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

[abhishek_sharma]

Bhaiyya ji, this post belongs to the BENIS thread. You want a militarily strong India? And how will we become militarily strong? By letting Pakipigs kill our officers, soldiers, innocent men, women & children and doing jackshit about it. Am I the only one or does it look like a joke to everybody else too?

+1. It surely sounds like a bad joke to me. I guess we should wait for the "math". I can assure you that there will be "suitable approximations/simplifications" for the value of lives of people killed in terrorist attacks. Once you accept these "approximations", it all boils down to HDI and FDI.

[Sri]

^^^

Man I am ok with talks and all, but the I am not sure if we should we talking to 'THE GUY' who planned and executed Mumbai 08. And I don't trust MMS leading talks from our end.

[arun]

X posted from the Oppression of Minorities in Pakistan thread.

Fox News reports on the sad plight of Dhimmi Infidels of the Christian religion in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the worlds first Ideological Muslim state and sole Islamic nuclear weapon power:

Pakistan's Deprived Christian Community Say They're Being Persecuted for U.S. Drone Strikes

[Prem]

US new army chief visits Pakistan
( Kiyani mai Kiyani, aise hai jannani, Nya Amir Jernail bhi aya Likhne nyee kahani)
( i say, beware of Ameerkhani carying Gifts of vasleen vials )

This is Gen. Dempsey’s first visit to Pakistan since assuming the duties of the Chief of Staff.
America’s new Army Chief of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey has arrived in Pakistan on his first tour to the country. e called on Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and discussed matter of mutual interest. Gen. Dempsey also visited the US embassy in Islamabad and met with US envoy Cameron Munter and other staff.
This is Gen. Dempsey’s first visit to Pakistan since assuming the duties of the Chief of Staff on April 11.

http://www.thepakistaninewspaper.com/ne ... p?id=19507

[abhishek_sharma]

The U.S.-Pakistan stalemate

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

"U.S. Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Pakistan today to consult with Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff," was how Kayani figured at all in the 124- word statement issued after Mullen's 22nd visit to Pakistan since October 2007. As for Kayani, he ""strongly rejected negative propaganda of Pakistan not doing enough and Pakistan army's lack of clarity on the way forward" according to the statement released by the Pakistani Army.

Let us now consider why Mullen's patience has worn thin with Pakistan, after long being known as a defender of the Pakistani military; only a few months away from the scheduled beginning of the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship has been racked by the controversy surrounding CIA operative Raymond Davis after he killed two armed men in Lahore in January. This episode not only exposed the CIA operations in Pakistan that for the most part until Davis's release had been suspected but not paraded about in broad daylight. It also certainly delivered a serious jolt to the relationship, and provided Pakistan with a wand to wave at the United States in order to extract some concessions on covert CIA activities in Pakistan.

And this has turned it into an ISI-CIA turf-war over their mutually conflicting interests and objectives in the region - namely that the Americans want Pakistan to conclusively move against the Haqqani Network and LeT, while Pakistan wants to secure its future interest in a post-American Afghanistan, while also wanting to maintain some order in North Waziristan, dominated by the Zadran tribe, who are also spread across Afghanistan's Paktia province and to which the Haqqanis belong.

It would seem that Mullen failed to extract a commitment from Kayani on this front, while Mullen, on the other hand, seems to have failed in committing himself to addressing the Pakistani establishment's paranoia with the expanding Indian role in Afghanistan, a concern that a senior Pakistani general told me the military has raised on various occasions with their American partners. This failure to openly address Pakistani concerns also reinforces the Pakistani preoccupation with the perceived U.S. tilt towards India.

The generals at army headquarters in Rwalpindi also believe that the Indo-American partnership, with the active support and connivance of a Tajik-dominated Afghan security establishment, wants to deny Pakistan a dominant role in Afghanistan, and believe the United States thinks that the only way to achieve this is to accord India key security responsibilities in that country once the bulk of foreign troops leave. Unless addressed by an increasingly strident American defense establishment upset by the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, these Pakistani concerns will likely continue to disrupt the bilateral U.S.-Pakistan ties, as well as the keep the regional multi-lateral relations on the boil. The perceived American deference to India works to the detriment of Pakistani interests, the senior general told me, and would hardly provide them with the comfort level that a "strategic partner needs to get fully involved in a war that has cost [Pakistan] a lot."

Pakistani intelligence, says the military commander, "cannot afford to relent and allow the United States or its security institutions a free hand in shaping the geo-political agenda in the region in league with the Indian and Afghan security establishments."

The challenge for both the U.S. and Pakistan remains the problem of trying to marry their divergent geo-strategic objectives. As for now, the relationship has soured significantly, with no indication of Pakistan giving in on the issue of support for the Haqqanis or LeT. Nor does the U.S. appear ready to accommodate Pakistani concerns flowing from the surging Indian influence in Afghanistan. And in such an environment, stalemate and tension seem ready to endure.

[shiv]

From Anatol Lieven
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... r?page=0,1
2 data points

. LeT is regarded by many Western counterterrorism experts as the most effective terrorist group in South Asia and even beyond. Its potential for international terrorism is greatly increased by the fact that much of the Pakistani diaspora in Britain comes from Pakistani Kashmir and -- judging from my interviews -- has deep sympathy with the anti-Indian jihadists. Because these people have British passports, they are a direct potential threat to the West.<data point 1>

So far, however, LeT has not planned or carried out any attacks against the West, even as its activists have gone to help the Taliban in Afghanistan and killed Westerners as part of the group's 2008 attack on Mumbai. According to counterterrorism expert Stephen Tankel, some members of LeT/JuD did press the organization to revolt against the Pakistani government when then President Pervez Musharraf sided with America after 9/11, but their demands were rejected by the leadership and they left the organization to fight with the Pakistani Taliban against the Pakistani state.

The strategy of the Pakistani military seems largely responsible for LeT's restraint. According to well-informed sources in Pakistan, the military has told LeT leaders that if they do not revolt against Pakistan and do not carry out terrorist attacks against India (for the moment at least) and above all the United States and Europe, then they are safe from arrest or extrajudicial execution. Incidentally, a leading JuD member told me in 2009 that despite its Islamist revolutionary ideology, the group would do nothing to destroy the Pakistani state "because then the Hindus would march in to rule over us."<data point 2>

1) Britain incubates a mass of anti India Pakis

2)US-Pak-Army-non army Islamists (NAyI?) relationship

• The Islamists need the Pakistani state for their survival and fear annihilation by India.
• The US needs the Pakistani state but has been wishy washy about Islamists
• The Pakistani state needs the islamists as a hedge against annihilation by India.

So the veiled threat from the US via Lieven

, if LeT members broke away to aid a successful terrorist attack against the United States, it is extremely unlikely that the U.S. response would distinguish between the breakaway members and LeT as a whole, or even between LeT and the ISI.
<snip>
As long as Pakistan cooperates sincerely and effectively in pursuit of this goal, the United States should continue to work with Pakistan and support the relevant parts of Pakistan's counterterrorism strategy. If Pakistan fails to do so, however, then all bets are off.

[Prem]

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2011_pg3_4
BAAGHI: The question of identity / Poak Pangs arr Painful
Maar-vi Sirmed

Immediately after its birth in August 1947, a deliberate mystification of a ‘unified identity’ and absence of meticulous handling of the ‘software’ of the new-born nation served the purpose of integration among diverse coalescing units and multi-ethnic, multi-cultural entities that made up Pakistan. The Two Nation theory that served the separatist purpose before partition provided the integration factor. ‘Because we’re different from Hindus, we’re homogeneous among ourselves’ became the easy answer to the complex problems the founding fathers foresaw without comprehending their future implications. The effect of this confusion on present day Pakistan manifests itself in many ways. Sometimes it is the illusion of grandeur based on a glorified past, at others it is a global ambition to conquer the world. It gives rise to incurable animosity of the ‘other’ (aghiyaar — as the current chief minister of Punjab puts it), which trickles down to the youth in the form of the worst identity crisis more than half a century after the country’s birth. As the British Council’s 2009 report, ‘Pakistan: The Next Generation’, says, more than half of the youngsters of Pakistan seek their primary identity in religion rather than territorial bonding.In most cases, this functional need for identity is satisfied by culture, which comes from centuries of human experience in all fields of life including religion. However, some cultures develop themselves in primarily religious fashion while subsuming all other alternatives of culture. In a 21st century globalised world, monolith cultures devoid of any potential of egalitarianism and pluralism would be anything but viable.
A culture would be ‘religious’ when its worldview is based on the assumption (or belief) of another world being superior to the present one. Such a culture would put emphasis on a transcendental divine world rather than the empirical one. The ‘mundaneness’ of the present world would put a religious culture in an unavoidable position to undermine everything associated with the empirical world and empirical knowledge. Modernity and modern knowledge get superseded by an emphasis on that ‘other world’, which is glorified and fancied in such a culture, thus barring any potential or willingness to progress, prosper, or even contribute to the world of knowledge and to a robust and all-encompassing culture based on diverse expressions of human experience. This condescension and superciliousness towards the empirical world comes from the introduction of organised religion in a particular society, as a deciding factor. Even worse results come from the promotion of organised religion (especially one particular religion overriding all others) as a supreme concept to direct the entire business of the state and of cultural evolution. A perfect recipe for a nation’s disaster: this was precisely the course chosen for Pakistan in its early years.
A deeper look at each of the above-mentioned components of the ‘national identity’ reveals how far we have moved from claiming a true national identity. Achieving a prime, strong national identity is what should be placed at the top of the national priorities list for Pakistan. It might actually address the roots of conflict and chaos if not be the panacea. It is important, in short, to be Pakistani before being a Hindu, Christian, Sikh or — yes — a Muslim. The texts beginning from a clichéd ‘all of us are Muslims’, need to be totally shunned in favour of a nation state-based identity, which would not only drag the society towards egalitarianism, but also would define our wider international behaviour.It is important to be a nation rather than a loose mass of people in continuous search of identity, giving a migraine to itself and to the world.

( First, Hajaro slama to MAJ for separating Halahal and putting in Bantte wali Bottle. She forget that Poaks have one another very distinct identity, all of them are proud to be BCs. On serious note , they are realizing that they, their religious shenanigans have nothing to offer in this new era and sooner or latter world will either throw them in dustbin or be forced to quarantine the Poak swine flue carrying Poakupines)

[Gagan]

My theory on Pakistan's use of terrorists as foreign policy tools has undergone a slight change.
Ver 1.0 was:
Pakistan uses the terrorists as its strategic forces, and uses them to secure what it perceives as its geo strategic interests. To this end they use the Taliban on their Western borders against Afghanistan and Jundallah against Iran, and Groups such as the HUJI, LET, JEM, HM etc on its eastern borders against India.

Ver 2.0 states:
In addition to the above, Pakistan also has been using these groups to try and secure its interests beyond the immediate region. To this end it has collaborated with groups such as AQ, provided training and support to a host of AQAM groups in regions extending from SE Asia to Chehnya, Central Asia, North Africa to the western world (Australia-Europe-USA). These groups have targeted civilians and are being used to create a situation where Pakistan's indispensability and influence with these groups can be leveraged by that nation.

[Gagan]

Further,
It is possible that China might want to use this unique service provided by Pakistan to 'soften up' a region, before China makes a plunge in a big way.
Central Asia for one comes to mind.
If terrorism erupts in a big way in the oil rich central asian states, we will see nations rushing to find ways to control that tap of terror. Guess what, China already has its hand inside the glove that turns that tap.

The US's presence in Afghanistan prevents a direct access to Central Asia for Pakistan. The US's presence there acting as a buffer is part of the reason why Russia agreed to the Northern supply route for US's forces.
This is also why Pakistan is extremely eager to gain control of Afghanistan and does not want either the US or India to have influence there.

The Afghans have to understand, that the Pakistan-China combo will take them back to the civil war like situation that they are so desperate to put behind them.

This also explains in some measure what this strategic depth that pakistan so desperately seeks, is actually all about. Afghanistan is just the launching pad.

[ManuT]

Some game, any game, though contrary to the evidence in the last few pages, other than playing dead is needed.

If India is not ready to fight a war, can it take some raw initiatives or at least reorient itself to push fake currency into TSP. With 1% tax and 3/4 of its economy underground, I would imagine ...

I do not know which policies are worse, US's or GOIs. This is pathetic, even rats in a maze and shocked with elecricity would do much better.

[Pranav]

Big big pigshit. How about South Korea? How come it prospered when having NoKo in neighbor? Only because there US did not play a double game with both the countries.

India's poverty is due to corruption.

[Pranav]

What happens when we become a $10 trillion economy? Sri Ram comes down from heaven & hands us the Brahmastra? What do you do with 300 million abduls on our western border? What does the new militarily strong, economic superpower, India on steroids do? What makes you think that US or China would have broken up Pakistan by then? Why would China let go of such a successful investment? Why would US let Pakistan walk into China's harem just like that? Everybody who has a case of diarrhea watching India grow & prosper will want Pakistan to be alive & kicking India in the nuts, then why would anyone prescribe inaction as the best action for India?

Why don't we start with precision attacks and then escalate our way up to a nuclear exchange. Paks may have more nukes but we are a larger country with more people. Surely some of us will survive.

[Narad]

US new army chief visits Pakistan
( Kiyani mai Kiyani, 3.5 baapon ki aulaad main harami, aise hai jannani, Nya Amir Jernail bhi aya Likhne nyee kahani)

Fixed it.

[arun]

X posted from the Oppression of Minorities in Pakistan thread.

Sindhi Nationalist leaders killed “by the death squads of Pakistani intelligence agencies”:

BHRC Strongly Condemns the brutal Killing Of Sindhi Leaders

The killings dated to April 21 in Bakhorri Mori area of Sanghar district in Sindh Provence with the Sindhi nationalists fingering “personnel of law enforcement agencies” :

Three JSMM leaders shot dead in Sanghar dist

[Ambar]

From Anatol Lieven
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... r?page=0,1
2 data points



1) Britain incubates a mass of anti India Pakis

2)US-Pak-Army-non army Islamists (NAyI?) relationship

• The Islamists need the Pakistani state for their survival and fear annihilation by India.
• The US needs the Pakistani state but has been wishy washy about Islamists
• The Pakistani state needs the islamists as a hedge against annihilation by India.

So the veiled threat from the US via Lieven

, if LeT members broke away to aid a successful terrorist attack against the United States, it is extremely unlikely that the U.S. response would distinguish between the breakaway members and LeT as a whole, or even between LeT and the ISI.
<snip>
As long as Pakistan cooperates sincerely and effectively in pursuit of this goal, the United States should continue to work with Pakistan and support the relevant parts of Pakistan's counterterrorism strategy. If Pakistan fails to do so, however, then all bets are off.

1 ) I'm not sure how to infer that conclusion from Anatol's article. Yes, a lot of radicalized muslims,esp Pakis who obviously hate India,Israel and the west (Britain included) live in Britain. But i'm not sure if i would say Britain (as in the British Govt) is an incubator of radicals against India. These hate mongering Pakis are everywhere in Europe, from Rome to Hamburgh,so Britain is hardly an exception.

2) I agree with your analysis.

[menon s]

SMITH: Why Pakistan will betray us
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -us/print/

Ten years of supporting America's Islamist enemies has poisoned its reputation in America. Its once-mighty defenders in Washington are isolated and shrinking in number, while a younger generation of policymakers knows nothing of Pakistan but militancy, corruption and deception. When the United States inevitably departs Afghanistan, so too, will Pakistan's "leverage" over America. Only then will Pakistan's leadership realize the true cost of their double game.

Jeff M. Smith is a fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council.

[Gagan]

One interesting feature of Pakistani diplomacy and terrorism is that they use India as the testing ground before they use that methodology on the rest of the world.

India has seen both terror attacks being replicated in the outside world and now their pakiness is being put to good use for the rest of the world.

Looks like the US has caught on.
They know that when the next terrorist attacks happens the LET will be the likely perpertrator, and ISI backing might not be easily traceable, and Pakistan will be spouting the 'non-state actor' line. They have therefore taken steps to try and pre-empt this by warning pakistan that there will be no distinguishing between the LET, ISI, and the Pakistani state should such an attack materialize.

[abhishek_sharma]

They have therefore taken steps to try and pre-empt this by warning pakistan that there will be no distinguishing between the LET, ISI, and the Pakistani state should such an attack materialize.

The US Ambassador to India (Mulford) and their Asst. Secy of State (Boucher) repeatedly denied that the Pakistani Army/ISI were involved in 26/11. They stressed that it was done by non-state actors. (They were, of course, lying. Pasha told them about the involvement of "retired" ISI officers in December 2008.)

And we have people here who are waiting for some miracle from US.

[Narad]

SMITH: Why Pakistan will betray us
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -us/print/

Interesting snippets.

Around every corner in Kabul, Pakistanis see Indian agents and behind every Afghan initiative, a nefarious Hindu plot. That India's presence in Afghanistan has been benign, civilian and economic in nature has not stopped the ISI from backing brazen jihadi attacks on the Indian Embassy in Kabul.

the fear of ethnic (specifically Pashtun and Baluch) nationalism may play an even greater role in Pakistan's strategy, penetrating to the heart of what constitutes Pakistani identity and the integrity of the Pakistani state.

As the saying goes, the Afghans have a terribly weak state but a cohesive national identity. In Pakistan, the strong, military-run state is in part compensation for its fragile national identity.

Pakistan fears that a strong and independent Afghanistan - let alone one allied to India - could challenge their artificial border and agitate Pashtun or Baluch nationalists, undermining Pakistan from within.

May be the paki DNA tracing back to mofo aurangzeb is to be blamed for this.

Of course, none of Pakistan's "interests" { 1)strategic depth 2) Territorial intergrity viz a viz pashtoon dominated areas} in Afghanistan justify its backing fanatical jihadists that slaughter the innocent, the majority of which are Muslim.

[wig]

Meanwhile, the PMO denies media report that PM contacted Kayani

The Prime Minister's Office today termed as 'false' a media report that Manmohan Singh had contacted Pakistan Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani before the Mohali meeting between Prime Ministers of the two countries.

"We have seen media reports quoting a British newspaper saying that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh contacted Pakistan Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani before the Mohali meeting between the two Prime Ministers. The report is false," PM's Media Adviser Harish Khare said in a statement.

London-based 'The Times' had yesterday reported that Singh had appointed an "unofficial envoy" to make contact with Kayani, who exercises de facto control over Pakistan's foreign policy.

The talks, through a back channel, have encouraged the UK and US believe that the countries' competition for influence in Afghanistan could be better managed during efforts to start a peace process

http://www.ptinews.com/news/1537230_PMO ... ed-Kayani-

[shyamd]

^^ I am convinced Pak initiated this. Go back to Iftikhar Gilani report, the first on the new track 2 diplomacy. Pak are the ones who want it, not us. Plus we felt the need of talking with Kayani directly rather than civvies. I'd rather talk direct than use some clown intermediary.
Pak is at its weakest point, and kayani has told us no more terror attacks.

All these peace moves with talebs is because US wants to focus on ME and Iran.

Do give the scenario I had posted a while back a read..

[V_Raman]

any indo-pak escalation is a trumph card held by india at this stage. hence all the attention on india from the 3.5

[SSridhar]

You cannot become the most successful country in the world if
your neighbor next door is sick with paralyzing political problems, with
terrorism, and is a patron state of terror against you.

Doesn't matter. Second-most successful country in the world will do just fine.

[shyamd]

any indo-pak escalation is a trumph card held by india at this stage. hence all the attention on india from the 3.5

We have no history of striking TSP first. Plus kayani has told us no terror attacks in india for time to come (if article is to be believed).
So if we have no excuse to hit pak, we won't start war.

PRC is bought in to keep us in check and make sure we comply.

Pak won't be doing anything for a few years.

[Vikas]

^ Seriously, And we should be trusting Ass-saaf-Kiya-nahin's word now.
And if he doesn't keep his word, we will run back to Papa to complain

[sum]

Bhaiyya ji, this post belongs to the BENIS thread. You want a militarily strong India? And how will we become militarily strong? By letting Pakipigs kill our officers, soldiers, innocent men, women & children and doing jackshit about it. Am I the only one or does it look like a joke to everybody else too?

After 1971 also I am sure people would have said similar things, "Ab to adha kar diya, ab kya ukhaad lenge". They did not fall in line then, what makes you think they will fall in line now when they are more desperate & destitute than ever before?

And I am supposed to sleep tight because the grand chacha Khan has plans for Pak? What are those plans, bliss to reveal hain jee? Arming them with more F-16s? More naval ships? AMRAAMs? Harpoons? Turning a blind eye to their nuclear proliferation?

A country that fiddles its thumbs while its citizens are being killed on its own soil cannot, will not ever become a military superpower. The world fears China because their leaders drop hints of irrationality, talking of absorbing 500m casualties and what not. What do SDREs do? Piss & Paki-Yindoo bhai bhai onlee. Military power indeed.

++++++++++++1

How in $#%^ name are we dreaming of being a "power" ( forget superpower) if we are ready to absorb daily pinpricks and loss of our citizens lives on our land to ensure that someone else will finally get bored and do the job for us?
Will US accept a loss of ~50 citizens/month to ensure that it remains sole superpower or will will it do its own moves to ensure it gets what it wants?

Of course, calculation of FDI and GDP will ensure that the citizens lost actually died for a "worthy cause"... My salutes to our nation's planners for such clear, precise and amazing thinking.

[Vikas]

^ They should consider the FDI and increase in GDP as blood money that is being paid against there murder...All ij well. We are on path to Super-powerdom.

[Mahendra]

Just for the record, BENIS does not support the glossing over the deaths of scores of Indians so that we can become a supah powah 20 saal later. That post should go to the Maths thread, Possible Scenarios thread or Strategic what-eva thread.

[abhishek_sharma]

Just for the record, BENIS does not support the glossing over the deaths of scores of Indians so that we can become a supah powah 20 saal later. That post should go to the Maths thread, Possible Scenarios thread or Strategic what-eva thread.

It cannot go to Mathematics thread. It should go to "creative" Mathematics thread.

[shyamd]

He'll keep his word for a few years (as they are in a very precarious situation). In fact we should use this situation to rein in ISI ops in east asia.

Kayani will be back with a big BANG in a few years (he needs to do it for his own survival). Let this pass over. Sad fact is I am not sure our so called "analysts" even understand the geopolitical situation.

All this reminds me of Saddam in the 80s when he wanted war with the Iran. Iran was internally divided and fighting each other. Saddam thought this was a great time to push his weight and take on Iran and go all the way to Tehran and "grab the ayatollah by the beard in Tehran".

King Fahd told Saddam - Don't do it, why do you want to unite a country that is fighting itself and looking like it will implode? King Fahd pleaded with Saddam - he said for God's sake keep it to a small border confrontation. Fahd told him when you want to disengage you'll have to get the other side to agree. Saddam didn't listen.

3 years into the war, Saddam said I wish I listened to you to King Fahd. Saddam was desparate to get out. All the gains were slowly reversed by Tehran and they begun to enter into Iraqi territory.

So what I am trying to say is, its easy for us to be jingoistic and say lets punish pak, lets split it and take over Pak etc etc. But you have to think of the consequences of what you are doing. Pak will nuke us (with unkil support) - thats why ABV ordered IA not to cross LoC during Kargil. Lets say you take over Pak, do you want to "control" it? They'll do some guerilla warfare Iraq style etc etc. Long story short, we are not interested in a serious conflaguration and having to face PRC.

This is GoI strategists view. GoI have gained their lessons from Cold War era. This policy is not something new, its been the same policy for a long time.

[Dilbu]

Just for the record, BENIS does not support the glossing over the deaths of scores of Indians so that we can become a supah powah 20 saal later. That post should go to the Maths thread, Possible Scenarios thread or Strategic what-eva thread.

+1

[shyamd]

Bhaiyya ji, this post belongs to the BENIS thread. You want a militarily strong India? And how will we become militarily strong? By letting Pakipigs kill our officers, soldiers, innocent men, women & children and doing jackshit about it. Am I the only one or does it look like a joke to everybody else too?

After 1971 also I am sure people would have said similar things, "Ab to adha kar diya, ab kya ukhaad lenge". They did not fall in line then, what makes you think they will fall in line now when they are more desperate & destitute than ever before?

And I am supposed to sleep tight because the grand chacha Khan has plans for Pak? What are those plans, bliss to reveal hain jee? Arming them with more F-16s? More naval ships? AMRAAMs? Harpoons? Turning a blind eye to their nuclear proliferation?

A country that fiddles its thumbs while its citizens are being killed on its own soil cannot, will not ever become a military superpower. The world fears China because their leaders drop hints of irrationality, talking of absorbing 500m casualties and what not. What do SDREs do? Piss & Paki-Yindoo bhai bhai onlee. Military power indeed.

++++++++++++1

How in $#%^ name are we dreaming of being a "power" ( forget superpower) if we are ready to absorb daily pinpricks and loss of our citizens lives on our land to ensure that someone else will finally get bored and do the job for us?
Will US accept a loss of ~50 citizens/month to ensure that it remains sole superpower or will will it do its own moves to ensure it gets what it wants?

Of course, calculation of FDI and GDP will ensure that the citizens lost actually died for a "worthy cause"... My salutes to our nation's planners for such clear, precise and amazing thinking.

Zimple... We'll do it when the time is right. First and foremost our priority is to our economy - social expenditure.

The ISI wants war and has been trying again and again. They are getting frustrated with us not hitting back. I think the US wanted us to get stuck in an Iraq style situation in Pak. US/NATO have ZERO will power to have casualties in Afghanistan/Pak.

US is doing the dirtywork for us and will punish Pak soon. Don't you worry. No point in uniting Pak, let them kill each other.

[Vikas]

He'll keep his word for a few years (as they are in a very precarious situation). In fact we should use this situation to rein in ISI ops in east asia.

Kayani will be back with a big BANG in a few years (he needs to do it for his own survival). Let this pass over. Sad fact is I am not sure our so called "analysts" even understand the geopolitical situation.

All this reminds me of Saddam in the 80s when he wanted war with the Iran. Iran was internally divided and fighting each other. Saddam thought this was a great time to push his weight and take on Iran and go all the way to Tehran and "grab the ayatollah by the beard in Tehran".

King Fahd told Saddam - Don't do it, why do you want to unite a country that is fighting itself and looking like it will implode? King Fahd pleaded with Saddam - he said for God's sake keep it to a small border confrontation. Fahd told him when you want to disengage you'll have to get the other side to agree. Saddam didn't listen.

3 years into the war, Saddam said I wish I listened to you to King Fahd. Saddam was desparate to get out. All the gains were slowly reversed by Tehran and they begun to enter into Iraqi territory.

So what I am trying to say is, its easy for us to be jingoistic and say lets punish pak, lets split it and take over Pak etc etc. But you have to think of the consequences of what you are doing. Pak will nuke us (with unkil support) - thats why ABV ordered IA not to cross LoC during Kargil. Lets say you take over Pak, do you want to "control" it? They'll do some guerilla warfare Iraq style etc etc. Long story short, we are not interested in a serious conflaguration and having to face PRC.

This is GoI strategists view. GoI have gained their lessons from Cold War era. This policy is not something new, its been the same policy for a long time.

Shyamd- I respect your opinion and inside knowledge especially your grip on ME affairs.
If Pakis could nuke us in 2001, what gives us hope that they will not nuke us in 2025 with better weapons and delivery system (Provided by PRC and USA).
As far Pakis fighting among themselves and may implode someday hopefully, My only question would be, What is good time to fight your enemy. When it is weak and fighting among itself or when it is strong and united. Saddam could not finish the job not because he was incompetent. Plain and simple. He only knew how to bomb Kurds and use chemical weapons against minorities in Iraq.

Anyways no one here is proposing that GoI declare a war on TSP in WW-2 mold, but we are frustrated with MMS Govt bowing to each and every demand of Unkill when it comes to TSP and there is hardly any strategic policy in place except for eternal hope that TSP will fall apart like FSU.
GoI wants to hug Pakistan and indulge in love making despite 26/11 and complete involvement of TSPian top brass with whom we have now opened up back room channel. Since when did Indian blood became so cheap and worthless ?
But in the end, TSP is no FSU and it is pretty cheap to keep it alive by 3.5 friends.

[sum]

US is doing the dirtywork for us and will punish Pak soon. Don't you worry. No point in uniting Pak, let them kill each other.

Well, thats the point...no one is asking India to start a CSD tomorrow and dash to RYK.
But, surely we can add a little ghee to the fire and help more Pakis kill more Pakis discreetly instead of twiddling our thumbs and waiting for others to do our job..Surely, there are a 101 ways that can be done instead of bending backwards and always trying to project a benign target to the Pakis.

[shyamd]

Well, thats the point...no one is asking India to start a CSD tomorrow and dash to RYK.
But, surely we can add a little ghee to the fire and help more Pakis kill more Pakis discreetly instead of twiddling our thumbs and waiting for others to do our job..Surely, there are a 101 ways that can be done instead of bending backwards and always trying to project a benign target to the Pakis.

Why do you want to do that if somebody else is doing the dirtywork anyway? Like I said we don't want to flame the fire. We want peace not war.

[Vikas]

Exploding bombs in public places and killing ordinary Abduls doesn't cause any skin off PA/ISI nose. When we see some Paki Jarnails being bumped off, we will believe that someone is doing the dirty job. Till then terrorist attacks like attack on Kabul embassy remain unavenged.

[shyamd]

Shyamd- I respect your opinion and inside knowledge especially your grip on ME affairs.
If Pakis could nuke us in 2001, what gives us hope that they will not nuke us in 2025 with better weapons and delivery system (Provided by PRC and USA).

Its all about timing boss. We'll do the needful when the time is right. Not yet for a multitude of reasons.

As far Pakis fighting among themselves and may implode someday hopefully, My only question would be, What is good time to fight your enemy. When it is weak and fighting among itself or when it is strong and united. Saddam could not finish the job not because he was incompetent. Plain and simple. He only knew how to bomb Kurds and use chemical weapons against minorities in Iraq.

Boss. This requires a long explanations. But long story short, it certainly wasn't because he was incompetent at all.

Anyways no one here is proposing that GoI declare a war on TSP in WW-2 mold, but we are frustrated with MMS Govt bowing to each and every demand of Unkill when it comes to TSP and there is hardly any strategic policy in place except for eternal hope that TSP will fall apart like FSU.

We can't believe the media birather, they seem to be making out we are making all the concessions - this time it isnt us making the concessions. Our strategy to ally with the US no matter what is due to post-TSP future and a host of other reasons that needs time to explain. Do some research into it.

GoI wants to hug Pakistan and indulge in love making despite 26/11 and complete involvement of TSPian top brass with whom we have now opened up back room channel. Since when did Indian blood became so cheap and worthless ?
But in the end, TSP is no FSU and it is pretty cheap to keep it alive by 3.5 friends.

We want peace not war. We'll deal with Pak when the time is right. Washington has other plans and is busy working overtime. Watch Balochistan closely.

The opening of talks is borne out of Pak being weak and needed to talk to Desh. And Desh would rather speak directly with the power in Pak. Read pranab's post 26/11 statements. Pak will make concessions this time.

[shyamd]

Exploding bombs in public places and killing ordinary Abduls doesn't cause any skin off PA/ISI nose. When we see some Paki Jarnails being bumped off, we will believe that someone is doing the dirty job. Till then terrorist attacks like attack on Kabul embassy remain unavenged.

We are treading cautiously. GoI strategists are not jingoistic. They are a bit slow. But they know what to do.

People are thinking more long term than just bumping off Jernails.

[Gagan]

The US Ambassador to India (Mulford) and their Asst. Secy of State (Boucher) repeatedly denied that the Pakistani Army/ISI were involved in 26/11. They stressed that it was done by non-state actors. (They were, of course, lying. Pasha told them about the involvement of "retired" ISI officers in December 2008.)

And we have people here who are waiting for some miracle from US.

I was referring to how the US manages things in the US-Pakistani context.
The US has a different set of standards for the rest of the world, a different set of policies for non NATO nations, an even more different set of standards for countries like India which have tired at one time to follow a relatively independent foreign policy, and which are rising future powers.

[Cosmo_R]

They have therefore taken steps to try and pre-empt this by warning pakistan that there will be no distinguishing between the LET, ISI, and the Pakistani state should such an attack materialize.

And we have people here who are waiting for some miracle from US.

Not moi, I am waiting for a miracle from GoI/MMS