Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 2011

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Sep 2011 21:50

the anti-war sentiment is nowhere near what it was during the vietnam era. the threat to the homeland is real, people get that. during vietnam era, no vietnamese terrorist was going to blow himself up in times square...

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Sep 2011 21:54

Did some one catch 60 Minute last evening? There was segament on NYPD's high tech surveillance capability to monitor the whole city to avoid Poak litter shit.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 26 Sep 2011 22:09

Aatish Taseer quietly and measuredly violates Pakistan on NDTV

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/your-c ... eer/211870

You see this articulate chap, and a fantastic writer in my opinion (his book Stranger to History is a must read for all enthusiasts of Indo-Pak piskology), is someone who truly eviscerates all that Pakistan is and what it stands for. And it is hard for them, especially for the RAPE (mango abdul doesn't give a crap), to watch this because, guess what, he IS them. Only that was birthed from an Indian womb, and a Punjabi one at that. And he holds all the cards, because as a British citizen, they can't actually regard him as "Indian" - Muslim Pakistani father, after all.

So Aatish could equally claim to be a Pakistani, but he doesn't damn it. His father who abandoned him, took him back only reluctantly, leaving him and his mother with little support (literally driving her out of his apartment in London - via a friend). Yet this same wealthy man, with his other marriages and pampered children (his son Shahbaz was kidnapped recently out of a Mercedes SLK), could not create anything remotely as accomplished as his "illegitimate" son. Now guess what, this son of his, the one whom he abandoned, is the one who has the courage to actually describe the Pakistan that Salman loved and was killed by. And Salman derided him for describing it. But describe it he does, and he does it very well indeed.

Watch the interview. Deeply honest and with simple expression, he skewers the Pakisatan. If I was a RAPE with event he slightest sense of reality and any real love for Pakistan, I would be gutted.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 26 Sep 2011 22:38

JE Menon wrote:Aatish Taseer quietly and measuredly violates Pakistan on NDTV
Watch the interview. Deeply honest and with simple expression, he skewers the Pakisatan. If I was a RAPE with event he slightest sense of reality and any real love for Pakistan, I would be gutted.

His father was assassinated and the killer glorified. I cannot even start to imagine what I would go through. I guess I would become a sniper and go after everybody. I would definitely not write a book even though it is the most smartest way to cause takleef to the people who ordered the killing.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 26 Sep 2011 22:39

^^^ He also puts egg on NDTV's face, by saying peace cannot be achieved by "aman hi asha"

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 26 Sep 2011 22:45

suryag wrote:^^^ He also puts egg on NDTV's face, by saying peace cannot be achieved by "aman hi asha"

Com'on Dont you think Prannoy Roy knows that? It is just the ego boosting of pseudo secularist,peace mongering bimbos like Darkha butt and of course earn advertisement revenue and evade tax on that revenue.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 26 Sep 2011 22:48

A_Gupta wrote:^^^
1. Keep the powder dry, exploit any fortuitous 1971 like moments if they occur.
2. Try to contain jihadi energy within Pakistan, with minimal spill across Pakistan's borders.
3. Collaborate with India-friendly Central Asian powers (I include Russia here) to contain Pakistan.
4. If US wakes up, great, but don't count on it. Apply whatever pressure feasible on the US to keep US aid to Pakistan as undangerous to India as possible.
5. Perhaps the key to containing China in Pakistan is an India focus on Southeast Asia. IMO, there are lots of potential friends/allies there. With sufficient clout there, India can come to some unwritten agreement with China about the extent of Chinese support for Pakistan.

GOI has put down markers on every one of these fronts, FWIW

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Sep 2011 23:10

Shiv, There was some think tank expert who said that TSPA will fracture if it gets hit by TTP in retaliation or by US. So that might account for US mulling and miffing (rhymes with huffing and puffing).

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Sep 2011 23:23

Aatish Taseer was brought up in India and later studied at Amherst; that explains his sanity. Otherwise look at the BCh&d on the other side (Tanvir Ahmed Khan) he was like other Pakis on a panel trying to shoot off a tangent and instead accuse Taseer of hatred against TSP. Sigh if only the gobar ganeshs at the helm in India could think half as clearly as Taseer jr.

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 26 Sep 2011 23:47

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 129096.cms

Pakistan's army chief Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has canceled his visit to Britain amid escalating tension with the US since it accused the spy agency, Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), for having links with the Haqqani network which Washington blamed for attack on its embassy in Kabul.

"Kayani was staying in Pakistan to hold talks on the crisis sparked by the US accusations against Pakistan's military-run Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency," said a Pakistani official on condition of anonymity.

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 27 Sep 2011 00:17

Aatish guy has some resemblance to Yuvraaj.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 27 Sep 2011 00:54

Got this note in email:

"Pak TV channels are all abuzz about Pak going to war with US and they're playing patriotic songs."

Anyone else corroborate this?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 27 Sep 2011 00:59

vijayk wrote:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 129096.cms

Pakistan's army chief Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has canceled his visit to Britain amid escalating tension with the US since it accused the spy agency, Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), for having links with the Haqqani network which Washington blamed for attack on its embassy in Kabul.

"Kayani was staying in Pakistan to hold talks on the crisis sparked by the US accusations against Pakistan's military-run Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency," said a Pakistani official on condition of anonymity.

This came also after more terror arrests in UK of 6/7, half of them trained on the land of pure & pious.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/1 ... birmingham
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 66662.html

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 27 Sep 2011 01:03

Zaid H - He has been warning about war with US and also UN being involved.

Check his latest rant

Sudip · Post by **Sudip** » 27 Sep 2011 01:08

I can see the resolutions of Takmeel-e-Pakistan come true very soon!!

Pakistan Polio Spreading To China

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 Sep 2011 01:18

Would Pakis do a pre-emptive nuke strike as Bhasmasura???

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 27 Sep 2011 01:18

Attack on Kabul CIA office kills 1 agency employee, another injured. Attacker killed.

The U.S. Embassy acknowledged that an Afghan employee of the complex carried out the attack.
...the Afghan employee was not authorized to carry a weapon
..wounded in the shooting was taken to a military hospital with injuries that were not life-threatening. It said the embassy has "resumed business operations."

jaibhim · Post by **jaibhim** » 27 Sep 2011 01:44

It is sickening to see Kuldeep Nayer offering his half-baked analysis in the express tribune, on what is the internal matter of India telangana, lest he wants to rekindle in the minds of the ummah memories of the deccan[of which quite a few videos are there in youtube seeking amalgamation with TSP] in the expresstribune. Such people are betraying India. Some commentators became emotional and wanted Hyderabad to be merged back to recognise the distinctive identity of the pious. Mr.Nayar is curdling a pot full of refuse. There are ample avenues such as Kafila, the present avatar of the spokesman of the peoples commune epw etc to do so.

Rana · Post by **Rana** » 27 Sep 2011 01:53

Chirstopher Hitchens: Pakistan Is the Enemy
http://www.slate.com/id/2304641/

There was a time, when he was a presidential candidate, that Barack Obama was "clear" (as he so much likes to put it) about the way in which Pakistani actions might have real consequences for Pakistan. In early debates with Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he expressed a willingness to undertake some version of hot pursuit, if necessary into lawless regions of Pakistan, in order to deter and punish cross-border aggression. The raid on Bin Laden's home in Abbottabad, conducted in May under the radar of Bin Laden's overt protectors, gave expression to this determination. So what will President Obama do, now that the Pakistani political leadership has openly declared its whole state to be lawless, and outside the jurisdiction of U.N. resolutions, and available as a base for terrorist operations against our Afghan and Indian friends?

These people (Afghans) see no reason why Pakistan's vicious proxies should be allowed, by surreptitious back channels, to gain what they have so far failed to get on the battlefield. But they do not feel that the United States is sympathetic to them, and they naturally wince when they see our embrace of their enemies. That is why the overdue decision to call these enemies by their right names is so potentially significant, and will, one hopes, soon be followed by a complete breach with those we have been so humiliatingly subsidizing to sabotage us.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 27 Sep 2011 02:02

From VOA news (posting in full)
Pakistan Not to Launch Haqqani Offensive

Posted Monday, September 26th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
News reports quote Pakistani officials as saying the military will not launch an offensive against the terrorist Haqqani network, despite growing pressure from Washington to do so.

CNN quoted an unnamed Pakistani military official Monday as saying the military has decided not to target the Haqqani network because it is stretched too thin battling militants in northwest Pakistan. The Haqqanis are believed to be based in the North Waziristan tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

The French news agency has cited an anonymous senior Pakistani security official who said he did not think there were “indicators” the military would go after the Haqqani network. He also said the military needs to consolidate gains against militants elsewhere along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan.

Earlier Monday, a Pakistani newspaper quoted an unnamed official who said military commanders had decided to resist U.S. demands during a special meeting Sunday chaired by Pakistan’s army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani.

Washington has accused Pakistan’s intelligence agency of supporting the Haqqani network and its attacks against U.S. targets in Afghanistan, including this month’s assault on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

Pakistan’s government and army have rejected the allegations.

The outgoing chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, told a Senate hearing last week that the Haqqani network acts as a “veritable arm” of the Pakistani spy agency, and that its fighters planned and conducted the assaults on the U.S. embassy in Kabul and on a NATO base in Afghanistan earlier this month.

Meanwhile, General Kayani canceled a visit to Britain to meet privately with Defense Minister Liam Fox, while Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani called a rare cross-party conference for Thursday to form a united front in the face of the U.S. allegations leveled against the military and the ISI.

Gilani has condemned the allegations as a “propaganda blitz.” He also asked Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, who is attending the U.N. General Assembly session in New York, to “forcefully present Pakistan’s point of view” when she addresses the world leaders Tuesday.

Underscoring the degree of tension, Pakistani stocks ended nearly three percent lower on Monday.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 27 Sep 2011 02:17

From Tribune opinion piece(posting in full). Ex DG ISI's uvvacha.
Afghanistan after Rabbani

By Lt-Gen (r) Asad Durrani - Published: September 26, 2011
The writer served as director-general of the ISI from 1990-92 asad.durrani@tribune.com.pk

I do not know who killed Professor Rabbani, the former president of Afghanistan. If someone had taken responsibility it would have helped — even though at times credit is claimed on ulterior grounds. A few reasonably known factors may, however, help make a tentative assessment about who might have done it; more importantly, what follows next.

Asking Ustad (the teacher) Rabbabni, a Tajik, to head the High Peace Council to start a peace process with the Afghan resistance was wise. It was a signal to the predominantly Pashtun militias that the non-Pashtun North was also on board. Indeed, not everyone in the north, or in the south, was. Some, like Dr Abdullah Abdullah, a former Foreign Minister, believed that talking to the Taliban was futile. Some others stood to benefit from the status quo. Though possible, it is unlikely that anyone of them was behind the assassination.

The Taliban appear to be the main suspect and may have had some motive as well. Besides being old adversaries — they removed the Rabbani led government in 1995 — some of them feared that Ustad’s efforts to reach out to them were aimed to split the movement. If it was, therefore, a Taliban sponsored act, it was extremely foolish. Since only a broad-based agreement ensures peace and stability in Afghanistan, eliminating Rabbani who once led the largest multi-ethnic party in the country, makes reconciliation amongst diverse Afghan groups even more difficult than it normally would be.

Long before the US conceded that the Taliban had to be engaged in a dialogue, the late president had publicly opposed the use of force against them. Yet another factor that made him an ideal interlocutor for the Taliban was his insistence that there could be no peace in Afghanistan till the occupation was vacated. His opposition to the ‘strategic agreement’, reportedly being negotiated between Washington and Kabul to grant the former, the right to maintain operational basis beyond 2014, was well known.

That places America on the ‘whodunit’ list too. Admittedly, there is no circumstantial evidence that there was a hidden Yankee hand. Their desire to pin the crime on the latest emerging superpower, the Haqqani network, however, was all too evident. Almost all Western analysts and commentators, after conceding that the evidence was lacking, could not help blurting out that “it looked like” a Haqqani handiwork. (Reminds me of a pre-Mumbai terrorist act in India, when many experts from the other side warned against jumping to conclusion, but then suggested that it was the “Lashkar” as in the LeT.)

For most of us, this nitpicking is superfluous. We already know the perpetrators: the ones we hate the most. What must, however, concern us deeply are the likely developments post Rabbani. That it would take quite a while before the intra-Afghan dialogue could resume, assuming of course, that it had started in the first place, is no big deal. Afghans take their time. It is the argument that Afghanistan was best served by another Durand Line — this time along the Hindukush — which we now must take more seriously.

Our main argument against a possible North-South divide in Afghanistan — besides none of its neighbours relish the prospect — has always been that all Afghan factions were passionately nationalist. One is not sure if such noble sentiments survive all odds. The late colonel Yahyah Effendi, an accomplished historian in his own right and whose views I value more than the current cartographic strategists, had started smelling a rat more than a decade ago.

The Soviets toyed with the idea when their withdrawal was imminent. Mujahideen dissuaded them. If the Americans, in view of their bases located north of a convenient divide, were also thinking about it, I wonder if we in the region are giving some thought on how to best scuttle this design.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 27th, 2011.

achy · Post by **achy** » 27 Sep 2011 02:19

US has started to go through the same cycle of rage, impotence and resignation that India has beeing going through since independence with this creature called Pakistan. A creature unlike anything human history has seen.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Sep 2011 03:19

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162- ... 03543.html
Fundamental lies exposed in splintering U.S.-Pakistan alliance
( Bhere izz Cow-Lin-Powell)

The U.S. relationship with Pakistan is unraveling.

This began when Osama bin Laden took a Navy SEAL bullet to his chest and then his head.
In that moment, the lie that has defined this relationship was exposed. And it became a matter of time before this relationship had to be redefined.The unraveling is a slow and fascinating descent. The truth lies somewhere at the bottom of a very black pool thick with the blood of American soldiers.Finally, when it is all exposed and there is no more pretense, we might be able to honor those who have died in Afghanistan. Until that point, their deaths are a stain on our national pride and everything that America is supposed to represent. The truth is it became impossible to defeat the Taliban because of a political decision - and agreement with Pakistan - not to target the enemy leadership and fighters once they crossed the Afghan border into Pakistan. Not because they are so powerful or popular or important to Afghanistan. But because they are protected by a supposed U.S. ally, Pakistan, who offered to help us defeat al Qaeda instead, and by a terrible U.S. political miscalculation, probably based in arrogance - and ignorance. The truth is also that the U.S. and NATO stopped fighting a war in Afghanistan the moment Kabul fell and Osama bin Laden was able to escape Tora Bora and slip across the border to safety inside Pakistan. The U.S. stopped fighting a war and instead came up with another name - "counter-insurgency." That was just another politically-motivated excuse not to face reality or make the tough decisions that needed to be made.
It is simply a statement of truth. All it what it is. If you are not prepared to fight a war, do not send your troops to war.If you are not prepared to kill your enemy where they stand, in Afghanistan or Pakistan, by whatever means possible, then do not lie to your troops and your nation and pretend you are at war.
Do not lie to the Afghan people and pretend you are there for them.
Get out. Go home.
And live with the consequences.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Sep 2011 03:43

Pak-China ties to be Poked up: Meng-Jianzhu

The Chinese vice Prime Minister was accorded warm welcome when he arrived Chaklala Air Base. He later met with Interior Minister Rehman Malik. The two exchanged views in depth on ways and means to further strengthen Sino-Pak relations, situation arising out of allegations levelled by US against Pakistan, war against terrorism and other matters of mutual interest.The Chinese Vice Prime Minister said, “We are celebrating 2011 as year of friendship following the completion of 60 years of friendship of China and Pakistan. “I have come to Pakistan to further Pork up ties”, he maintained.Interior Minister Rehman Malik said China had supported Pakistan at every critical juncture of its history. “We are grateful to it”, he remarked. Sino-Pak friendship is higher than Himalayas and it is inseparable”, he remarked. ( Street dog and street bitch also think same way for few minutes ) in Responding to a question with reference to US threats to Pakistan he said it is not time to talk of US threats but it is time to further consolidate ties with China.

( Khaan jo gussa Khaye, Yaan Pathan Dekh lulchaye , Aajjaa Munna godh hamari, kahe Gubbraye, Kahe Gubbraye )

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 27 Sep 2011 03:44

Re Lara Logan CBS ^^^. Hard hitting and part of the buildup to Obama's cross border ops. This weekend should be interesting (I hope).

The "Tel Maalish" before the storm (Operation Rubicon)

@Achy ^^^: Only difference is the US's rage phase involves a lot of ordnance

Rana · Post by **Rana** » 27 Sep 2011 03:49

^^^Very nicely written by Lara Logan. Had some trouble opening the link. Here it is again.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162- ... 03543.html

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 27 Sep 2011 03:55

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162- ... 03543.html
Fundamental lies exposed in splintering U.S.-Pakistan alliance

Prem, this link is gone!! Just disappeared like OBL's carcass. Bad sign, maybe CBS got a phone call.

Just re-appeared again, maybe with some word changes? I saved a copy to read at leisure.

Lara Logan goes to the point and makes people Musharrafs uncomfortable.

ranjbe · Post by **ranjbe** » 27 Sep 2011 04:20

Cosmo_R wrote:Re Lara Logan CBS ^^^. Hard hitting and part of the buildup to Obama's cross border ops. This weekend should be interesting (I hope).

The "Tel Maalish" before the storm (Operation Rubicon)

@Achy ^^^: Only difference is the US's rage phase involves a lot of ordnance

Take a look at the propaganda build up before Iraq (Gulf War II), or the Balkans. 3-12 months of concerted buildup in the media, international forums such as UN, lots of economic sanctions and huffing and puffing, and then action.
Based upon past experience, initial steps wil be economic - cut off of all aid. Don't go by the recent approval of 1 billion of aid by the Senate, it is contingent upon many things, if you read the fine print. If Pakistan does not back down substantially, the pain will be ratcheted up, ending with hot pursuit as a final step- one would suspect this is being war-gamed in the Pentagon and at NATO headquarters. Before this, you will see NATO media climbing on the bandwagon with US media and cut of off all aid from NATO members. This will be the clue that military action is imminent.
Until then, see Pakistan going through different levels of pain - export embargoes, ban on bank transactions, shutoff of emigration to the West, etc. Iran can stand this pain, because they produce oil, one doubts if Pakistan can. Only if these do not work, then will actual action be taken. All in all, a long process, and the chances are high that the Pakis will eat humble pie before that. China has supported North Korea through this pain. It is doubtful if they have the resources to support a country of 180 million.
This has been US modus operandi in the past.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Sep 2011 04:24

Shiv, Prem et al

Most likely we will see a long drawn out "no-war" between US and TSP. The initial moves will be to de-recognize and de-legitimize TSP's unique selling point (USP) so no one will weep or whine when they fall away from history.

I think one step we will see is KSA moving away from the current practice of Wahabism which will leave the TSp as an antediluvian entity. Expect some blowback over there from these guys.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 27 Sep 2011 04:48

ranjbe wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:Re Lara Logan CBS ^^^. Hard hitting and part of the buildup to Obama's cross border ops. This weekend should be interesting (I hope).

The "Tel Maalish" before the storm (Operation Rubicon)

@Achy ^^^: Only difference is the US's rage phase involves a lot of ordnance
Take a look at the propaganda build up before Iraq (Gulf War II), or the Balkans. 3-12 months of concerted buildup in the media, international forums such as UN, lots of economic sanctions and huffing and puffing, and then action.

Based upon past experience, initial steps wil be economic - cut off of all aid. Don't go by the recent approval of 1 billion of aid by the Senate, it is contingent upon many things, if you read the fine print. If Pakistan does not back down substantially, the pain will be ratcheted up, ending with hot pursuit as a final step- one would suspect this is being war-gamed in the Pentagon and at NATO headquarters. Before this, you will see NATO media climbing on the bandwagon with US media and cut of off all aid from NATO members. This will be the clue that military action is imminent.
...
This has been US modus operandi in the past.

You got it. The Lara Logan article, Hitchen's and other articles all add up to a drumbeat.

IMHO, it will begin with a provocative and lethal attack on the 'Haqqanis" in Pakistan. If Pakistan resists (as it failed to do on the OBL raid), big stuff is headed their way. Based on the past, 'strategic defiance' is in the nature of the Commanders so let's see. The sanctions and stuff will come later.

This would be a Godsend to Obama in an election year.

ranjbe · Post by **ranjbe** » 27 Sep 2011 05:04

Strangely enough, there are a (very) few Pakistanis who see the future clearly. This op-ed is a hoot!

Unleash hell —Fahd Husain

in todays Daily Times.

The famed Pakistani street is itching to have a go at the Yanks. A WWF-type body slam for the Ugly American. Teach him a thing or two about how real men fight. Not with Reapers and Daisy Cutters or Stealth bombers, but mano-a-mano (man to man), dude. Just you, me and our bare knuckles. Let’s see what you got, you bloated, Big Mac-fed pansy.

Here is the problem though: we are no Hulk Hogan. We may speak about the ‘mother of all battles’ but we don’t really mean it. At least, I hope we don’t. Words are easy. Just ask Saddam Hussein. We cannot really match his pre-mother of all battles rhetoric, but we can learn a lesson or two. Like this one: one does not need to take on the sole superpower of the world head-on to protect our national interests (assets). Let’s do it step-by-step:

Step one: reality check. The Haqqanis are our homeboys. They are our insurance policy and they need to be with us through thick and thin, till death do us part. Also they have 15,000 universal soldiers with them. So why in God’s name would we want to tickle them in all the wrong places, especially when nobody else in the Afghan theatre is really laughing? Agreed that the whole proxies policy is way past its sell-by date, but is it really realistic to expect that the tap can be turned off as easily as, well, a tap?

Step two: tone down the rhetoric. Our foreign minister has just issued a “last warning” to the Americans. Oooh, they are quaking in their boots down in the White House. We know our civvies are taking their cue from the khakis, but c’mon you don’t have to go overboard. Next thing you know, Ahmad Mukhtar will threaten a Ghauri strike on New York City

Step three: find wiggle room. Most crises, if handled delicately, have a habit of tiding over. The Americans having war-gamed all possible scenarios must have concluded they can afford to play a game of chicken with Pakistan. No sane Pakistani leader, they must have figured, would risk a head-on smash up. A list of possible punitive actions against Pakistan would already have been drawn up. Through a barrage of leaked stories and stinging statements, the Americans are preparing the ground for harsher measures. With public opinion on their side, and Congress baying for Pakistani blood, the Obama administration will bring other ‘allies’ on board to chasten Pakistan through whatever means possible. The proxy war masters that we are, this scintillating track record will now come back to haunt us. And no, China will not send its aircraft carrier to fight our war.

Step four: start afresh. Take a deep breath, straighten your uniform, look the Americans in the eye, and say in a neutral tone: “Houston, we have a problem.” And yes, the problem does have a name: India. We do not like India. We like it even less when it is in Afghanistan

Step five: final reality check. If we really want to play with the big boys, we have to become a big boy. All this creativity that we have unleashed on the Afghan chessboard needs to be redirected home. So perhaps the ISI — which boasts of a P wing, an S wing, an I wing — can think up an E wing for Educating Pakistanis

A real good laugh.

Rana · Post by **Rana** » 27 Sep 2011 05:10

Lalit Jha of PTI stays on topic in State Dept briefing today.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2011/ ... m#PAKISTAN

QUESTION: Staying on Pakistan. Pakistan has conveyed to the U.S. that Islamabad is not attacking Haqqani Network. This is a report that has come out after the meeting of Kayani with his generals. Have you received this message from Islamabad?

MR. TONER: That the –

QUESTION: That Pakistan will not attack Haqqani Network.

MR. TONER: I’ve seen some news reports. I haven’t seen the actual statements from any officials. Again, we’re very clear on our position on this. We believe that these kind of safe havens are extremely troubling and indeed a matter of great concern and dangerous development for both the United States and for Pakistan. So we want to see action taken against them.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: No. Till – one minute – till today, have you received any communication from Islamabad about – after all these statements flying from this way to that way through media, what is –

MR. TONER: Look, I’m not aware that we’ve received – what our private conversations have been since last week with the Pakistani Government, and indeed, I don’t think I could talk about them from the podium except to say that we are committed to this relationship, we’re going to work constructively with them to address the challenges that we face.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 27 Sep 2011 05:17

ranjbe wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:Re Lara Logan CBS ^^^. Hard hitting and part of the buildup to Obama's cross border ops. This weekend should be interesting (I hope).

The "Tel Maalish" before the storm (Operation Rubicon)

@Achy ^^^: Only difference is the US's rage phase involves a lot of ordnance
Take a look at the propaganda build up before Iraq (Gulf War II), or the Balkans. 3-12 months of concerted buildup in the media, international forums such as UN, lots of economic sanctions and huffing and puffing, and then action.
Based upon past experience, initial steps wil be economic - cut off of all aid. Don't go by the recent approval of 1 billion of aid by the Senate, it is contingent upon many things, if you read the fine print. If Pakistan does not back down substantially, the pain will be ratcheted up, ending with hot pursuit as a final step- one would suspect this is being war-gamed in the Pentagon and at NATO headquarters. Before this, you will see NATO media climbing on the bandwagon with US media and cut of off all aid from NATO members. This will be the clue that military action is imminent.
Until then, see Pakistan going through different levels of pain - export embargoes, ban on bank transactions, shutoff of emigration to the West, etc. Iran can stand this pain, because they produce oil, one doubts if Pakistan can. Only if these do not work, then will actual action be taken. All in all, a long process, and the chances are high that the Pakis will eat humble pie before that. China has supported North Korea through this pain. It is doubtful if they have the resources to support a country of 180 million.
This has been US modus operandi in the past.

My only fear is that Paki will capitulate just in the nick of time to save their posterior.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Sep 2011 05:23

ramana wrote:Shiv, Prem et al

Most likely we will see a long drawn out "no-war" between US and TSP. The initial moves will be to de-recognize and de-legitimize TSP's unique selling point (USP) so no one will weep or whine when they fall away from history.

I think one step we will see is KSA moving away from the current practice of Wahabism which will leave the TSp as an antediluvian entity. Expect some blowback over there from these guys.

Past Paradigm is shifting and here in lies our oppertunity. We can actively participate and shape it for next century. India must extend its influence in ME, even as a secondary partner of Massa for the time being . Chinese have already shown their cards and lets hope they will be kept out of the game for they have annoyed every one intheir neighborhood. Poakers are their only hope and once Poakdogs are tamed , caged and harnessed ,either they indulge in dirty overt fight or take back seat for long time. They can afford none of the ugly option.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 27 Sep 2011 05:33

Dipanker wrote: My only fear is that Paki will capitulate just in the nick of time to save their posterior.

Hope you are right.
The way things are moving, I am worried about the future of the Benis dhaaga.
Can Benis exist without Bakistan?
I mean .. think of it. Where will all the inspiration come from?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Sep 2011 05:57

Rana wrote:Chirstopher Hitchens: Pakistan Is the Enemy
http://www.slate.com/id/2304641/

I see the following quote as American cognitive dissonance, American denial that they could have been "morally wrong" - an accusation that Pakistan is throwing at them and the US has no defence in real terms. Of course in the past rah rahs have informed me that moral arguments hold no water when you are a superpower - but here you are - Pakistan is holding the US to account on the same moral arguments and not a single American author/journalist or thinker is able to talk or think about it - so busy are they gnashing their teeth at Pakistan.

Here Christopher Hitchens gets his chaddi into a massive twist because Pakistan outsourced some jobs to the Haqqani network (no mention of LeT of course). No mention also. of the fact that the US itself outsourced entire wars to the Pakistan army and did not put down any rules saying that Pakistan should not use proxies. What is the US so upset about?

it now turns out, the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence agency (the ISI) can "outsource" the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, and several other NATO and Afghan targets, to a related crime family known as the Haqqani network.

Pakistan has given the US a taste of its own medicine. And the US is angry in exactly the same way as Pakis are angry when they read about themselves in Aatish Taseer's works. At least Hitchens is honest about how the US now looks:

It makes us look like fools and suckers, which is what we have become, unable to defend even our own troops, let alone civilian staff and facilities, from deadly assaults not just from the back but—flagrantly, unashamedly—from the front.

This is an accusation that Pakistan can make about the US and the US has no defence. Other than flaunting its strength and saying "We are going to do something". It brings to mind all those occasions when I have been treated to a dressing down where a rahrah tells me "The USA is a superpower. It take take out any country in a trice". The US, for all its much advertised strength was using Pakis as proxies to fight their wars and one day the Pakis started using proxies to fight those wars the way they wanted. What is odd about that? I am now facing severe cognitive dissonance. i have been told for over a decade right here on BRF that the US has been super clever in controlling Pakis and twisting them around their little finger and the cowardly dhotis of India cannot do it like the US does. Well what happened to all that now? It has been drilled into me by rahrahs that getting the Paki army to fight a war at low cost to America and simultaneously holding an stupid bumbling India down is the classic hallmark of being a superpower. Where? How?

Half the time US strength in Pakistan has been promoted by a wall of rah rah America people shouting about it and telling me about it. I would like to see a demonstration of that much tomtommed strength now, when it appears that it is needed the most to save US echandee rather than insulting some idiot SDRE who could not understand what this "strength" was all about.

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 27 Sep 2011 05:59

Is Pakistan Too Big to Fail?

The country's generals behave with impunity because they believe the United States will always blink first.

By SADANAND DHUME

he army may influence much of Pakistan's media—quick to whip itself into a patriotic frenzy at the slightest excuse. But these structural factors make Rawalpindi's legitimacy with its own people less secure than generally believed.

The ability to erode the army's standing in Pakistani society is a potent weapon for the U.S. if Washington wants to use it. Stepped-up drone strikes, or a successful Abbottabad-style raid on another high-value terrorist target in Pakistan, would deal a huge blow to military prestige and its claim of safeguarding the country's frontiers.

The U.S., meanwhile, would reinforce the notion that nations that allow their territory to be used to export terrorism forfeit their sovereignty. Down the line, travel bans on generals implicated in terrorism and possible sanctions against the vast businesses that the army runs would diminish the military's prestige and hurt its pocketbook.

To be sure, these steps should not be taken precipitously, but nor should they be taken off the table merely for fear of causing offense. Pakistan may threaten to retaliate by clamping down on NATO supplies, but its capacity to sustain a confrontation, financially or diplomatically, remains extremely limited. As for the too-big-to-fail bluff, the U.S. should calmly inform Islamabad that nobody will be hurt more by a potential jihadist takeover than the army itself.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

ranjbe · Post by **ranjbe** » 27 Sep 2011 06:16

Kanishka wrote:
Dipanker wrote: My only fear is that Paki will capitulate just in the nick of time to save their posterior.
Hope you are right.
The way things are moving, I am worried about the future of the Benis dhaaga.
Can Benis exist without Bakistan?
I mean .. think of it. Where will all the inspiration come from?

It is very likely that the Pakis will fold when the pain starts hurting. However, this time they may save their posterior, but it will have a few whip marks on it. It is not easy to turn off the propaganda tap when it is at this level. and let off Pakis without some hurt. Obama cannot afford to be called a wimp (as he is called so often these days) one year before reelections.
Just as in the case of Kargil, where TSPA suffered a lot of H & D loss when Sharif ran to the USA begging for intervention.
Just to add to US options, based upon what they have done to Iran, where they:
- are rumored (actually Yehudis + Yankees according to Iranians) to have assassinated a number of Iranian nuclear scientists.
- injected malware in the production machines of their enrichment plant, causing a lot of damage.
- Used Facebook and Twitter (as they also did in Egypt and Libya for example) to spur opposition to the ruling party
- fund and arm the anti-Iranian sunni baluchis such as Jundallah and for a while, the Kurds.
Iran has the grit and the oil money to absorb this. Does TSP?
Only a remote chance of any Pakistani dismemberment, as some hope.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Sep 2011 06:26

Sushupti wrote: As for the too-big-to-fail bluff, the U.S. should calmly inform Islamabad that nobody will be hurt more by a potential jihadist takeover than the army itself.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

I am absolutely amazed at an American inability to call a spade a spade. I am usually informed that Americans know everything but just choose to speak like this? Really? I mean look at the above statement and put on your thinking cap and be more honest than an American for a change

The statement:

inform Islamabad that nobody will be hurt more by a potential jihadist takeover than the army itself

Why should Islamabad believe that they will be hurt by jihadist takeover? The Pakistani army has had a jihadist mindset for decades. But the US was arming, funding and encouraging them. That is why the Pakistan army was not harmed by holding a "jihadist mindset". They were jihadist anyway and the stupid Americans were egging them on, cheering them and paying them to be that way.

Americans are displaying their stupidity all over again by making such statements and we have to be careful here - hurt as we have been in the past by unadulterated bullshit coming from America. In this world view a "jihadist mindset" is a jihadi who can be anti anyone else but should not be anti America, The jihadi can paise Allah and fight for Mohammad and kill Indians, Russians etc. This would eb a "secular freedom fighter". The US will fund him and arm him and not recognize him as a "jihadi". But should he become anti-American he suddenly acquires the identity "jihadi". But I digress.

All these friggin Paki jihadis survive only because the US has funded them and armed them They will continue to survive if the US funds them and arms them . Jihad per se will never harm Islamabad. A stopping of US funds and arms will do that. Someone wake me up if you find one single official statement from the "Clever superpower USA" that they will stop funding an arming the jihadi Pakistan army. Are Americans just stupid or stupid and powerless to change course?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Sep 2011 06:49

10 Saal Baad
A Tougher U.S. Tack on Pakistan
Interviewee: Daniel Markey, Senior Fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia
[

b]We've had some versions of such ultimatums in the past. Is the United States more willing to act against Pakistan now than before?[/b]

This is a more credible threat: It is more public and clear in terms of not just suggesting that Pakistan should go after the Haqqani network, but that Pakistan is partially responsible for the behavior and success of the Haqqani network, and the United States won't stand for it.
It's also a more credible threat because it's been made before Congress. Congress controls the purse and is inclined not to allow military assistance to Pakistan to continue unless Pakistan takes efforts against the Haqqani network.In its ultimatum, there is an implied threat that if Pakistan doesn't take steps against the Haqqani network, the United States will.
The fact that the United States took the action that it did against Osama bin Laden [in the May 2 SEALs attack on his Pakistan compound] also demonstrates a certain credibility to act inside of Pakistan. And the fact that U.S. has continued drone strikes in the aftermath of that attack, in spite of some fairly public Pakistani government criticism, also suggests the United States is serious this time around.

The United States is also more likely to be serious now than at other points because right now the level of U.S. military force in Afghanistan is the highest it's likely to be. If U.S. is ever going to take such actions, now is the most likely time.

Some think that the Pakistani security establishment's links to groups like the Haqqani network are a hedge against an Afghan reconciliation process that may not work in their favor. If the United States gives Pakistan a seat at the negotiating table in the peace talks with insurgent groups--something Islamabad has been asking for--will the Pakistani calculus change?

You're sketching out a hypothetical where you suggest that Pakistan would have a seat at the table. But what does that in fact mean if Pakistan's favored political allies--the Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban leadership that's based inside of Pakistan--are excluded from the process? What influence, then, would Pakistan have over the peace process? From the Pakistani perspective, having a seat at the table means putting their favorite Afghan proxies into positions of power in a post-NATO Afghanistan..