Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

archan · Post by **archan** » 30 Sep 2009 08:18

Naaaw... making inferences based on two events does not look like a good strategy to me. The absence of any major attack after 26/11 can be due to a bunch of different factors, though what you say (unkil's pressure) is one of the factors, yes.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Sep 2009 08:24

Lets wait till Diwali , Pukes are Pukes , they cant hide their hideousness.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 30 Sep 2009 08:45

K Subrahmanyam on US and Af-Pak situation.

http://www.maritimeindia.org/pdfs/KSsep2709.pdf

Review of Af-Pak strategy

The basic question that needs to be raised is: who benefits out of the campaign of
terrorism and who has the incentive to use terrorism as an instrument in international
politics ? While in the last seven years al Qaeda’s senior cadres have been depleted, the
highest beneficiary of terrorist campaign has been the Pakistan Army. It got eleven
billion US dollars aid that enabled Pakistan to grow at an unprecedented rate. It is the
threat of al Qaeda and its associated organizations committing future terrorist acts which
has persuaded the US to assure Pakistan another thirteen billion dollars of aid. If there
is no threat of terrorism there will be no US aid and Friends of Pakistan will not be
pledging more aid. Without Pakistan being the epicenter of terrorism and the Pakistani
military pretending to be on US side there would have been a lot more pressure on
Pakistan in regard to its nuclear proliferation and its nuclear arsenal. Jehadism as an
instrumentality in international politics may have its compulsions even on China not to
offend Pakistan lest it should use that instrumentality in the neighboring Xinjiang. The
combination of a nuclear arsenal and jehadism is a very powerful strategy for the
Pakistan Army to get international aid and attention.

After having benefited from the use of terrorism as an instrumentality of international
politics in the last seven years, no strategy which will bring an end to terrorist
organizations like al Qaeda or Lashkar-e-Taiba in the next two or three years will suit the
Pakistani Army’s core interests. Unless this factor is taken into account, no US strategy
will be really effective in dealing with the challenge posed by the most sophisticated
and successful practice of state-sponsored terrorism so far seen in the world.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Sep 2009 09:24

The View from Pakistan's Spies
Excerpts from a lifafa article

The ISI agreed to open its protective curtain slightly for me last week. This unusual outreach included a long and animated conversation with Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the agency's director general, as well as a detailed briefing from its counterterrorism experts. Under the ground rules, I cannot quote Pasha directly, but I can offer a sense of how his agency looks at key issues -- including the Afghanistan war and the ISI's sometimes prickly relationship with America.

ISI officials believe Washington should be realistic about its war objectives. If victory is defined as obliteration of the Taliban, the United States will never win. But the United States can achieve the more limited aim of rough political stability, if it is patient.

Pakistanis have the most to lose from a Taliban victory in Kabul, they argue, because it would inevitably strengthen the Taliban in Pakistan, too. A Pakistani version of Mohammad Omar is anathema to them, the ISI leaders say.

As for American allegations that the ISI maintains direct links with Siraj Haqqani, a key ally of the Taliban, the ISI officials insist it isn't so. They do have a network of agents within the insurgent groups and tribes, but that's part of a spy agency's job. America's suspicion that Pakistan secretly pulls the Taliban's strings is many years out of date, they contend.

People want to help America more than we sometimes think. But they want to be treated with respect -- as full partners, not as useful CIA assets.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 30 Sep 2009 09:40

Where Pakistan stands By Shahid Javed Burki

In describing Pakistan’s current situation I have sometimes used the metaphor ‘a perfect storm’. The storm appears to have passed but it has left a weakened country that continues to face a number of structural problems in a number of areas.

On the political side, tensions between the two mainstream parties have heated up somewhat but have not yet reached the point at which the stability of the system could be seriously threatened. It appears that the main political leaders are anxious not to do anything that would tempt the military to reassert itself. But as already indicated the most significant development has been on the terrorism front. Where will Pakistan go from here? To answer that question we should look at how the country got into such a troubled state to begin with, a subject that will be focused on in the coming weeks.

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 30 Sep 2009 09:41

LeT to strike again

One highly placed Lashkar militant said that the Mumbai attackers were part of groups trained by former Pakistani military and intelligence officials at Lashkar camps. Others had direct knowledge that retired army and ISI officials trained Lashkar recruits as late as last year.

"Some people of the ISI knew about the plan and closed their eyes," said one senior Lashkar operative in Karachi who said he had met some of the gunmen before they left for the Mumbai assault, though he did not know what their mission would be.

In an interview, his uncle, Lala Yasin, said the same, adding proudly that Sadiq was willing to do anything to liberate Kashmir from Indiaâ€™s grip. "Lashkar-e-Taiba does not kill people without reason," Yasin said at his home in Karachi, a few blocks from where his nephew planned the Mumbai attacks. "It is the champion of jihad," he explained. "Muslims are like a body and if one part of your body is aching, the entire body may be jeopardized."

If there is one thing on which intelligence agencies on both sides of the border agree, it is that the consequences of a new attack by Lashkar could be devastating.

"We do fear that if something like Mumbai happens in India again, there might be a military reaction from the Indian side and it could trigger into a war," said a senior intelligence official in Pakistan. "Right now we cannot guarantee that it will not happen again, because we do not have any control over it."

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 30 Sep 2009 09:54

The complete article for above at NYT.

Network of Militants Is Robust After Mumbai Siege

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 30 Sep 2009 09:56

I am amazed how pakistan survived the most gravest threat to the nationhood in the last 2 years (since Lal Masjid). It has managed to tackle the militant (at least that is the perception it created and left in the eyes of west), managed India, Afghanistan, and US and other donor countries all this while. Further, it now controls those parts of Pakistan that it never effectively did (FATA, NWFP etc) but it is also spreading its administrative tantacles in Northern areas of Kashmir (Gilgit and Baltistan). Like the proverbial snatching victory from the jaws of defeat....pakistan not just survived but also consolidated from being at the brink of breakup.

All with a katora in hand

I am just sad that we are letting it happen.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 30 Sep 2009 10:07

It has managed to tackle the militant (at least that is the perception it created and left in the eyes of west),

The word "cosmetic" is the one which best describes pakis actions.
They are just painting a dam which is ready to burst at its seams.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 30 Sep 2009 10:15

Lilo wrote:The word "cosmetic" is the one which best describes pakis actions.
They are just painting a dam which is ready to burst at its seams.

No sir. I wish you were true but the powers that be have decided that is is not to be the case. With each passing day the chances, the whole mix of elements and its composition is changing towards making it(pakistan't survivability) better.

I just hope that we continue to exert the same economic pressure as we are doing now for the foreseeable future. I hear (I don't know the figures) that trade between India and Pakistan has come down to trickle. We need to pursue this to its logical end and lets see how long US/West can keep bailing out Pakistan. Barring that one element, I don't see anything else going against pakistan.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 30 Sep 2009 10:31

shravan wrote:^ Predator is the national bird of Pakistan.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 30 Sep 2009 10:52

Satya_anveshi wrote:I am amazed how pakistan survived the most gravest threat to the nationhood in the last 2 years (since Lal Masjid). It has managed to tackle the militant (at least that is the perception it created and left in the eyes of west), managed India, Afghanistan, and US and other donor countries all this while. Further, it now controls those parts of Pakistan that it never effectively did (FATA, NWFP etc) but it is also spreading its administrative tantacles in Northern areas of Kashmir (Gilgit and Baltistan). Like the proverbial snatching victory from the jaws of defeat....pakistan not just survived but also consolidated from being at the brink of breakup.

All with a katora in hand

I am just sad that we are letting it happen.

Indeed, TSP's achievement is diabolically impressive. Add to your list, the biggest trump card TSP has at its disposal. They are going to launch another ferocious attack through LeT, and provoke India into a war. This will be the final denounement of TSP's stratgey. A war, a stalemate, and the west stepping in to re-orient the region.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 30 Sep 2009 11:11

archan wrote:Naaaw... making inferences based on two events does not look like a good strategy to me. The absence of any major attack after 26/11 can be due to a bunch of different factors, though what you say (unkil's pressure) is one of the factors, yes.

True. But could it also mean that the pukis are unwilling to concentrate on two fronts at the same time for whatever reason? If another terrorist attack had followed the one in mumbai, the whole country would've been up for a 'conflict' irrespective of international pressure to avoid it. Granted, MMS might have swallowed all that pressure and resisted armed conflict but it would have made the pukis' position rather untenable with increased american pressure due to indias whining.

On the other hand, while India maintains a 'tough stand on terror' crying to unkil and anyone willing to listen, the pukis could spend the whole time preparing the next mumbai, if you will. sounds like a pucca puki approach to me, only i'm waiting for their no-ball to give themselves away this time too.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Sep 2009 13:03

Fearing assassination, Pres. Bill Clinton travelled secretly to Pakistan

Of course, we know it. Let me recall how the top guns of the US visit their closest and tightest ally

By March 2000, the country had so much slipped, that when Pres. Clinton paid a week long visit to the Indian subcontinent , he hesitantly visited Pakistan for four hours on March 25, 2000, refused to be photographed along with the military dictator Gen. Musharraf, and addressed its people directly on television from a fortified airbase, an unprecedented step for a head of state, especially a close ally like the US. The US was so terrified of terrorist attacks on the President’s Airforce One, that he eventually travelled from Oman in an unmarked Gulfstream preceded by a decoy plane. It was the lowest point in the US-Pakistani relationship. It was no better when Pres. George Bush visited Pakistan in early March, 2006. His AirForce One landed at Pakistan’s Chaklala military airbase with its landing lights switched off and blinds of windows drawn down. The President and his wife stepped out of an Emergency hatch with an internal ladder to present as small a target to snipers as possible. The First Couple decided to stay in the Ambassador’s residence rather than stay in a hotel. The Pakistani President and Prime Minister were advised not to come to the Airport to receive them in order to minimize reprisal attacks. The matters were not helped by a suicide bomb-blast at the US Consulate in Karachi a day earlier, which killed the Head of Security of the Consulate there, a US Foreign Officer. In Feb. 2007, the US Vice President also took extraordinary security measures when he travelled to Pakistan.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 30 Sep 2009 13:05

Traders meet at LoC, call for use of Indian currency

Traders from two parts of the divided State met today at Chakan-Da-Bagh zero line in Poonch district after a long time and stressed for conducting cross-LoC business in Indian currency.

The reason given for the use of Indian currency was its stable price in international market as against Pakistan currency which was fluctuating against the dollar every week.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 30 Sep 2009 13:11

Better check for fake currency at the LOC itself. Maybe the RBI and RAW can send it seluths there to trace the fake currency series.

Oh WTHell, everyone know they are printed at the pak government press, quetta.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 30 Sep 2009 13:48

SSridhar wrote:
Of course, we know it. Let me recall how the top guns of the US visit their closest and tightest ally

There are still stingers and snipers unaccounted for. So the US knows what "rogue" Pakis (read Paki army) are having.

They also use lookalikes who travel in the official vehicles while the prez is silently whisked away without fanfare.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 30 Sep 2009 15:40

Suspected U.S. drone attack kills 6 in NW Pakistan

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - A missile-firing U.S. drone aircraft killed six militants, including some Arabs, on Wednesday in Pakistan's North Waziristan region on the Afghan border, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

It was the fourth drone strike in northwest Pakistan since Monday evening and came as the United States was weighing options for how to deal with an intensifying Taliban insurgency in neighboring Afghanistan.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 30 Sep 2009 15:53

Greece holds Pakistan responsible for abduction of its citizen

Islamabad, Sep.30 (ANI): Greece is holding Pakistan responsible for the abduction of one of its citizens, Athanasius Lerounis, from Chitral earlier this month.

“The Ministry of Interior is directly responsible for kidnapping of Lerounis,”The Nation quoted the Greek Ambassador to Pakistan, Petros Mavroidis, as saying.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Sep 2009 16:25

Tahir Yuldashev dead in South Waziristan drone attack ?

There has been no claim or evidence yet that Tahir Yuldachev, leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), died in a US drone strike in South Waziristan recently but a man claiming to be his bodyguard phoned the Radio Liberty in Prague on Tuesday to claim that the Uzbek commander was dead.

The caller, who spoke Uzbeki language and claimed he was calling from somewhere in Pakistan, maintained that Yuldachev was killed after the death of Baitullah Mahsud in a similar US missile attack. The man who phoned Radio Liberty refused to identify himself. He claimed to have served as bodyguard to Yuldachev

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Sep 2009 16:33

A very illuminating tidbit plus a sobering thought

One recalls one such meeting that our UN mission had fixed in 1996 for Benazir Bhutto with the president of Uganda. The meeting lasted about twenty tiresome minutes. Benazir was not sure why they had needed to meet. She asked me the reason why the Ugandans had been so insistent. "Well," I recall replying, "it seems, Prime Minister, that the President wished to gawk at you."

Before Mr Zardari left for his visit to America he would have done well to heed what Mrs Gandhi once said: "A nation's strength ultimately consists in what it can do on its own, and not in what it can borrow from others."

However much they try to identify themselves with the desert race, or the Persians or the far away Turkish or the other Central Asian races, they simply are unable to shake off their Indian roots. No article, op-ed or editorial is considered complete without a reference to SDDRE kufr India.

James B · Post by **James B** » 30 Sep 2009 17:44

So much heartburn among Pakis for being rejected a Uk Visa .
Losing the battle for hearts and minds

Travelling on a green Pakistani passport has never been easy, but it’s got progressively harder in recent years. Add to the hassle of fulfilling endless visa requirements the long queues at airports, and you may as well stay home.

But he was lucky because he did not apply for a visa: thousands of Pakistanis who did found their passports and applications had been dumped somewhere in the UK embassy in Abu Dhabi. For some bizarre reason, the Brits now process Pakistani applications in the Gulf state.

For example, last July, the 30-member Lahore Pipe Band was refused visas that would have allowed them to compete in the World Pipe Band Championship in Glasgow. As they had been competing for the last four years, one would have expected them to be waved through. At the same time, a business delegation composed of members of the Lahore Chamber of Commerce were also barred from visiting Scotland at the invitation of the local chamber of commerce.

Another Takleef whine about UK visa rejection

I’ll keep it simple. A friend who has been to the UK at least 91 times over the last 40 or so years: a 67-year old grandfather; the head of a multinational; an extremely well-known English language columnist; and who has banking accounts amounting to over Rs7m has been refused a visit visa this summer!! Whilst the rest of the grounds of refusal are too stupidly ludicrous to narrate here, this being a paper of record, let me just try to walk you through the funds’ angle.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 30 Sep 2009 18:26

Lilo wrote:The complete article for above at NYT.

Network of Militants Is Robust After Mumbai Siege

Good artcile, but these westerners are so brainwashed that when it comes to India, there is still this condescending India and Paaakistan tripe; as though there is a Paaakistaan devoid of LeT. I mean if LeT can so vrazenly opeate in the territory of Paaaakistaaan, what meaning does this notion of 'non state actors' have? But at least there is some acknowledgment that TSP is giving more that 'moral & diplomatic' support.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 30 Sep 2009 18:35

csharma wrote:K Subrahmanyam on US and Af-Pak situation.

http://www.maritimeindia.org/pdfs/KSsep2709.pdf

Review of Af-Pak strategy

After having benefited from the use of terrorism as an instrumentality of international
politics in the last seven years, no strategy which will bring an end to terrorist
organizations like al Qaeda or Lashkar-e-Taiba in the next two or three years will suit the
Pakistani Army’s core interests. Unless this factor is taken into account, no US strategy
will be really effective in dealing with the challenge posed by the most sophisticated
and successful practice of state-sponsored terrorism so far seen in the world.

USA has taken this factor into account. There is no Al Queda BS left. Its only Taliban & LeT and other India-specific scum. And of late, Pakis have become pretty brazen in claiming that unless India gives them Kashmir, and gets out of Afganisthhan, there is no other solution to Taliban, LeT etc. And USA concurs with this view to a certain extent.

Now, US having putting in some India-specific conditions on baksheesh to TSP is a welcome move. But there is a rub. Sonner or later, Obama is going to force India to talk Kashmir. Unlike Indian middle class eunuchs who don't mind becoming slaves to US, and at the other extreme, unlike those who pompously bristle at any US involvement; I take the middle path. If US involvement can force TSP to back off with some token H&D concessions from India, and permanent end to LeT & Taliban, I say US involvement is welcome. But I still have my doubts on what US wants. If it also means India must become nuke nude so they can then make TSP nuke nude, I'd say that would be a non starter.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 30 Sep 2009 19:51

PC's take on Pak's 'half-baked' Saeed case claim

New Delhi, Sep 30 (PTI) "If it is half-baked, they (Pakistan) are welcome to bake it fully," Home Minister P Chidambaram said when asked about Pakistan's dilly-dallying tactics on its probe in the Mumbai terror attack.

Chidambaram was reacting to questions by reporters on Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi's latest remarks that he could not take to the court a "half-baked case" on Lashker-e-Taiba(LeT) founder Hafeez Saeed, the suspected mastermind behind 26/11.

"If it is half-baked, they are welcome to bake it fully.

All the baking ingredients are in Pakistan. The entire evidence is on Pakistani soil. They are most welcome to bake it fully and take it to court," a smiling Chidambaram said.

The Home Minister said all the evidence on Indian soil has been shared with Pakistan. "The remaining evidence is on Pakistani soil," he added.

Chidambaram has been sceptical on action assured by Pakistan against the 26/11 accused.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 30 Sep 2009 20:34

Rudradev wrote:
shiv wrote:
It is grossly unfair to say we only submit dossiers. We send faxes also.
You know what's truly pathetic?

Our Dossier-Deterrence is actually working.

See: After the Parliament Attack in December 2001, we deployed our forces in a massive mobilization along the IB. It didn't stop Paki terrorism. Kaluchak followed, then Akshardham. Of course, after Parakram ended in a lame pullback of forces, the number of jihadi terrorist attacks only increased.

Compare this to what happened after the 26th November Mumbai attacks. Despite all our Netas' brave words, we didn't deploy any forces. We simply complained to Unkil, compiling evidence and accumulating dossiers and delivering them to Washington.

And there hasn't been one major jihadi terrorist attack outside of J&K in nearly a year!

WTF can this mean?

It implies that whatever we say about the TSPA/ISI taking clueless America for a ride in Afghanistan, or conning the poor naive Washington policymakers into giving them aid on one hand while supporting the Taliban on the other... whatever we say about the US being "helpless" and "having no choice but to aid Pakistan"... the truth is actually quite different.

It suggests that the US may have enough leverage over the TSPA and ISI to prevent terrorist attacks against India if it wants. That is, a Pakistani hand may be turning on and off the terror tap that pumps Jihadis into India... but it seems that an American hand has a firm grip on that Pakistani hand.

As long as India toes the American line... as long as we do what Washington wants, refrain from military buildups along the Pak border, refrain from threatening war against Pakistan, refrain from interfering with Washington's "Af-Pak" policy... it seems that America can and will ensure that Pakistan's ISI doesn't launch terrorist attacks against India.

The other side of the coin is, what if India decides not to go along with Washington's line? American demands can and will change, after all, as Obama's "Af-Pak" policy continues to "evolve" (for lack of a better word). At some point it is very possible that Holbrooke and co. might decide to lean on Delhi for Kashmir this and Kashmir that.

So let's say India does something to displease Unkil and shortly afterwards a major jihadi terrorist attack DOES occur against India. There is 400% plausible deniability for Unkil, of course. Who in their right mind is going to publicly blame the US? They would be a laughing stock! Any message inherent in the terrorist attack would be for our Dilli Billis to perceive and interpret as they see fit... that's all.

Should we look at Sharm-el-Sheikh in a new light now?

archan wrote:Naaaw... making inferences based on two events does not look like a good strategy to me. The absence of any major attack after 26/11 can be due to a bunch of different factors, though what you say (unkil's pressure) is one of the factors, yes.

Please explain, why you characterize my inferences as being based on "two events"?

They are not based on isolated, discrete "events" at all. They are based on BRF's rigorous, continuous observation of trends in Pakistan-sponsored Jihadi terrorism against India, over the past decade. After all, the absence of terrorist attacks can hardly be called an "event", can it? And yet, that is very much a part of the observation that leads to my conclusion.

The fact remains. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ten months since Nov. 26 '08, seem to be the longest lull in ISI jihadi terrorism in India outside J&K, since the 9/11 attacks. The only thing we have engaged in as a response to the Nov 26 attacks, is carrying dossiers to Unkil.

I brought up Parakram for contrast. In that situation we had deployed our military in a strike posture against Pakistan... but still, ISI-sponsored terrorist attacks continued to happen.

We have not done anything like that this time. We have refrained from military deployment against Pakistan (in sensitivity to Unkil's Af-Pak concerns). And we've seen not even one major jihadi attack outside J&K since Nov. 26 last year. Compare this not only with Parakram but even with the post-Parakram situation where every few months we saw an attack in Varanasi, Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Jaipur, Hyderabad, Gauhati...

So yes, this could be attributable to a "bunch of factors", but what are the factors operating now that were not operating earlier?

- New "civilian govt." in Pakistan is a political dispensation inconvenient to the sponsorship of Jihadi terrorism against India? On the contrary, it is more convenient. Musharraf as Army Chief/CEO at least had to answer directly for Pak policy... today, TSPA/ISI can hide behind the civilian govt's skirts.

- Internal insurrection against Islamabad has distracted TSPA/ISI from waging terror against India? That goes against every trend we've ever seen. The more internal opposition TSPA/ISI face the more likely it is they will engage in terrorism against India... in fact, the Nov. 26 attacks were in the context of a raging Pakiban insurrection in NWFP/FATA, and very transparently the ISI declared Baitullah and co. "allies" in the event of an Indian attack! And yet, even despite the Swat/FATA/NWFP Pakiban wars growing in scope, TSP/ISI have not followed up Nov. 26 with another attack... what possible reason could there be for this?

- Shuja Ahmed Pasha and Ashfaq Kiyani had a change of heart / became WKKs / suddenly got scared of an India that hadn't even deployed in response to Nov. 26 ?

- India's anti-terrorist actions? But what have we done? Except carry dossiers to Washington? We've carried the same dossiers to Islamabad, which dismisses them as "half-baked" evidence. That's all. Has there been a radical transformation for the better, in the way our security and intelligence agencies are countering terrorism internally? If there is, I'm not aware of it.

- India's sponsorship of "Baluch terrorism"? Do we seriously believe that such a thing exists? Yet we have virtually admitted to it in an equal-equal demeaning of ourselves, during the inveterate self-goal of the Sharm-el-Shaikh debacle. There is, meanwhile, no other explanation for the Sharm-el-Shaikh debacle that takes Indian interests into account... the only interests it serves, besides Pakistan's, are Unkil's. Yet Moorkh Mumble Singh did it, apparently of his own free will. What was the quid-pro-quo?

So what else is different? Afghanistan continues to face a threat from Pakistan-sponsored Taliban. Unkil continues to demand GUBO from Pakistan and supply Pakistan with money and weapons, keeping their tottering economy aloft and constraining Delhi's military options. China still proliferates to Pakistan via NoKo.

The only major change since the Parakram days, is a Government of India which has proved increasingly willing to compromise our own long-term interests to satisfy Unkil's interests (witness Sharm-el-Shaikh). And this, without any obvious ancillary factors, seems to have resulted in a cessation of ISI-sponsored jihadi terrorist attacks for ten whole months. That is something which even India's strongest available coercive measure short of war...the Parakram deployment ...failed to accomplish.

If I have missed out any factors, please correct me... otherwise, draw what inference you will.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 30 Sep 2009 20:57

Video: MUSH-AIRA

James B · Post by **James B** » 30 Sep 2009 21:00

Greece blames Pakistan for kidnapping of its citizen

anandsgh · Post by **anandsgh** » 30 Sep 2009 21:02

I just found this video of TSPA interrogating a captured pious talib.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=154618849135

Its a facebook video and open for view only. I could not found similar on youtube.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2009 21:03

Rudradev wrote:

The only major change since the Parakram days, is a Government of India which has proved increasingly willing to compromise our own long-term interests to satisfy Unkil's interests (witness Sharm-el-Shaikh). And this, without any obvious ancillary factors, seems to have resulted in a cessation of ISI-sponsored jihadi terrorist attacks for ten whole months. That is something which even India's strongest available coercive measure short of war...the Parakram deployment ...failed to accomplish.

If I have missed out any factors, please correct me... otherwise, draw what inference you will.

Well let me draw an inference. We would need a terrorist attack now to prove that India is not selling itself out?

James B · Post by **James B** » 30 Sep 2009 21:08

Jalebi madam's Uvacha

Benchmarks for ceding sovereignty

Absurdities have become the hallmark of the Pakistani ruling elite for some time now, but the situation has probably never been as bizarre as it is at present. Take the case of the Pakistan-US relationship which is fast degenerating into a client-master equation.

The three broad and troublesome conditionalities, in order of precedence as they appear in the bill are the following: First is the continuing US obsession with and targeting of Pakistan’s nuclear assets and the so-called “suppliers’ networks” relating to proliferation. The Pakistan government has categorically and repeatedly declared that the Dr Khan and suppliers’ network issue are closed. So why does the US continue to make that its number one priority each and every time it wants to give us support, obviously in return for favours that they seek from us.

The second conditionality demands that Pakistan shows a continuous commitment in fighting terrorist groups basically the way the US seeks. This requires Pakistan to ensure that it cease support, “including by any elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency” (they forget the military has more than one intelligence agency!) “to extremist and terrorist groups, particularly to any group that has conducted attacks against United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, or against the territory or people of neighbouring countries (emphasis added).”

The third conditionality is the most directly intrusive in terms of interfering in Pakistan’s domestic politics and targeting the Pakistan military. The US Secretary of State has to now certify that “the security forces of Pakistan are not materially and substantially subverting the political or judicial process of Pakistan.” Never before, in any Pakistan aid bill, has such an offensive clause been included.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 30 Sep 2009 21:12

shiv wrote:
Rudradev wrote:

The only major change since the Parakram days, is a Government of India which has proved increasingly willing to compromise our own long-term interests to satisfy Unkil's interests (witness Sharm-el-Shaikh). And this, without any obvious ancillary factors, seems to have resulted in a cessation of ISI-sponsored jihadi terrorist attacks for ten whole months. That is something which even India's strongest available coercive measure short of war...the Parakram deployment ...failed to accomplish.

If I have missed out any factors, please correct me... otherwise, draw what inference you will.
Well let me draw an inference. We would need a terrorist attack now to prove that India is not selling itself out?

Not at all. Neither would America need a terrorist attack to prove that its operations in Afghanistan since 9/11 have amounted to failure. That is a strawman.

archan · Post by **archan** » 30 Sep 2009 22:20

Rudra ji, I cannot even type that much in a day! So I agree with you.

I don't know if I get the logic though. We deployed military last time and terrorism continued but we didn't do this this time and it hasn't happened. Moreover since we went to unkil for help, he has been generous and allowed us to live terror-free for almost a year.
I don't know if the international fame/defamation means anything to the pakis. They are already pretty much at the lowest ebb in the world in that respect. Why would unkil pressurize them now only because the Indians are complaining? unkil clearly needs pakis more than any other country today. So why would they strain their relations with the pakis to such an extent that pakis have to rein in their jehadis who are just raring to have a go at the infidels? Unkil already is pushing the pakis to the brink with the drone attacks and constant violation of their sovirginity. They have had to drag the PA to help them in Afganistan, now why would they want to make them also give up their only means of fighting their arch enemy only because the arch enemy is complaining?
I don't know (of course I don't!

) but there is another reason perhaps.
Perhaps the pakis are much more in a corner than they were 5-7 years ago. Perhaps they know that more aid will come slow and will come with hard-to-accept conditions (Kerry-Luger). While back then, dollars flowed in the Indus and could easily be utilized to the most pious deed, cleanse this world of the unbelievers.
Today pak has a deficiency of just about everything, except for jehadis. It was not quite true back then. Or perhaps unkil has found a link that the jehadis do not necessarily differentiate between the unbelievers whether they are brown or white. That the money spent on killing SDRE unbelievers is also used in killing their own - so unkil has decided to clamp down on those so called "good taliban" (in paki terminology - good for the pakis) as well.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Oct 2009 02:09

Patterson says Quetta Shura high on US list

WASHINGTON, Sep 30: The United States has now turned its focus to Quetta, claiming that it has now become a major Taliban base from where Mullah Omar and his commanders plan and launch cross-border strikes into Afghanistan.

On Tuesday, The Washington Post quoted US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson as saying that Quetta was high on Washington’s list of terrorist bases in the region.

‘In the past, we focussed on Al Qaeda because they were a threat to us. The Quetta Shura mattered less to us because we had no troops in the region,’ she said. ‘Now our troops are there on the other side of the border, and the Quetta Shura is high on Washington’s list.’

Gen Stanley A. McChrystal, the top US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, has also raised alarms about the Quetta Shura, describing it in his recent report to President Barack Obama as a major command centre for the widening wave of Taliban bombings and attacks.

Other US officials claim that virtually all of the Afghan Taliban’s strategic decisions are made by the Quetta Shura. Decisions flow from the group ‘to Taliban field commanders, who in turn make tactical decisions that support the Shura’s strategic direction,’ one such official told the US media.

Ambassador Patterson acknowledged that the United States is far less familiar with the vast desert region than with Fata, where it has been cooperating closely with Pakistan for several years in the hunt for Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders and where it periodically kills insurgents with missiles fired from remotely piloted aircraft.

‘Our intelligence on Quetta is vastly less. We have no people there, no cross-border operations, no Predators,’ the ambassador said.

She said Pakistani officials were growing ‘extremely nervous’ that the current policy disputes in Washington would lead to a premature US pullout from Afghanistan. ‘They will not rush to cut ties with the Taliban if they think they will be back in charge there again,’ she said.
http://www.thepakistaninewspaper.com/ne ... p?id=14666

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 01 Oct 2009 04:23

Kashmir at the core The News edit.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 01 Oct 2009 04:26

Interior ministry “modernising” madrassas? ---- DT second edit

The Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, says he has met with all the federations of the different religious seminaries and made them agree that a system of “modern education” should be implemented among them and that in return “degrees of these madrassas would be recognised in all the educational institutions”. He had earlier met representatives of Tanzim-ul-Madaris Ahle Sunnat, Wifaq-ul-Madaris Arabia, Wifaq-ul-Madaris Al-Salafia, Wifaq-ul-Madaris Shia and Rabita Al-Madaris.

From what he has revealed, the seminaries have apparently agreed to “modern education” because they want their degrees recognised by the state education boards in the provinces. What he has gained is the consent of the clergy to register themselves with the Inter-Madaris Board. Those without registration will not to be allowed to function (sic!). He said as many as 15,000 Madaris had registered themselves with the government while 5,000 others would soon be registered under the agreement.

The madrassa clergy has been demanding that their top students too be called up by the chief ministers and honoured publicly just like the top students of the secular schools. The new development must have come in the wake of the fate of the suicide-bombers in recent times and the targeting of the dissenting clerics by the Taliban. It was the success of jihad and “foreign funding” that had made the seminaries so rebellious in Pakistan. Is the tide turning?

We don’t know if an interior minister will succeed where the government has failed in the past. What has failed in Pakistan is the state-run school sector. The new Education Policy actually relies heavily on religion and opens the door to 25,000 graduates of the madrassas without “modern education”. So far it appears that the opinion against the private sector “English-medium” schools might help certain sections of society turn away from modern education in the direction of the madrassa.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 01 Oct 2009 04:36

Losing the battle for hearts and minds yet another

UKStan's visa policy is causing great takleef to RAPEs.

A friend who found himself in this predicament was Masood Hasan, the well-known columnist and brother of the late Khalid Hasan. Apart from being a public figure by virtue of his popular column, Masood also broadcasts a weekly jazz programme on an FM channel, and runs a successful ad agency. His wife is Dr Ira Hasan, the eminent academic and ex-principal of Kinnaird College.

Although Masood needs no introduction from me, the reason I am giving some details about him is that he is just the kind of Pakistani the Brits should be encouraging to visit their country. In fact, he has been a regular visitor for 30 years, so he was understandably taken aback when his application for a visa was turned down.

Not only was Masood told he was unwelcome, but his son Meekal’s application was also rejected. For those who follow the Pakistani music scene, Meekal is even better known than his father. Considered one of the finest guitarists Pakistan has produced, young Meekal has established his own iconic pop group, and has performed at many concerts at home and abroad.

One would think that in these recessionary times, the British government would be encouraging foreigners to come and spend their money here. But there’s more at stake than tourist dollars: through this misguided policy, the Brits are losing friends at a time they (and the West) need as many as they can get in the Muslim world.

Apart from the Pakistani students who were arrested on terrorism charges last year, all those accused and convicted in Britain are citizens of the United Kingdom. And all the Pakistani students accused in the so-called terror plot were later released and deported without any charges. In fact, the entire episode was deeply embarrassing for the British government.

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 01 Oct 2009 05:33

External debt, liabilities mount to $52.8bn

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Oct 2009 06:14

Satya_anveshi wrote:I am amazed how pakistan survived the most gravest threat to the nationhood in the last 2 years (since Lal Masjid). It has managed to tackle the militant (at least that is the perception it created and left in the eyes of west), managed India, Afghanistan, and US and other donor countries all this while. Further, it now controls those parts of Pakistan that it never effectively did (FATA, NWFP etc) but it is also spreading its administrative tantacles in Northern areas of Kashmir (Gilgit and Baltistan). Like the proverbial snatching victory from the jaws of defeat....pakistan not just survived but also consolidated from being at the brink of breakup.

All with a katora in hand

I am just sad that we are letting it happen.

The elephant in the room is the US. India is unable to defeat the US which needs to be done to solve Pakistan. Attempting to defeat the US is suicidal for India so most people (other than Rahul Mehta) won't even talk about it.

The US is supplying arms and funds to Pakistan and we are letting it happen as you have rightly pointed out. Most people on here understand fully how weak India is in this world - and we are literally running from pillar to post to survive because, as Pakistanis never fail to point out we have the largest burden of poor, hungry and sick people in the world. Going against the US would hurt the Indian elite first, not the aam junta, but the pain will be passed down by the elite to the junta. Naturally..

Sad indeed, but not surprising.

To an extent blaming Pakistan for our ills is like the man who was stabbed and he registered a criminal case against the knife that stabbed him, ignoring the man wielding the knife.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 01 Oct 2009 06:31

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =113348225

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan, less than a week after the Senate approved a similar measure to give the South Asian nation $1.5 billion a year over the next five years for democratic, economic and social development assistance.
The Senate bill, by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Richard Lugar (R-IN), is aimed at turning U.S.-Pakistan relations to one based on long-term interests.
Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S., tells Siegel that though the $7.5 billion over five years shows the U.S. commitment to Pakistan, "too much conditionality is never good, because it reflects suspicion." Haqqani says, however, that he understands both Congress' concerns and those of his compatriots.