician. His party has a history of allying with all manner of governments and parties, including the left-of-center Pakistan People's Party (PPP). And although he is currently chairman of the Kashmir Committee in the National Assembly, the clerics who form his party's base of support have long shown an interest in playing upon their sect's origins in the Indian city of Deoband to pursue a mediating role between Pakistan and its rival India. Beginning in 2005, these policies started to become liabilities for the JUI-F, as new Taliban groups in Pakistan's tribal areas staked out positions opposed to the state, and to any Islamist organizations that endorsed democratic means.
Living in Peshawar in 2006, I witnessed this change first-hand: party workers in the JUI-F were becoming nervous about "new Taliban" leaders who didn't seem to appreciate the party's long-standing contribution to the Taliban cause. An RPG narrowly missed hitting Fazlur Rehman's house, but party members were reluctant to talk about it. And the party came under pressure from some Taliban elements near the tribal areas to boycott the 2008 general elections (they did not).
Disillusionment with the JUI-F among militant Islamists is therefore not a new story. What is new, and disturbing, is the brazenness of the attacks on the party leadership, and the willingness of the attackers to target public rallies that would kill not just party functionaries but also unaffiliated supporters of Islamist causes.
Second, the new moves against Islamic political leaders may be related to infighting within the so-called Pakistani Taliban. Fazlur Rehman has often had to contend with decidedly mixed support from Taliban groups; during the 2008 elections in Bannu and Dera Ismail Khan districts adjacent to the tribal areas, for example, both pro-JUI-F and anti-JUI-F Taliban factions were out in force trying to influence the balloting. And after the recent attempts against JUI-F leadership, Taliban commander Hafiz Gul Bahadur issued a statement condemning the attacks, going so far as to suggest that the Taliban in North Waziristan "appreciate the role" that Fazlur Rehman plays in protecting religious clerics. The JUI-F is also said to be on good terms with Taliban commander Wali ur-Rehman in South Waziristan, who reportedly once belonged to the JUI-F or one of its affiliate organizations. Taliban politics in the tribal areas is frustratingly opaque, but it seems likely that the attacks on the JUI-F reflect a division among Taliban groups, with opposition to the party coming from Taliban leaders most critical of the state, such as Hakimullah Mehsud and remnants of the Taliban in the Swat and Malakand regions.
Third, the proximate cause of the attacks on Fazlur Rehman can perhaps be traced to the release of a Wikileaks cable reported in India's The Hindu newspaper. The cable, dating from 2007 but leaked in late March of this year, suggested that Fazlur Rehman offered to serve as a mediator between the United States and the Taliban. While the JUI-F chief's purported offer is impossible to confirm, it would not be inconsistent with the attitudes of some prominent figures within the party. In conversations with JUI-F leaders over the last year, I have heard a range of views about Taliban "reconciliation" in Afghanistan. On one end of the spectrum, some JUI-F members echo the Afghan Taliban's negotiating position that the United States must withdraw immediately and unconditionally for a political solution to take hold. Others, however, take a more realistic line, suggesting that there must be an arrangement under which the U.S. can withdraw "with honor." Setting aside the party's anti-American rhetoric, there does seem to be a recognition among some leaders of the JUI-F that the clerics whom they represent might be able -- in the interests of Pakistan -- to support a political "reconciliation" process with the Afghan Taliban in the near future.
Fourth, and finally, these attacks on Islamic political leaders may signal a growing ideological divide amongst militants concerning the legitimacy of the Pakistani state. The JUI-F, while strident in its demand for Islamization, is already seen by some militant Islamists as having sold out to a democratic system that is irredeemably "un-Islamic." But the Jamaat-e-Islami has thus far been modestly more successful in balancing its interest in democratic participation with its criticism of the state -- in part by boycotting the 2008 elections (a decision that some senior party members now regret). If indeed the attack on the JI provincial leader proves to be the first in a series of assaults on the party, it will be a sign that the rift between anti-state and pro-state groups has deepened dramatically. The last two years have done much to clarify this debate: On the one side are Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), along with al Qaeda ideologues Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Yahya al-Libi, all of whom have written works denouncing the Islamic legitimacy of the Pakistani state. On the other side of the divide are parties like the JUI-F and the JI, joined by groups that are known to be sympathetic to the Pakistani state, such as Jamaat-ud Dawa (formerly Lashkar-e-Taiba).
Further attacks on the JI in particular would suggest that Pakistani Taliban groups no longer regard rhetorical support for their cause as a sufficient endorsement; they may be trying to extract from the Islamist parties more substantive forms of support, such as open endorsements, a decision to boycott elections, or a willingness to actively recruit party members for Taliban activities. More likely, however, they are using brazen attacks on a sympathetic political base (JUI-F and JI members) to intimidate mainstream political leaders into keeping their mouths shut. Facing this new threat, the Islamist parties themselves are left with two unpalatable options: they can present a more moderate face in public, criticizing the Taliban for plainly un-Islamic acts; or they can double down rhetorically, avoiding criticism of the Taliban and displacing blame for the attempted killings.
Not surprisingly, the parties have opted -- at least for now -- for the latter approach, blaming everyone but the Taliban for the attacks. If anything, we should expect from them in the coming months more intense invective against the West, and more fervent defenses of the Taliban. They can, after all, hardly afford to appear conciliatory on matters of Islam and politics in the face of increased violence against them. But that rhetoric should not obscure the fact that they are no doubt worried, and that they still overwhelmingly prefer a future in which politicians, and not militants, determine the course of the state.
SuryaG, you may be right in the present context. The PA, which is struggling both within itself and among the masses, to create the support for itself, might welcome this as a manna from the Heaven. So also the politicians. However, India certainly will have to announce that openly. There is a time and place for that, though. Not yet. Such an open announcement is what would trigger the unravelling of Pakistan. That will strengthen the various sub-nationalists fighting there. That would be a critical point of no-return. It would be something like recognizing the BD Government formed in exile in West Bengal in 1971. More than for the aam-junta Indians, it would be for the aam-junta Pakistanis and their factional leaders.suryag wrote:Shivji once India admits that a united pakistan is not in India's interest, it could trigger a cementing of their society and they might stand united against Indian intentions and it might turn counter productive(pious less pious notwithstanding). Next thing we might see is that their textbooks will carry this statement and every interior minister crowing loudly about injuns behind every protest in Pakistan. Rather than admitting in public working behind the scenes to further our interest is better. If your intention here is to hammer it in the aam janta in India that united pakis are not good we can possibly go for admitting the same via quasi government sources like some ex-foreign secy, generals
Instead of "india's interest" we should say "pakistan's disintegration is in world's interest". Always speak or pretend to speak on behalf of others.shiv wrote:OK back to some pisko-rhetorical questions.
We all know that an intact Pakistan is not in India's interest.
Can the Indian government say this out loud and clear. Can the Indian government openly declare that an intact Pakistan is not in India's interest? What would be the consequences of such an Indian declaration?
Rolf Mowatt-Larssen: Nuclear terrorism is inextricably linked to the broader phenomenon of terrorism. As the cycle of violence escalates, the use of weapons of mass destruction has become more attractive to terrorist groups like al Qaeda. There are chilling similarities between the cycle of al Qaeda warnings in the run-up to the 9/11 attack, and a new cycle of warnings associated with an attack on a much larger scale than 9/11. In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued a religious ruling (fatwa) that declared war on America; the 9/11 attack followed three years later. In 2008. Al Qaeda deputy chief Ayman Zawahiri published an exhaustive religious justification for using weapons of mass destruction that could kill ten million Americans. This treatise ("Exoneration") built on the first-ever WMD fatwa issued by Saudi cleric Nasir al-Fahd in 2003. Al Qaeda's WMD warnings are not part of some theological exercise, of that we can be certain; they are laying the groundwork in providing the required justification and serial warnings in advance of a future attack. If the 9/11 cycle holds true, al Qaeda is in the middle of planning another major attack against the US in the near future.
Rahim Kanani: And in the same vein, how should policymakers contextualize this threat as it competes against a range of domestic and international concerns?
Rolf Mowatt-Larssen: Policymakers are swamped with a daunting array of "number one priorities," it is true. However, some threats deserve more attention than others. Given the potentially catastrophic consequences, even a small probability of terrorists getting and detonating a nuclear or "big bio" bomb is enough to justify urgent action to reduce the risks. It is plausible that a technically sophisticated group could make, deliver, and detonate a crude nuclear bomb if they could get their hands on sufficient fissile material.
would never try to sell the threat for political reasons, because it is too important to play games. As serious as I think the threat is, we must never submit to fear in our efforts to deal with it, no matter how tempting that may be. If we allow ourselves to live in fear, the terrorists win. If we sacrifice our values that we are fighting for in our desire to feel safe, the terrorists win. I agree with terrorists on one crucial point: this is a moral conflict. It is about our values versus theirs. And I am secure in my own belief that our cause is just, and that no good can ever be justified through terrorist violence. The mere fact that the al Qaeda leaders are so hateful that they would unleash the scourge of WMD on humanity ultimately discredits them.
