Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 2012

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 30 Mar 2012 04:10

ShauryaT wrote:As for B Ji's comment, the day, he can get article 370 removed, UCC implemented and a Ram Mandir built in India, is the day - I will consider support for his prescriptions of "all out war", to "finish off" the Paki sadism as a remote possibility. Till then, I will only pray he looks at the realities on the ground and learns to accept them. Anyone, who has ever compromised has been called a traitor by the die hards. so, that is par for the course.

brihaspati wrote:War on Pak is not about revenge or buying peace - it is about obtaining soverignty over the land and its people, so that no third party has easy presence to use them against us. So that we have the means to eliminate the institutions and finish off the core that sustains jihad. Undermine and destroy every last vestiges of the brains that sustain the jihadi memes and know how to use the texts for the purpose.

Article 370 and other issues mentioned are intimately connected to the continuing existence of a free and independent separate Paki state. Once the Paki state is no more - 370 will happen very quickly. Very very quickly.

Both are related.

I agree with Shiv ji's solution here. IA, IAF, IN should remove all the heavy military establishment of TSPA. All tanks, all aircrafts, all mijjiles, all artillery, SAM installations, all silos, bunkers, ordinance depots, storage depots, ports, training academies and similar other heavy infrastructure should be completely destroyed. What should remain is only a zealot abdul with kalashnikov in his one hand and Kuran in another. Once this infra is removed, TSP should stew for few years before they are ripe for admission in the kindergarten of humanity.

in short term (nxt 5-10 years), Pakistan minus TSPA should be the aim.

There is no point is building these sand castles as this is not going to happen. But if ShyamD ji is genuinely interested in solution, one has to destroy TSPA and its infrastructure without trace, to begin with. Else, GOI is following the advice of Tukaram anyways - तुका म्हणे उगी रहावे, जे जे होईल ते ते पहावे.. (Tukaram says be calm and watch whatever happens without reacting. Everything will suffer from inevitable Karmic decline anyways)

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Mar 2012 04:11

abhishek_sharma wrote: Evidence?

Do not know, what will satisfy you but the overwhelming majority of opinion of TSP elite is towards reconciliation with India. You can call this Taqiyya, if one likes.

It is interesting to note that 26/11 was a "pin prick".

Well, at the level that determines strategies and management options for a nation of 1.3 billion, 26/11 is a pin prick in that context for the long term. Understand that for the individual, who is affected it is a complete disaster. Not saying that we should accept it but yet realize what it really was. A pin prick that has to be managed and numbed. Also, do recognize what 26/11 really was. It was the venom of the unmanaged juices flowing.

I make it a point to visit the shrines of the massacre every year CST, the bar and the Taj (not the Oberoi/Trident much for some reason), and will never forgive or forget. I was there a week after the event and made it a point to visit the places. I want my revenge but am not blinded by it.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Mar 2012 04:17

>> Not saying that we should accept it

If it was a pinprick then why shouldn't we accept it? What is the big deal? Why shouldn't we forgive and forget?

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 30 Mar 2012 04:18

Here is the sophistry: opposing an unrealistic and counterproductive policy of trying to bribe TSP to change is equated to being in favor of total nuclear war. If one employed such dishonesty in service of destroying the enemy it is understandable, but to employ it to browbeat our own side boggles the mind.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Mar 2012 04:26

Do not know, what will satisfy you but the overwhelming majority of opinion of TSP elite is towards reconciliation with India.

Statistics will satisfy me. Can you post the link that overwhelming majority of opinion of TSP elite wants reconciliation with India? It would be great to know what their idea of "reconciliation" is?

Secondly, what about the non-elite population of Pakistan? Why are they not relevant?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Mar 2012 04:35

abhishek_sharma wrote:
Do not know, what will satisfy you but the overwhelming majority of opinion of TSP elite is towards reconciliation with India.
Statistics will satisfy me. Can you post the link that overwhelming majority of opinion of TSP elite wants reconciliation with India? It would be great to know what their idea of "reconciliation" is?

Secondly, what about the non-elite population of Pakistan? Why are they not relevant?

I post something like this with great reservation, realizing fully well that on this board, anything coming from TSP is treated as not worth the paper it is written on. But, here it goes.

This is an extract from a recent document published at the following link.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... ience.html

26. Pakistan sees its security not in Afghan context alone but in broader regional
context. With a stable and peaceful Afghanistan on our West we also seek peace and
stability on our Eastern Border with India. Confrontation with India is not in Pakistan's
interest. lt is not realistic as well as practical. Given the difference in size, economy and
defence expenditures, Pakistan can not afford it. It will be only at the cost of
development which ultimately creates more serious national security issues.

27. India is our most important neighbour. lt is an emerging power with potential to
influence global politics. Peaceful coexistence between Pakistan and India is of great
benefit to Pakistan. Pakistan can not afford to be in a perpetual state of confrontation
with India. Problems of terrorism, poverty, underdevelopment and poor state of vast
human resources of both the nations, can not be solved through existing state of
relationship. It must improve. Pakistan is very well aware of its limited military potential,
essentially defensive in nature. An armed conflict with India is, therefore, not a preferred
option for Pakistan. Unfortunately, there are unresolved issues, a history of conflict and
an Indian military capability which is Pakistan specific. We are committed to resolving
outstanding issues with India and live in peace with dignity. BIG POWER is about
but GREAT POWER is about CONDUCT. We wish India to be a GREAT POWER
SECRET

I do not wish to keep on posting things to support my conclusions for it is easy to find counter debating points and then get into an endless debate One has to do their readings and make up their minds.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 30 Mar 2012 04:38

ShauryaT wrote: Do not know, what will satisfy you but the overwhelming majority of opinion of TSP elite is towards reconciliation with India. You can call this Taqiyya, if one likes.

Please produce some credible argument that a significant fraction let alone overwhelming majority are pro-india. I will accept even taqiya at face value.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Mar 2012 04:41

On the first page of that article it is mentioned

In late February, I travelled to Pakistan and met with a number of military officers there, including several senior ones.

Is this the source of their information? I haven't read the whole document yet.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Mar 2012 04:44

abhishek_sharma wrote:>> Not saying that we should accept it

If it was a pinprick then why shouldn't we accept it? What is the big deal? Why shouldn't we forgive and forget?

A credible response is essential to deter. I think the pinprick comment has to be read in context. You cannot take an event like this and determine strategy around it. At best, you can respond to convey the message that it shall not be tolerated. One has to uncover the layers of onions that cover such an event to diagnose what are some of the things that led to 26/11. What are these layers that can be controlled and changed? In what time frames? Are we capable to control them? What to we do about things that we do not have the capabilities to control in given time frames.

At least, that is the way, I think about these issues.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Mar 2012 04:47

For statistics the PEW survey should be a possibility [the one done following elimination of Osama]. It might be dismissed - as coming from a pro-US setup. On this forum now, US stands perhaps a greater enemy than Pak. So enemyspeak could be suspected of psy-ops.

That survey rated Paki opinion as placing India as greater threat than OBL, militants etc. The survey of course added that roughly 70% want improved trade ties and more dialogue. Given that they apparently want to improve their ties - according to that Pew survey - with their greatest enemy, especially when their opinion seems to be worsening about that enemy as time passes by - is a wonderful insight into how the survey questions were framed. By the very langugage and expression of the "want to improve" response, we can see why that would be very hard to say no to.

It is inconsistent with the relative favour with which militants and Islamic extremists are seen compare dto India in the same survey, as well as the most popular outfit turning out to be LeT.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Mar 2012 04:49

KLNMurthy wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: Do not know, what will satisfy you but the overwhelming majority of opinion of TSP elite is towards reconciliation with India. You can call this Taqiyya, if one likes.

Please produce some credible argument that a significant fraction let alone overwhelming majority are pro-india. I will accept even taqiya at face value.

I have not seen a pew research survey on the topic. So, sorry, do not have such a thing.

What I can point you towards is to read TSP media, track II analysts pore over their works in think tanks and consider that just maybe, just maybe, Islamism alone does not govern the lives of Pakistanis. There is one Pakistani, who I find credible enough to show the true face of Pakistan, it is Ahmed Rashid. Get his new book. Connect the dots. You will have to come to your own conclusions. Nothing I post here, is going to convince you.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Mar 2012 04:51

I wrote my post on the pew survey, without seeing B Ji's post. I also wrote that comment in jest, meaning, I do not put much faith in these surveys.

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 30 Mar 2012 04:52

ShauryaT, actions speak louder than words.
"We are committed to resolving outstanding issues with India and live in peace with dignity. BIG POWER is about but GREAT POWER is about CONDUCT. We wish India to be a GREAT POWER."

Why should we read this as anything more than the Paki army head posturing with US in order to extract more concessions? After all this memo is essentially a list of demands to the US.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Mar 2012 04:53

>> At least, that is the way, I think about these issues.

It is fairly clear that you think in that way. A pinprick means "minor annoyance". When you say that we should never "forget or forgive" a minor annoyance it just sounds ridiculous.

>> You cannot take an event like this and determine strategy around it.

We should at least (not at best) respond to it.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Mar 2012 04:57

ShauryaT wrote: I have not seen a pew research survey on the topic. So, sorry, do not have such a thing.

What I can point you towards is to read TSP media, track II analysts pore over their works in think tanks and consider that just maybe, just maybe, Islamism alone does not govern the lives of Pakistanis. There is one Pakistani, who I find credible enough to show the true face of Pakistan, it is Ahmed Rashid. Get his new book. Connect the dots. You will have to come to your own conclusions. Nothing I post here, is going to convince you.

This is certainly not a convincing methodology.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 30 Mar 2012 04:58

Nandu wrote:ShauryaT, actions speak louder than words.
"We are committed to resolving outstanding issues with India and live in peace with dignity. BIG POWER is about but GREAT POWER is about CONDUCT. We wish India to be a GREAT POWER."

Why should we read this as anything more than the Paki army head posturing with US in order to extract more concessions? After all this memo is essentially a list of demands to the US.

Please pay attention to the bit where they say Indian military capability--not intent--is a problem.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Mar 2012 05:00

Here would be an interesting thought experiment - what do supporters of "improved ties" think of the following piece :

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opi ... prochement

Obama must support India-Pakistan rapprochement

Amid all the bad news, there is a bit of hope in South Asia: India and Pakistan have restarted their peace dialogue, with greater economic engagement. The Obama administration should reinforce this effort, which would help US security interests in the region, especially in Afghanistan.

By David J. Karl / February 16, 2012

This is an opinion piece published on "Christian Science Monitor". So possibly white majority - Christian- US based opinion strongly demands that Obama must help this "improving ties" in "US" security interests.

I think there are people here who see the white-Christian-US as the ones driving support for Paki terror on India - and everything that comes from that source is meant to bolster the Paki regime to hit at India.

So now the "improving ties" noises supposedly coming from Pakiland and those who are in the know of things from Indian side - coincide with what people on CSM also think?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Mar 2012 05:01

Nandu wrote: Why should we read this as anything more than the Paki army head posturing with US in order to extract more concessions? After all this memo is essentially a list of demands to the US.

Sure, you can and credibly so. The cycle of mistrust and past actions will logically take you there. As I said, you will have to come to your own conclusions. I posted the above within minutes of being asked to provide some "evidence". It just so happened that I read this earlier in the day. Dig in and you will find 1000's of such comments and dig in more and you will find many counter arguments. At the end of the day, you alone can gauge and see if our policy makers have got it right. There shall be opinions all over from many. Mine is only one of them on a public board.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Mar 2012 05:03

KLNMurthy wrote: Please pay attention to the bit where they say Indian military capability--not intent--is a problem.

Yes, I know, have written reams on it already. We do retain a significant TSPA centric capability, which threatens them. This should not be news to anyone.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Mar 2012 05:06

abhishek_sharma wrote:
This is certainly not a convincing methodology.

There is no magic wand here, friend. Only experience influenced subjective opinions of individuals.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 30 Mar 2012 05:43

ShauryaT wrote: I have not seen a pew research survey on the top So, sorry, do not have such a thing.

What I can point you towards is to read TSP media, track II analysts pore over their works in think tanks and consider that just maybe, just maybe, Islamism alone does not govern the lives of Pakistanis. There is one Pakistani, who I find credible enough to show the true face of Pakistan, it is Ahmed Rashid. Get his new book. Connect the dots. You will have to come to your own conclusions. Nothing I post here, is going to convince you.

Don't make unwarranted assertions about what will or won't convince me. I do enough reading. As I said, construct a credible argument as I imagine you have been trained to do and go beyond voodoo-style handwaving and incantations.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 30 Mar 2012 05:49

ShauryaT wrote:
KLNMurthy wrote: Please pay attention to the bit where they say Indian military capability--not intent--is a problem.
Yes, I know, have written reams on it already. We do retain a significant TSPA centric capability, which threatens them. This should not be news to anyone.

The point is that even taking that document at face value, they negate all the good sounding stuff by predicating it on India disarming so as to make itself vulnerable to an overt TSP attack.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Mar 2012 05:56

That document was created knowing it would be disseminated by US.

Its psy-ops.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 30 Mar 2012 05:58

Lot of soft corner and long lost biratherly feeling amongst the elite can be seen in the thought process.
Given that, Any wonder why people find it difficult to understand any of the utterings from the establishment such as:

1) Manmohan "first right to resources" singh
2) Manishankar "jihadis are people too" iyer
~~3) kapil "zero loss" sibal.~~

It is a good fortune for TSPians that Indian establishment has lot of influence by such "stockholm syndromitis".

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Mar 2012 06:22

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?pa ... 2012_pg3_2
ANALYSIS: Agent Vinod’s fantasy of India and Pakistan —Assjaz Asshraf
(The writer is a Delhi-based journalist)

Yet unlike say, the film Border, Agent Vinod doesn’t portray the Pakistani as an inveterate evil who must be fought and liquidated. Iram, the ISI chief and the diplomat are virtuous, humane and responsible. On a closer reading though, you do perceive the creeping shadow of stereotypes — the good Pakistani is one who doesn’t reside in Pakistan (Iram), either driven out or killed (the ISI chief), or posted to Delhi (the diplomat) where he can be persuaded to behave rationally. In contrast, most Indian baddies, barring the Lashkar mole in Delhi, do not reside in the country.Such stereotypes don’t appear revolting because Agent Vinod deftly does the balancing act through the complicity of Sir Metla in the Lashkar plan. For the Indian audience, the most poignant fantasy of Agent Vinod is the depiction of a Muslim officer as the head of RAW. This is ahistorical: never has a Muslim headed the intelligence agency, nor is he expected to in the immediate future. It is common knowledge in India that Muslims are rarely recruited or deputed to intelligence agencies. Perhaps Agent Vinod seeks to recreate the ideal of secular India, where people of all religious persuasions are treated equally. Perhaps through this fantasy about the Muslim RAW chief the film is protesting against the absence of Muslims in intelligence agencies.It is impossible to tell whether the depiction of the ISI demanded a ban on Agent Vinod. The question to ask is: would India have allowed the screening of a Pakistani film in which RAW had been shown divided between the hawks and doves, and the nationalities of Saif and Kareena had been switched? Perhaps the clue lies in yet another recent thriller, Kahani, in which the Hindu intelligence chief is shown as a traitor who is exposed partly through the efforts of a Muslim officer. The Indian censors cleared the film. Perhaps you can argue that fiction not grounded in reality rarely offends.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Mar 2012 06:38

We are all stuck in cement. There are those who say, we need to recognize "reality" and deal with it, and all others are considered "dreamers" from their point of view. They think we need to reach some form of detente with the Pakistani Establishment or at least the Pakistani Elite, and not try to pick fights with Pakistan.

The failure in this thinking is that all initiative is being left to our opponent. The control room for the process is being built in Pakistan and not in India.

The other failure in this thinking is that they also fail to elaborate what is the emergency, why we are being asked to make concessions to Pakistan, why are we being bulldozed and hustled into giving up our "dreams"! What is the imperative of being conciliatory?

The usual explanation we get is that otherwise we wont be able to realize the full economic potential of our nation, and we wont be able to realize ourselves as a soopar-paawer. How can that be interpreted as an emergency? The "realists" even fail to provide much of an explanation that peace is necessary for India's rise or provide the evidence that Pakistanis will reciprocate or provide some proof that those who do reciprocate will be able to mobilize the whole Pakistani nation behind them for such a path.

Similarly the "dreamers" are stuck because in the halls of power in India there are only "realists" and none willing to dream.

So here is the difference! The "realists" are stuck in cement because of uncooperative Pakistanis and "dreamers" are stuck in cement because of uncooperative Indians. What is easier to change?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 30 Mar 2012 07:18

ShauryaT wrote:
shyamd wrote:Vina ji, i don't know why but they don't want anything to do with splitting it up.
Because the demographics, politics and economics do not support the idea of splits or mergers with India. Balochistan is a waste land, will not be able to support itself as an independent nation. It has to be dependent on India or Persia, if not a third outsider. Sindhis are a minority in Sindh. This place has been taken over by Punjabis, Balochs, Pathans and Mohajirs. The core reason why the Jiye Sindh movement petered out was a change in demographics. Not to mention, Sindh and Punjab economies are married at the hip. you cannot severe one without hurting the other. The "settled" Pathans in the plains of west Indus are some of the most virulent of Kaafir haters. Do not expect much sympathy from them. Lastly, even if access to the Sea is denied, one has to remember it is Pakjab that is the bread basket of that country. It is Pakjab that is the industrial base. It is pakjab that is the base of the elites and the WKK. Without Pakjab there is no Pakistan. Without Pakjab the other regions are at best like an Afghanistan. Not self sufficient and hence never stable. Indian polity does not have the capabilities to absorb large muslim populations, so a merger is out. For all the above reasons, Delhi does not wish a partition of TSP.

Whether individual pieces of pakistan may or may not be economically viable should not be our concern. Our only concern is reducing the power of the paki army and splitting pakistan up, will achieve that, regardless of whether the resultant regions prosper or starve, are politically stable or unstable. India's interests will be served. It is apparent that people in power in India still hope in vain that the pakis will come to their senses if we show them enough love and forgive all their transgressions. The sooner they lose this archaic mindset the better.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 30 Mar 2012 07:35

RajeshA wrote:We are all stuck in cement. There are those who say, we need to recognize "reality" and deal with it, and all others are considered "dreamers" from their point of view. They think we need to reach some form of detente with the Pakistani Establishment or at least the Pakistani Elite, and not try to pick fights with Pakistan.

The failure in this thinking is that all initiative is being left to our opponent. The control room for the process is being built in Pakistan and not in India.

The other failure in this thinking is that they also fail to elaborate what is the emergency, why we are being asked to make concessions to Pakistan, why are we being bulldozed and hustled into giving up our "dreams"! What is the imperative of being conciliatory?

The usual explanation we get is that otherwise we wont be able to realize the full economic potential of our nation, and we wont be able to realize ourselves as a soopar-paawer. How can that be interpreted as an emergency? The "realists" even fail to provide much of an explanation that peace is necessary for India's rise or provide the evidence that Pakistanis will reciprocate or provide some proof that those who do reciprocate will be able to mobilize the whole Pakistani nation behind them for such a path.

Similarly the "dreamers" are stuck because in the halls of power in India there are only "realists" and none willing to dream.

So here is the difference! The "realists" are stuck in cement because of uncooperative Pakistanis and "dreamers" are stuck in cement because of uncooperative Indians. What is easier to change?

In the meantime 500 millions Indian do not have access to electricity/energy and the "realist" want to supply 5000MW power to Terroristan as well as offer to supply gas.

These so called "realist" need to get there head examined.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 30 Mar 2012 07:41

Apologies if this is already posted:

Pakistan addicted to using terrorist groups against India: US

WASHINGTON: Pakistan is addicted to using terrorist groups against India and the policy is not going to change any time soon, a key Pentagon official told the US Congress in a blunt and bleak assessment of the situation in the region.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Sub-Committee on emerging threats and capabilities, the Obama administration's assistant secretary of defense for special ops/low-intensity conflict Michael Sheehan barely minced words on Tuesday in calling out Pakistan's now widely-known policy of using terrorism as a policy tool. But what was astonishing was his candid admission about US helplessness in changing the Pakistani mindset.

''They have an addiction to playing around with militia groups to achieve certain interests, particularly vis-a-vis India. That gets them in all kinds of trouble,'' Sheehan told the panel, using a milder term for terrorists groups.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Mar 2012 07:44

Is Pakistan Heading Towards a Meltdown ? Pakistan Watch Blog

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2012 08:23

brihaspati wrote:Here would be an interesting thought experiment - what do supporters of "improved ties" think of the following piece :

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opi ... prochement
Obama must support India-Pakistan rapprochement

Amid all the bad news, there is a bit of hope in South Asia: India and Pakistan have restarted their peace dialogue, with greater economic engagement. The Obama administration should reinforce this effort, which would help US security interests in the region, especially in Afghanistan.

This is an old and well known position that has been mooted by some voices from the USA regularly for over five decades. In fact "bigger names" than CSM have suggested this. Inclusion of Obama's name suggests an internal US political agenda here. Obama is a more recent phenomenon than this "idea"

I have had the opportunity to think about various reasons why anyone in the US might want to say this and I will state what I think I know. No need to take my statements as the ultimate gyan on the issue. these are my thoughts.

Possibility 1: The US is genuinely interested in peace and harmony and means well for all nations on earth. In this light the US simply must do its best to create an atmosphere of love and joy in "South Asia". This reason sounds so good that no one in his right senses would argue with it without being bashed down as a cynic who does not want world peace. This single reason would pass as the best possible motivation if it were not for twisted suspicious minds who cannot understand that the US is all about noble intentions.

Possibility 2: The US has been saying this since the 1960s. For over 50 years Pakistan has tried to get the US involved in negotiating with India or Pakistan has been trying to "multilateralize" its dispute with India and bring in a mediator. India has always stated its issues with Pakistan to be a bilateral issue. The US has played an interesting double game here. While it has agreed that India-Pakistan issues should be solved "bilaterally" and has resisted getting involved, it has involved itself heavily in Pakistan primarily in supporting the Pakistan army in exchange for the latter being an "ally".

I will use an analogy here. The reason who no one calls for peace between Romeo and Juliet is because they have no dispute. If you have a dispute, you can call for peace. If the dispute goes on forever you can forever play a "balancing role" by selectively supporting one side or other. But I must not accuse the US of doing this. It is too far fetched. The US is too nice a nation to fulfil the paranoid delusions of a sick mind.

Possibility 3: This is a relatively recent twist to the US's "desire for peace" 9-11 saw Bush jump enthusiastically into Pakistan with bribes and favors - to the extent of allowing the evacuation of Pakistan advisors to the Taliban from Afghanistan from Kunduz while US bombers kept away. Bush and the US military establishment expected that the Pakis would jump in enthusiastically and clear Afghanistan of the baddies, the Al Qaeda and their hosts the Taliban. In just a few weeks Pakistan's "deep state" screwed the US. The attack on the Indian parliament was staged resulting in India expending a lot of hot air at the border giving a cast iron excuse for Pakistan to keep its army fixed at the Indian border and play no role in the US's original plan of driving Al Qaeda to the border where Pakistani forces would "take care" of them. Take care they did. So from 2002 to 2008 the US begged and beseeched the Pakistan army to "do more" while urging India to give up Kashmir or appear less threatening to Pakistan so that Pakistan would be able to move troops from the border with India to their north-west and do the America job for which the US was paying Pakistan 3 billion US$ a year from 2001. The Pakistan military was probably ROTFL all this time.

Possibility 4 This is the latest (current) chapter in the US talking about "peace" between India and Pakistan being in US interests. In 2007 the Lal Masjid standoff created internal rifts in Pakistan. This was followed by an over Islamist takeover or Swat (as opposed to the traditional control of Pakistan by the pretend moderate Pakhana army). Swat is less than a 100 km from islamabad. By the end of 2008, the Mumbai attacks occurred and within days Indian media had access to recorded conversations between Islamist handlers in Pakistan and the terrorists. These events changed two things. They revealed (to the USA) the nexus between the Pakistani army and the islamist terrorists and they also revealed that the Pakistan army seemed to be having a hard time trying to exert their power over the militants. This may have been pretence, but that is not relevant to this discussion. Up until 2008 the US continued to take the position that Pakistan was free to maintain an Islamist militia against india as long as they did the US's job. The US had a "wake up and smell the coffee" moment after 2008 when they began to realise that Islamic terrorists are islamic. Their allegiance is to Islam. Not the US. They cannot be made specifically anti India. The only specifically anti-India terrorists in the world are the Pakistan army (whom the US military loves very much) and the Paki army outsourced their work to Islamic terrorists who are anti US and anti India. The US is on a losing wicket here. They have no idea how to put the genie back in the bottle and are clutching at straws. Of all the solutions being mooted, one of the solutions that has cropped up in recent days is to "reduce Pakistani paranoia of India". The theory that is now being propagated within US think tanks is that the Pakistani establishment have an irrational fear of India and a reduction of that irrational fear and the improvement of India Pakistan relations would, in the long term serve US interests.

I have enough material in my head to type much more on the implications of all this. But I will stop here with the following concluding statement: If I was asked to deliver a talk to 100 people and tell them the above four "possibilities" on why the US might want an India-Pakistan rapprochement, I bet that most of them would believe only the first one - that the US is well intentioned. Most people would dismiss the other three as my paranoia and delusions or as conspiracy theories.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2012 08:26

Dipanker wrote: In the meantime 500 millions Indian do not have access to electricity/energy and the "realist" want to supply 5000MW power to Terroristan as well as offer to supply gas.

These so called "realist" need to get there head examined.

We must make sacrifices for our brotherj and sisters across the border. 500 million Indians do not have toilets, but we must let Pakistan be flushed with water next. I am hoping to see some water concessions being made soon.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 30 Mar 2012 08:40

^^ Shiv, brilliant narrative.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2012 08:45

Dipanker wrote: Pakistan addicted to using terrorist groups against India: US

Thanks for posting that. That was great timing!

I had earlier said

shiv wrote: The US had a "wake up and smell the coffee" moment after 2008 when they began to realise that Islamic terrorists are islamic. Their allegiance is to Islam. Not the US. They cannot be made specifically anti India. The only specifically anti-India terrorists in the world are the Pakistan army (whom the US military loves very much) and the Paki army outsourced their work to Islamic terrorists who are anti US and anti India. The US is on a losing wicket here. They have no idea how to put the genie back in the bottle and are clutching at straws. Of all the solutions being mooted, one of the solutions that has cropped up in recent days is to "reduce Pakistani paranoia of India". The theory that is now being propagated within US think tanks is that the Pakistani establishment have an irrational fear of India and a reduction of that irrational fear and the improvement of India Pakistan relations would, in the long term serve US interests.

Now this link says:

Pakistan is addicted to using terrorist groups against India and the policy is not going to change any time soon, a key Pentagon official told the US Congress in a blunt and bleak assessment of the situation in the region.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Sub-Committee on emerging threats and capabilities, the Obama administration's assistant secretary of defense for special ops/low-intensity conflict Michael Sheehan barely minced words on Tuesday in calling out Pakistan's now widely-known policy of using terrorism as a policy tool. But what was astonishing was his candid admission about US helplessness in changing the Pakistani mindset.

'They have an addiction to playing around with militia groups to achieve certain interests, particularly vis-a-vis India. That gets them in all kinds of trouble,'' Sheehan told the panel, using a milder term for terrorists groups.

<snip>

Sheehan warned though that ''at the end of the day, the (US) president is going to do what he has to do, unilaterally. And he will always protect that prerogative to protect the security of the American people and our interests.'' India is implicitly asked not to exercise such prerogative by US and its western cohorts, although Washington has lately laid off on from stiff-arming New Delhi in this regard.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Mar 2012 09:35

Kutte ko Poonch Always Teddi
Art of living
Ayaz Garib

My reverie was broken by Shanaz clapping her hands and calling upon us all to say in unison (I am not joking), “Hello Guruji”...Sri Sri Ravi Shankar by this time having appeared on the makeshift, low-slung stage. The human rights activist looked slightly embarrassed. My lawyer friend kept playing with his iphone. The rest of the audience dutifully intoned, “Hello Guruji”, and the art-of-living conference had begun. Guruji talked about peace and universal understanding and how correct breathing was essential for the attainment of these ideals. He fielded some questions with great humour and clarity and then took out a small bottle with some potion in it.One by one, a few volunteers, men and women, stepped to the stage. Guruji would ask them to stretch out their arms, and then applying pressure on the arms would bring them down. But when he poured a few drops of the potion on their hands, the arms would become hard and strong and then, to the amazement of all, they were not to be bent. With a quizzical expression on his face, my lawyer friend wondered whether hands and arms were the only parts of the anatomy on which the magic drops had this effect. Shanaz, somewhat excited throughout the proceedings, then announced that it was time for some meditation. The Guru asked us to close our eyes, relax our arms and forget everything. I soon found myself breathing deeply. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar kept on intoning words and instructions which had a very soothing effect. The meditation was supposed to last 10 minutes but went on for 20 and I did not realise it, so quickly the time had passed.There was an art-of-living instructress in the hall, a Pakistani, with long legs, a close pair of very smart jeans enclosing them and arms that could be almost sculpted. I had felt my eyes wandering in her direction from the beginning. Ideally speaking, the meditation session should have served to cleanse my mind of all loose thoughts. But I was reminded of my unworthiness when I found myself looking at her again

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2012 09:38

Let me say it up front because it needs to be said.

If by some magic (note, and mark the words "If by some magic") , India and Pakistan were to achieve real peace in a way in which Pakistani no longer needed to attack India and India no longer needed to maintain huge reserve forces merely to face off against Pakistan the biggest loser would be the USA.

If that statement is true, why would the US call for peace between India and Pakistan? The reason is as follows. Pakistanis have told US interlocutors that their focus is India, India and India alone. If the US says "How are you?", The Pakistani tells him "India is a threat". If the US says "No, india is not a threat",the Pakistani says "Bugger off. Your words don't count. they are a threat to me, not to you"

So why is the US suddenly so interested in the fact that Pakistan is obsessed with India as a threat? Pakistan's obsession with India was known well enough to the US to say the same thing in a different tone in past decades. The US used to say "India remains a threat to Pakistan and balance of power in the region demands that Pakistan retains a military capability against its giant neighbour, India. India and Pakistan have fought four wars over the disputed territory of Kashmir, a muslim state under the control of Hindu dominated India"

How come this has suddenly become an "obsession with India"? What has changed?

What has changed is as follows. Pakistan now has an open anti-US polity and blatant anti-US islamist groups that the US ally the Pakistani army refuses to oppose. All these decades, the arms that were supplied top the Pakistani army were used against India and that was no skil off the US's balls. But now, US supplied arms and weapons are being used in support of anti-US Islamists. The US has discovered that is arming Pakistan to oppose the US. In recent eyars the US has begged Pakistan not to do that, but the Pakistani army has stonewalled the US and said "Bugger off. We are interested only in opposing India. You need to help us in return for the work we have done for you in the war against terror"

To solve this problem, one solution for the US as superpower could be to support their Pakistani allies and give India an open kick up the butt in the many ways that it can do that. That Pakistanis would love that and in a trice the Pakistan army would be fighting shoulder to shoulder with the US against India. But fighting India is an inconvenient option for the US.

If you take a vast swathe of the world from Egypt to Japan, the US is in total control only up to Japan, Beyond that it is rough. China is rising and openly asserting its clout. Egypt, KSA and other Sunni Arab nations are being "balanced" against Israel. Iraq is neutralised for the time being but is a mess. Iran in anti US. The US is playing a balancing game between Pakistan and India and it is Pakistan that has filled itself up with Sunni extremists. Nothing would give then greater joy that taking India down with US help. But that would put India firmly against the US from its current "non aligned" position. And an India that is hostile to the US would be good cheer for Iran. The US has farted too much about freedom and democracy and India has been no less flatulent in is own hot air about democracy. Indians may be cynical but the whole goddam world sees india as a working democracy. The US has no really good excuse or motivation to take on India in Pakistan's support. Pakistan knows this and is squeezing the USs balls as only Pakistan can, asking the US how Pakistan can do the US's job if the US does not help Pakistan against India. So Pakistan is spiralling out of the US's grip.

Where does Pakistan go next? Getting India on the US's side is one hope for the US. But for that, it has to loosen its grip on Pakistan. That is a big come-down for the sooperdooperpower.

Sudip · Post by **Sudip** » 30 Mar 2012 09:42

Lots of pics of pakistan SSG training and eqipment here

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= ... 862&type=3

sum · Post by **sum** » 30 Mar 2012 09:56

^^ Spanking new equipment for the SSG....guess fully funded by the US of A.

Btw, does anyone have any idea of the number of SSG causalities in the last 3-4 years since recall reading news reports multiple times of SSG folks being KIA?

disha · Post by **disha** » 30 Mar 2012 10:10

RajeshA wrote:So here is the difference! The "realists" are stuck in cement because of uncooperative Pakistanis and "dreamers" are stuck in cement because of uncooperative Indians. What is easier to change?

Maybe a little history will help. Before the colonial raj, various kingdoms exerted (yes exerted) peace by making sure that the vassal states "supply" something that will keep them in check. For example, most Rajput vassal states of the Mughals were to put their princes in the "care" of the mughal court. In case the vassal states rebel, the rajput princes were to have their head lopped off. Put it crudely the "ba@ll$" of the rajput states were literally in the hands of the Mughal court (to cite a recent example).

Other state prior to the mughals also did that (the alliance of marriage was between equals only.)

Now in modern times, one can make sure that all the Paki politicians and Paki Jernails b@@ll$ are in India., but that is too crude and will not happen. So how the Indians hold the Paki nuts? One is to have a control over their lifeline - again in modern world, what is the "lifeline"? Energy. Water. Food. Medicines. Credit.

Hence all the talk about supplying Energy. Also Pakis are a curious species - they have 3 b@@ll$., one is held by America (the Army guys)., the other is in the hands of the religious fanatics ( the ummah log) and the third -the tiniest one- is the "liberal-democracy loving elite" who after Salman Taseer's shahidi have nowhere to go (since they will be crushed between the Army and the Ummah) and hence are ready to be held. Hence all the pappi-jhappi.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 30 Mar 2012 10:49

IB4TL -72 has been reached