Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 30, 2011

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 06 Jun 2011 10:28

shiv:
I get very sad when you blow a few going over the history of Western attitudes towards India. We know it all.

What is really important is understanding how it works and be able to influence it.

Periodically, we get this outrage at Johann when he does not sugar-coat Western attitudes. What Johann says does not make me happy. However I see no point blowing a fuse, since in most of the cases, he is quite accurate in his thoughts. What is really important is learning from it; not blowing a fuse about it.
==
UBannerjee:

I think the term "chauvinism of the ..." nailed it. Some here do not want to recognize that.

==
GuruPrabhu: How much more can you have invested than living and working in a country heh? If you have a hypothesis about how the US is coming to end, articulate it properly.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 06 Jun 2011 10:45

VikramS wrote: GuruPrabhu: How much more can you have invested than living and working in a country heh? If you have a hypothesis about how the US is coming to end, articulate it properly.

Living and working in a country just makes you have blinders on. You can work in america and invest your savings in India, or in China, or in Brazil. The point is about confidence in an economy -- in which economy have you placed your faith? How have you invested your life savings? These are real questions, not rhetoric.

Just articulate it properly rather than beating about the bush.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 06 Jun 2011 10:48

shiv wrote:Johann is posting an American centric viewpoint as exemplified by this report
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... per192.htm

Between January 1, 1988, and October 31,1998, (subsequent figures not yet available), there was a total of 38,753 Pakistani-sponsored terrorist incidents in Jammu & Kashmir. During the same period, according to the annual reports on the Patterns of Global Terrorism issued by the US State Department, there were 4,411 terrorist incidents in the rest of the world.
38000 incidents in India did not count or come into US consciousness because as Johann said:
the world is much bigger than either India or Pakistan, or even the two combined. It is important to remember when were are talking about global players like the United States, or for that matter Al-Qaeda.
Is it any wonder that 9-11 occurred? You might make a blind man see, but not someone who does not want to see.

shiv wrote:
Johann wrote: The point is that the world is much bigger than either India or Pakistan, or even the two combined. It is important to remember when were are talking about global players like the United States, or for that matter Al-Qaeda. Being Indo-centric in thinking does not have to mean refusing to see the global picture.

The world is certainly bigger than India, Pakistan and Afghanistan combined. In fact Pakistan and Afghanistan are even smaller. But that is a banal truism like "It's cold in winter" In no way does that inalterable fact change the reality that Pakistan and Afghanistan concentrated in one corner of the world within a 500 km radius circle got the "Global United States" to open its eyes to something that they were ignoring as not important enough - presumably using the same sanctimonious thought process that its all too small to be noticed on a global scale.

Inability to see detail because one imagines that one is looking at the "big picture" is precisely the reason why 9-11 occurred. What was happening between India and Pakistan was after all "too small and irrelevant". Pakistan certainly made itself relevant even if India did not. But if anyone had bothered to see the statistics (that I have linked above) it is clear that in a typical year (1998) India had 1442 terrorist deaths while the rest of the world had 741 deaths. But what was reported as "terrorist deaths" in the world media was just the 741 and not a chirp about deaths and events in India. Clearly the world media were in total agreement with you that India is too small to be counted in the world. Pakistan was conducting a frenzied series of attacks in India but none of this was noticed because as you say :" the world is much bigger than either India or Pakistan, or even the two combined. It is important to remember when were are talking about global players like the United States, or for that matter Al-Qaeda."

But suddenly, after 9-11 Afghanistan became important to the "global player" and when that did not work, Pakistan did. The "global player" was too busy looking at everything other than what he should have looked at and it was going on right here between India and Pakistan. That makes mockery of your statement Johann.

Shiv,

I'm sorry, but I really don't think you get what I'm saying, perhaps because I am speaking about events at different levels at the same time. Let me try separate it out

- My point about America being a global player is not the same as claiming it was all-seeing and all-wise. Hardly. Just that to understand what they were doing at the time you have to look at the pattern of behaviour worldwide, instead of focusing solely on the subcontinent. The same goes for Al Qaeda. Limiting *either* of their perspectives to the Subcontinental level is to misunderstand how either of them operates or processes information.

Do you know where the LTTE learned about suicide bombing and truck bombs designed to take down entire buildings? The same place as Hamas, from Hezb'allah and other Lebanese groups, in the training camps of the Beka'a valley. The LTTE's contribution back was the invention of the suicide vest bomb, designed to let you work your way closer to human targets. Ever wonder why Hezballah, LTTE, Al-Qaeda and Hamas were using truck bombs and suicide bombing vests long before Pakistani jihadi groups?

- Back to myopia. Do you have *any* idea how deeply the Patterns of Global Terrorism report underreported (a) terrorist violence in general and (b) Salafi jihadi violence in general?

If they listed every incident in Algeria in 1994, they could have filled the entire book at its current level.

If you'd like to do something interesting, go ahead and count how many Salafi jihadi groups are listed in the report's appendix for the years 1991-94. Go on, you will find it educational.

American myopia was not limited to the Subcontinent - it was global. There was a gradual learning curve through the 1990s both at the policy and political levels after attacks on both America and its allies, but it zeroed out again at the political level after the 2000 elections.

The Bush Administration coming in to power in 2001 gave little thought to terrorism of any sort, global or regional until 9/11. Their obsession was missile defence against Iran and North Korea, and regime change in Iraq, and those continued even after September 11.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 06 Jun 2011 10:53

UBanerjee wrote:What constitutes a local terrorist group and what is global?

For example does LTTE count as local but LeT is global? Or vice versa? Or both/neither?

We can expect the answer to simply reflect the chauvinism of the responders.

Hi UB,

The LTTE was like Lebanese Hezballah - their support operations were truly global - weapons procurement, fund raising, training, etc, but their 'military' operations were generally in one country. The exception was the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, and the bombings of the Israeli centres in Buenos Aires, as well as occasional hits on dissidents and rivals.

The LeT has aspirations to strike non-Indian targets on a global scale, but it is interesting that it has not hit Indian targets on a similar level. Ilyas Kashmiri's 313 Brigade is working at the same level. These are the developments of the 21st century - Pakistan can feel proud that it has almost truly arrived.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 06 Jun 2011 10:58

Johann wrote:American myopia was not limited to the Subcontinent - it was global. There was a gradual learning curve through the 1990s both at the policy and political levels after attacks on both America and its allies, but it zeroed out again at the political level after the 2000 elections.

Putting it in the past tense is cute. Secondly, making it seem like an inadvertent mistake takes the cake.

You are defending gross prejudice with nice sounding "learning mistakes". Sorry, the acts of omission of US and UQ are nothing but acts of hostility. Your "sugar coating", as someone suggested, is disgusting and unworthy of this forum.

I seriously think that you better withdraw from this line of posting garbage before you get to witness a collective upchuck of BRF membership.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 06 Jun 2011 11:03

Folks,

What is the difference between this Johann posting nice sounding excuses from the POV of US/UQ who have caused serious damage to India and some Paki posting garbage about Kashmir?

Johann is just a Paki with a "western" POV. Why do we tolerate this garbage just because it is western?

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 06 Jun 2011 11:07

GuruPrabhu,

Black Humour could be one reason?

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 06 Jun 2011 11:10

Guys, can we learn to disagree without being disagreeable? The tone of conversation is unnecessarily brash and rude.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 06 Jun 2011 11:11

rajanb wrote:GuruPrabhu,

Black Humour could be one reason?

Ah, so we are supposed to understand the "compulsions of the US", eh? How about understanding the "compulsions of the ISI" also?

Which color of humor would that be?

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 06 Jun 2011 11:13

GuruPrabhu:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1104832

Find someone else to bully...

==========
Johann:

Please carry on. The insights you provide are worth a lot more in helping Indians to swing the view in their favor.

People like GP enjoy being internet mujs, not recognizing that their impotent rage do not serve any purpose.
============

rajanb:

Thanks for pointing out the brashness of the tone. Wonder why people feel that being brash or rude makes their perspective more appealing. More often than not, their views are dismissed and ignored since people focus more on the delivery rather than the content.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 06 Jun 2011 11:14

Raman wrote:Guys, can we learn to disagree without being disagreeable? The tone of conversation is unnecessarily brash and rude.

ok, I will stop because it is causing some indigestion.

ok, so let us agree to disagree, shall we? I will posit that ISI are just a bunch of nice folks with their compulsions. Let us try to understand their POV and not be narrow minded, ok?. If that makes you sick, let us just agree to disagree and have a beer afterwords. Wonderful!

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 06 Jun 2011 11:15

Johann wrote:
UBanerjee wrote:What constitutes a local terrorist group and what is global?

For example does LTTE count as local but LeT is global? Or vice versa? Or both/neither?

We can expect the answer to simply reflect the chauvinism of the responders.
Hi UB,

The LTTE was like Lebanese Hezballah - their support operations were truly global - weapons procurement, fund raising, training, etc, but their 'military' operations were generally in one country. The exception was the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, and the bombings of the Israeli centres in Buenos Aires, as well as occasional hits on dissidents and rivals.

The LeT has aspirations to strike non-Indian targets on a global scale, but it is interesting that it has not hit Indian targets on a similar level. Ilyas Kashmiri's 313 Brigade is working at the same level. These are the developments of the 21st century - Pakistan can feel proud that it has almost truly arrived.

Thanks for the info- it is an interesting intellectual exercise to think of what kinds of terrorism get played up, and when, and which kinds get ignored, and when.

I have to also admit- I find your posts interesting and well-written, even if I don't agree with it all.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 06 Jun 2011 11:16

GuruPrabhu wrote:
Raman wrote:Guys, can we learn to disagree without being disagreeable? The tone of conversation is unnecessarily brash and rude.
ok, I will stop because it is causing some indigestion.

ok, so let us agree to disagree, shall we? I will posit that ISI are just a bunch of nice folks with their compulsions. Let us try to understand their POV and not be narrow minded, ok?. If that makes you sick, let us just agree to disagree and have a beer afterwords. Wonderful!

It's quite strange do an == between ISI and more complex actors.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 06 Jun 2011 11:18

VikramS wrote:GuruPrabhu:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1104832

Boss, your jargon is lost on me. I asked a simple question -- where is your money invested? Over and out.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 06 Jun 2011 11:21

UBanerjee wrote:It's quite strange do an == between ISI and more complex actors.

So, complexity is what lets US/UQ off the hook? Would you be relieved if you got raped by a complex rapist as opposed to a gorilla?

I'm sorry about all this, but I am done. Please continue your worship of "western" viewpoint.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 06 Jun 2011 11:22

Dear GP,

I have been here for over a dozen years.

I can't count the number of times someone who thinks they have it all worked out come up and made the same sort sounds of righteous indignation. It is almost a ritual.

Now either BRF is led by lily-livered traitors (and mind you there have been many changes of the guard over the years), or perhaps you should give them some sort of credit, and it is you who needs to give things a good long hard think.

The independent Indian Republic that I spent so many years growing up in is part of my past, my present and my future because its part of my family. I'm hardly likely to be silenced by the likes of you. Please stop assuming things, and stop projecting things about what I am saying - it will help

This is a truncated version of my usual response to the others who have come and gone.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 06 Jun 2011 11:26

Johann wrote:Dear GP,

I have been here for over a dozen years.

I've been around here for the same dozen years and haven't bought your act yet. Get over the victim syndrome and start posting sensibly.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2011 11:26

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13663847

twin drone strikes KIA 12.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 06 Jun 2011 11:31

GuruPrabhu wrote:
VikramS wrote:GuruPrabhu:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1104832
Boss, your jargon is lost on me. I asked a simple question -- where is your money invested? Over and out.

Remember my comment earlier in the thread of what you are capable/willing of......

I trade for a living; I am in and out of positions often many times a hour. The time-frames in which I invest and where I invest are irrelevant for most people who have do not trade.

===

And stop bullying people. Johann brings 10x times the information which can actually help Indians shape the course of things than most others. You can not solve a problem without understanding it.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 06 Jun 2011 11:34

GuruPrabhu wrote:
UBanerjee wrote:It's quite strange do an == between ISI and more complex actors.
So, complexity is what lets US/UQ off the hook? Would you be relieved if you got raped by a complex rapist as opposed to a gorilla?

So let's be clear on this, US is raping India? And yet India sits quietly by, getting raped, and holding hands with the rapist in the meantime, indulging in partnerships, taking advantage of Indo-Pacific security, and the like.

Perhaps this is all part of the "rape". So what is your plan if we are getting raped? Surely you don't advocate doing nothing. Expelling all US business? Cutting off diplomatic ties? Protesting at UN? Sponsoring those who are fighting the rapist in Pakistan?

Let me try and get to the bottom of this to see if it makes any sense. The terminology we use is important. Don't add qualifications; let's explore this statement.

GuruPrabhu wrote: I'm sorry about all this, but I am done. Please continue your worship of "western" viewpoint.

Ah. That's too bad then.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 06 Jun 2011 11:37

ok, I am bullying. Fine. Please continue "understanding" the problem and solving it. Pardon me while I find a porcelain goddess to worship.

When next I see whining about jihadi this and that on BRF, I will remind folks that they should be "understanding" the piglets too. Good luck.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 06 Jun 2011 11:46

GP:You think by calling other names and bullying people on this thread you are going to solve all problems?
You do have one good suggestion; go worship the porcelain goddess in your bathroom instead of vitiating the atmosphere here.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 06 Jun 2011 11:52

GP Ji, with due apologies, Johann ji is absolutely right that the US saw Paki terrorism against India as local. Fact is this is what we have been saying all this while. How do you see the Islamic terrorist groups in Thailand or Phillipines? Lets stop being brash and rude just for the sake of it. Johann gives a perspective and he backs it up. While it's another thing to disagree with some perspectives, it's another being unnecessarily rude about it. We all know the US has been myopic, that it could'nt see the shift in the epicenter of terrorism to the East. But the epicenter on came about under 'global' focus when training camps for Jihad against ME/ US and allied interests ityadi shifted to Afghanistan/ Pakistan region. For them till then terrorism against India remained a local thing. This is fact and has been stated here so many times. Just because Johann says the same thing it does not become less fact, or against India. Today, yes today and not yesterday, the US is beginning to see that not taking out may be the LeT may have repercussions beyond the local target India.

There is indeed a lot of heartburn in India at brazen terror attacks throughout the 80, 90's. Many top leaders were even hosted in London and met top level ministers in the West, raised funding campaigns and raised propaganda against the Indian state. The == problem started right then as our missions were unable to convince the West that there was a genuine terrorist problem India was facing. We did'nt have leverage, the groups did'nt hurt western interests. It was indeed a local problem for them. These were after all the brave Mujahideen that fought the SU. For every Indian who migrated to UK, 3 Pakis and BDs were let in, same in the US. It was a blind spot,and Johann has acknowledged that in his posts.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 06 Jun 2011 11:54

This is all slightly surreal. I am not being bullied (this is much nicer than bullets, rocks and molotov cocktails, which is what proper bullying looks like), but thank you for the concern. I am having a slightly rude discussion with someone whose depth of feelings are bigger than his thoughts. It is not a contest (at least for me), but if it was it wouldn't be a fair one to him.

In the end these are important questions for all humans to grapple with. Who is 'the enemy', really? How should I treat him or her? All I can say as a first step GP is that you aren't my enemy, even if I am yours.

Anyway we should all go back to substantive instead of personal discussion.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 06 Jun 2011 12:11

harbans wrote:Lets stop being brash and rude just for the sake of it.

harbans-ji,

I do assume that you have never said a harsh word against folks who are known as WKK on BRF. That would be brash and rude just for the sake of it, wouldn't it?

Now, let's see this here:

harbans wrote: We all know the US has been myopic, that it could'nt see the shift in the epicenter of terrorism to the East. But the epicenter on came about under 'global' focus when training camps for Jihad against ME/ US and allied interests ityadi shifted to Afghanistan/ Pakistan region. For them till then terrorism against India remained a local thing. This is fact and has been stated here so many times.

So, the US has been myopic, eh? Nice euphemism. I do hope you have reviewed the Nixon-Kissinger tapes, haven't you? My, my, that was some wonderful harmless myopia on display, wasn't it?

Then came the myopia of Carter. I assume that you are old enough to recall Carter-Morarji encounter? Very myopic indeed.

So let us move on to myopia of Reagan. he was so myopic that he couldn't see Paki nuke program right under his nose. Kept telling Congress and Pressler that Pakis were clean -- nicely myopic. I am getting to love this word: myopic.

Shall we now discuss myopia of a couple of Bushes and a Clinton? This myopia must be written in the american constitution because every american president catches it instantly upon gaining office.

Don't get me wrong. I am not "providing solutions" unlike VikramS. I just can not see evil designs against India passed off as "myopia". Thanks for "understanding" my POV.

rajpa · Post by **rajpa** » 06 Jun 2011 12:15

there is a difference between the perceived US rape of SDRE feelings vs the nurturing of TSP ambitions.

at a conceptual level, comparing a statistic of 30000 deaths to the "freedom fighting" revolutionary jihadis - who incidentally helped beat USSR is infeasible.

the real winner is who can sell the sense of victimhood - prompting for a real battle and a victor to come forth. TSP sold the story of the victim better in the past, due to better relationships with the gotus and various other reasons. so US played for TSP then.

now US is the victim. TSP's victimhood is irrelevant in comparison. hence the prodding of the behind.

TSP may still sell its victimhood tomorrow to get more carry loggers. this can be averted only if the tsp sense of victimhood can be altered - in the case of kashmir - to be really the indian case. that is how it is proving to be so far...

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 06 Jun 2011 12:17

The US as a world power is a recent phenomenon. Let us not forget that fundamental to the existence of United States is based on a certain universality of world view that makes it indivisible for them. But the state of the United States is based on the bedrock of colonial European powers, especially the United Kingdom. So there is a kind of intrinsic contradictions in the ideals that went behind the establishment of the United States and the practices of the nation state of the United States.

No matter what spin can now deployed, the all powerful United States did put political expediency over long term statesmanship time and again. It deliberately, willingly and with full vigour pursued its objectives across the world. No matter how much spin can be deployed, independent India was seen to be a threat to the United States, and the policy was driven by this principle. The likes Olaf Caroe ensured that. To say that the US was not concerned about India ever, till recently is to ignore reality.

The independent state of India was seen as a new civilizational pole in a future multi polar world and if it remained as an expression of the civilizational Bharat, it could be the most potent one to challenge the world order fashioned by the US on Judeo Christian principles. In the conflict between the West and Communism, the other pole of Islamism whose most potent expression was the creation of Pakistan was encouraged and egged on. This entity definitely did the bidding of the Western backers and also concentrated on India. The objective was not just the bringing down of Soviet power and communism, but it was always directed against India as well.

The US never thought that this entity will one day turn against them. They created the machine that attacked them on 9/11. In the aiding, abetting and sometimes even close to active participation of terror against India, the US stands guilty. The US has Indian blood on their hands.

Now, the question is whether the USG has turned the corner and felt the need to take a new policy towards India? Does it see India as a threat still? I would say that the policy on India is in transition. They do not yet see India as a partner nor are they convinced that India will be a threat to them.

Shorn of all bluster and arrogance, this is the reality. Anyway all this is OT to this thread. The only two points that are related to the thread are these -

1 The US should realise that the continued existence of this entity called Pakistan is a threat to US at all times. Pakistan should cease to exist as a nation state.

2. Without Indian cooperation, the destruction of Pakistan is not possible for the US.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Jun 2011 12:24

The name of the dead terrorist is not Abu dera ismail khan.

Abu 'xyz' is usually a code name given to these terrorists when they undergo training at LET. Usually before a mission they are given a code name that usually starts with Abu.

Dera Ismail Khan is probably the city from where he originated.

If you'll notice most of the mumbai attackers had names begining with Abu, and the info released by Mumbai Police mentions their name followed by their cities of origin in Pakistan.

I am searching for articles where the names, cities of origin of these terrorists were given out by mumbai police. Can't seem to find it on google, need help.

Added Later,
This guy is probably Ismail Khan, who hails from Dera Ismail Khan. He was Kasab's partner in the CST shootout. He was the main man of kasab's group. The name Ismail Khan itself seems to be close to the city's name, I wonder if mumbai police have any other nickname.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 06 Jun 2011 12:29

So, the US has been myopic, eh? Nice euphemism. I do hope you have reviewed the Nixon-Kissinger tapes, haven't you? My, my, that was some wonderful harmless myopia on display, wasn't it?

GP Ji, for all those instances you give, 'myopic' is the correct word to use. It means short sighted. And it is damning on the HKs and ZBs of US FP. There is nothing more damning to a 'intellectual' who thinks he thinks 'long term' and being called Myopic. Pakistan is currently exposing to Aam Joe how 'myopic' US FP has been. China too is exposing that now. Thus there is a buzz how India is central to US value systems how we are 'strategic allies' and so on in the US establishment. Some of it is top down, but there is also a lot happening now that is bottom up too. The polls show what Aam Joe thinks of US Aid to Pakistan. Myopia is never harmless, it's harmful. It's a soft word, but it carries with it an insult to the intelligence of FP stalwarts.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Jun 2011 12:29

(from left): Bada Abdul Rehaman (Taj Palace); Abdul Rehaman Chota (Oberoi); Ismal Khan (CST station); Babar Imaran (Nariman House)

Third guy from left, the one in black round neck Tee shirt. Kasab's partner

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 06 Jun 2011 12:38

This myopia must be written in the american constitution because every american president catches it instantly upon gaining office.

What is the word you want to use for US FP? Complicit? The US even in the 90's when India was asking the US to put Pak in the state sponsor list of terror entities. When will India do so. This was the time India gave Pak MFN, IKG did pappi jhappi. ABV did Lahore and then later Agra. Were we guilty of being Myopic or complicit? Why do folks expect US to solve Idia's problems? Why did we not get DI till now? Were we being complicit? What did we do about AQK? In response to a terrorist attack tell me one instance where we have punished Pakistan? Hijackers of Kandahar roam free, 93 blasts accused are dying of old age in Pakistan, DI continues to run his empire from Pakistan. What has India done? US at the least is fighting them in their own home ground.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 06 Jun 2011 12:43

Raja Ram wrote: No matter what spin can now deployed, the all powerful United States did put political expediency over long term statesmanship time and again. It deliberately, willingly and with full vigour pursued its objectives across the world.

I would never describe America as 'all powerful', but apart from that the statement is quite correct

No matter how much spin can be deployed, independent India was seen to be a threat to the United States, and the policy was driven by this principle. The likes Olaf Caroe ensured that. To say that the US was not concerned about India ever, till recently is to ignore reality.

This is the crux of my disagreement - but I'd like to see even one document or speech at the where India is identified as a *threat*, on the magnitude of the USSR or its allies, rather than a subsidiary irritant and obstacle in the path of American Cold War goals.

If you want to know how America has treated threats, ask the Soviets, or even the Chinese. Ask the Iranians and North Vietnamese and North Koreans. Ask the Cubans and the Syrians.

The independent state of India was seen as a new civilizational pole in a future multi polar world and if it remained as an expression of the civilizational Bharat, it could be the most potent one to challenge the world order fashioned by the US on Judeo Christian principles.

Once again I've yet to see this actually stated in anything said or written by Americans who made policy. Even Samuel Huntington who wrote his half baked "clash of civilizations" didnt hold such opinions.

The only two points that are related to the thread are these -

1 The US should realise that the continued existence of this entity called Pakistan is a threat to US at all times. Pakistan should cease to exist as a nation state.

2. Without Indian cooperation, the destruction of Pakistan is not possible for the US.

I'd agree wholeheartedly on both points - and I'd have said the same thing ten years ago.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 06 Jun 2011 12:46

Missile attacks kill 23 militants in South, North Waziristan

NORTH WAZIRISTAN: At least 23 militants have been killed while a house and seminary, used by the foreigners, destroyed in different missile attacks in North and South Waziristan on Monday.

After killing of Ilyas Kashmiri, a massive operation was launched over terrorists’ hideouts in Dana area of Wana today.

Today’s morning, a house and seminary were destroyed in missile attacks in the north-western hilly area of South Waziristan. Many important terrorists including foreign and southern Punjab’s Taliban were reported dead and many more injured in missile attacks.

In a separate missile attack on a vehicle this noon , many militants were killed and some others injured in Shawal area of North Waziristan.

Rajiv Lather · Post by **Rajiv Lather** » 06 Jun 2011 12:55

Americans, Canadians and British were directly involved in sponsoring terrorism in Punjab. But today they are fighting our war for us. So as I said, just sit back and enjoy.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Jun 2011 12:59

Rajiv-ji,
I don't think that they are fighting the war for us.
We are involved in it too.
We are in Afghanistan, doing reconstruction, taking some load off of these guys in a field they wouldn't know where to start.
I am sure there is a fair bit of intel from within Pakistan that reaches the US via India's way.

Let us enjoy, but let us also join in so that while they take out 'their' bad guys, 'our' bad guys also meet the same end.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Jun 2011 13:05

GuruPrabhu, amazing thing. You have my support 100%.

Rajiv Lather · Post by **Rajiv Lather** » 06 Jun 2011 13:14

Gagan ji this is our way of extracting revenge from the Americans. They have caused us much pain. But for the first time, the american citizens are asking some tough questions and their establishment has no other way out. They are obviously doing it for themselves, but from now on we will be the direct beneficiaries.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 06 Jun 2011 13:38

GuruPrabhuji

rajanb wrote:

GuruPrabhu,

Black Humour could be one reason?

Ah, so we are supposed to understand the "compulsions of the US", eh? How about understanding the "compulsions of the ISI" also?

Which color of humor would that be?

That would be green humour ji. Meant for pukeysthan

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jun 2011 14:09

Johann-ji look at the following two data points, one posted by you and the other by me

Johann wrote:Do you have *any* idea how deeply the Patterns of Global Terrorism report underreported (a) terrorist violence in general and (b) Salafi jihadi violence in general?

and

Between January 1, 1988, and October 31,1998, (subsequent figures not yet available), there was a total of 38,753 Pakistani-sponsored terrorist incidents in Jammu & Kashmir. During the same period, according to the annual reports on the Patterns of Global Terrorism issued by the US State Department, there were 4,411 terrorist incidents in the rest of the world.

Clearly the US ignored Salafi violence and it ignored tens of thousands of terrorist act in India. You have yourself stated in a recent post that the US was "myopic".

How then Johann did you see fit to make the post quote below which has no hint of US myopia and no hint of the US ignoring of salafi violence that you so indignantly (and self righteously, if I may add) ask whether I have any idea about?

Johann wrote: The point is that the world is much bigger than either India or Pakistan, or even the two combined. It is important to remember when were are talking about global players like the United States, or for that matter Al-Qaeda. Being Indo-centric in thinking does not have to mean refusing to see the global picture.

Clearly you were typing without thinking. That was a bad statement to make. Not that India is important. Don't imagine that my "sense of pride as an Indian is being hurt". Not at all. It is my bullshit meter that rings loudly when I read your granting of a mythical hallowed status to the US concerns as a "Global player". Those concerns were very narrow and very parochial. Hardly the global concerns of a global player The same global player whom you know has ignored all sorts of terrorism and whom you now call "myopic". "Global player" and global myopia do not go together no matter how hard one tries to explain it away. How about selective stupidity and the same sort of narrow mindedness that afflicts Indians when they complain about terrorism against them as a more appropriate and and less hoity-toity description? Please. It was a minor error but an error nevertheless. There is no point trying to defend the indefensible.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jun 2011 14:16

Raja Ram wrote:
1 The US should realise that the continued existence of this entity called Pakistan is a threat to US at all times. Pakistan should cease to exist as a nation state.

2. Without Indian cooperation, the destruction of Pakistan is not possible for the US.

Raja Ram - Pakistan will survive as a whole or in parts with different names. But the only country that can keep it alive is India. The US can't do it. China can't do it. KSA?

Nations need an economy to survive on and the only nation on earth that can support the economy of Pakistan is India. When the Pakistanis find that out is a matter of debate. But before that the US and China have to exhaust the,selves supporting a small elite segment of the Pakistani people.