Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009

arun · Post by **arun** » 03 Nov 2009 19:22

Excerpt from Time interview of Ariel Glucklich, professor of religion at Georgetown University and author of Dying for Heaven:

Inside the Mind of a Suicide Bomber

By Alyssa Fetini Tuesday, Nov. 03, 2009 …………………….

You have also said "it is religion that makes people more dangerous if they have nuclear arms." Though this logic, would Israel and Pakistan, religious countries that have nuclear bombs, pose as big a threat as Iran?

Under the right conditions any country, including Pakistan and India, might pose a similar threat. And if those conditions do not exist, Iran, as well, is no threat. It is not enough that religion plays a major role in the national character. There needs to be a breakdown of central authority. When the center weakens and a number of smaller religious groups look to establish a new order of things, then you have the greatest threat. Pakistan is the most likely candidate for this sort of dynamic. Neither Iran nor Israel are remotely on the verge of losing centralized authority as is Pakistan.

Time

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Nov 2009 19:28

anupmisra wrote:I am surprised that the sPookies did not present three or four captured jehadis with their pants around their ankles as "pojitive piroofs" of evil Yindoo involvement.

Ahem,
Pesh-e-khidmat hai:

http://www.app.com.pk/photo/photo_lib/0 ... 04165f.jpg
http://www.app.com.pk/photo/photo_lib/0 ... 6c41f2.jpg

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Nov 2009 19:45

Caught a glimpse of a report on Azerbaijan in the BBC a while ago. I thought it was the President of that country who said that Azerbaijan did not want to have violent Islam like Chechenya, Ingushetia or Pakistan.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Nov 2009 19:53

Ok the mortar shells that the pak army has labelled as Indian seem to closely resemble those manufactured by POF Wah.
The original picture is here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bomb_ ... OF_WAH.jpg

The only thing is that the Pakistan Ordinance Factory, Wah claims to manufacture 81mm mortars.
Perhaps they have a separate paint and labelling for the ammo used in Jihad activities, given that they can't change the basic shape of the ammunition.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Nov 2009 20:13

^^^ gagan, given the Paks and PRC's long history of supplying maal to non-state actors, it wouldnt be at all surprising to see two paint shops in the munitions plant. one for faujis and one for non-state-faujis - seriously.

the few western reports i've read about journalists being taken to see the captured maal and passports wagerah were all highly skeptical about pakistani military claims on their provenance. there is a serious credibility gap.

arun · Post by **arun** » 03 Nov 2009 20:54

The people of the Islamic Republic of Pakistani never cease to amaze in their penchant for not owing up to responsibility for their actions and blaming others for self inflicted injuries

.

35% of those polled think the US is responsible for the crisis in Waziristan

39% of those polled think that in Waziristan “America’s war” is being fought

:

November 03, 2009

Military Action in Waziristan: Opinion Poll

A recent Gilani poll conducted during the last week of October 2009 by Gallup Pakistan shows Pakistani public's views and perceptions on the military action in South Waziristan.

Support for the Military Action: 51% support it, 13% oppose it and a significant 36% are unsure.

People Responsible for the Operation: Only 25% blame Taliban whereas majority hold America and Pakistan's own government responsible (35% and 31% respectively); 8% blame the Pakistan's Army, and 1% gave no response.

Effectiveness of the Operation: 36% are hopeful it will bring peace, 37% believe it will worsen the situation and 27% are unsure.

Whose War is it? 37% say it is Pakistan's own war, 39% believe it is Americas war, while 22% think that both Pakistan and America have shared interest in this war.

The recent Gilani poll was conducted in Pakistan by Gallup Pakistan, affiliated with Gallup International Association, among a nationally representative sample of more than 2700 men and women in the rural and urban areas of all four provinces of Pakistan. The sample comprised a cross-section of all age, income, education, and linguistic groups in the country. The field work was done face to face during the last week of October 2009

More details here:

Gallup

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 03 Nov 2009 21:00

Problem is that both the Taliban and the so called moderate Islamists of pakistan are a "s^&%^y" option for India. If Taliban is decimated the cruel, greedy Paki army will emerge stronger than ever and continue to harass India and their own people. If the Taliban is victorious, we are in deep trouble (as is every other country in the neighbourhood).
We need a moderate state in Pakistan that acts as a bulwark against the Taliban - A state within a state.

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 03 Nov 2009 21:04

Gagan wrote:
anupmisra wrote:I am surprised that the sPookies did not present three or four captured jehadis with their pants around their ankles as "pojitive piroofs" of evil Yindoo involvement.
Ahem,
Pesh-e-khidmat hai:

http://www.app.com.pk/photo/photo_lib/0 ... 04165f.jpg
http://www.app.com.pk/photo/photo_lib/0 ... 6c41f2.jpg

At least the second photo looks like been clicked after taking postions. No taken in the motion of things. They are indeed working hard to show something to the world.

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 03 Nov 2009 21:13

Foreign Policy: Clinton, Pakistan, And Dysfunction - Ahsan Butt (NPR)

... U.S. is promising seven and a half billion more dollars, and yet the reaction to that promised aid — wrapped up in a maelstrom of nationalistic, ill-founded and uninformed outrage — would suggest that the U.S. is stealing that amount of money from Pakistan's coffers, or worse.

Pakistan has paid enormous costs, both in treasure as well as in blood, in taking on militant outfits on its soil. And yet the near-constant refrain of "do more" from the U.S. continues unabated.

Depending on which poll you trust, between 75 and 90 percent of Pakistanis oppose the use of drones in the tribal areas.

Secretary Clinton's visit has brought this vision into sharp focus; it is unclear, from this vantage point, what exactly the three-day tour accomplished, or was meant to accomplish.

is there any hope for this relationship? Don't shake your head; it was a rhetorical question.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Nov 2009 21:15

Jarita wrote: If the Taliban is victorious, we are in deep trouble (as is every other country in the neighbourhood).

Why are we in trouble if Taliban wins?

The Pakistan army was trouble for us alone and not the US. The Taliban is trouble for everyone so the pressure on us is less. I am all for a Taliban victory and Talibani nukes. Even China will find its own nukes aimed towards it, and Pakistan's 100 nukes which were all aimed at us will now be aimed at a whole lot of other enemies.

Better for us in every way.

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 03 Nov 2009 21:19

Pakistan's military claims Taliban stronghold (CNN)

Army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas recently told CNN that this time a peace deal is not an option. "Certainly there is no scope of a peace deal," Abbas told CNN. "It is a fight to the finish."

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 03 Nov 2009 21:24

India asks Pakistan to focus on combating terrorism, not Kashmir (Samay Live)

United Nations: Objecting to Pakistan raising the Kashmir issue at a UN panel on humanitarian issues, India has asked Islamabad to take credible action against terrorists and their support base to create conditions for meaningful dialogue.

"Pakistan would be well advised to concentrate its focus on combating terrorism and not allowing the use of its territory by terrorists and their infrastructure," Indian delegate B.K. Hariprasad said at a special session of the panel Monday.

"We regret the unacceptable reference made by the delegation of Pakistan to the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir," he said adding, "I would like to reiterate that the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of the Union of India and its people regularly participate in free, fair and open elections."

Earlier, Pakistan's acting permanent representative to the UN Amjad Hussain alleged the people of Jammu and Kashmir had been denied the "right to exercise the right of self-determination."

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 03 Nov 2009 21:26

edited

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 03 Nov 2009 21:26

Army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas recently told CNN that this time a peace deal is not an option. "Certainly there is no scope of a peace deal," Abbas told CNN. "It is a fight to the finish."

#@!#@! Just when I was hoping to hear an end to Rah-e-Najat with a peace deal. It will definitely end with a declaration of victory then.

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 03 Nov 2009 21:33

Pakistan fights back - At last, it takes the Taliban seriously (Washington Post)

RAWALPINDI, PAKISTAN Until a few months ago, Pakistani officials often used the term "miscreants" when they described the Taliban fighters operating from the western tribal areas. This moniker conveyed the sense that the Taliban was a nuisance -- a ragtag band of fanatics and gangsters who could be placated with peace deals -- rather than a mortal threat to the nation.

That state of denial appears to be over. This week's offensive against Taliban sanctuaries in South Waziristan is the latest sign that Pakistan has awakened to the seriousness of its domestic terrorism problem. Here's how one of Pakistan's top military commanders put it to me, expressing sentiments that are widely shared among his colleagues:

"We must win, if we want our children to be living a life of their choice and belief, and not of these beasts. I wish I could tell you how much I hate them. We want to get our beautiful and peaceful country back from their vicious clutches. We cannot allow them to destroy our future."

Security is tight at the army's headquarters in Rawalpindi. On Oct. 10, Taliban terrorists stormed past the green lawns and the stately cricket pitch at the entrance and penetrated deep into the compound, killing eight soldiers... In his office 100 yards from where the attack began, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, the military's spokesman, says the offensive against the Taliban haven marks an end to past thinking that "somehow we'll be able to manage them, co-opt them, bring them on board."

Abbas says that to win, the army must be seen as operating independently of the United States: "We told the Americans, stay away. Let us do it." To demonstrate that independence, the Pakistanis asked the United States to halt its highly effective Predator drone attacks over South Waziristan. "Public support is more important," explains one military official.

It's too early to say whether the early resolve this time will carry through the harsh winter, as the army confronts the notoriously tough Mehsud tribesmen. In the tribal areas, "people are always on the winning side. They wait and see the outcome," says Abbas.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 03 Nov 2009 21:48

Taliban should win and India should support Taliban legitimate aspirations. Even Uncle and Aunty Milford were saying better to work with Taliban. Even Karzai is being advised to work with Taliban.

Unkil has realized that Alqeda and TS Pakistan army are natural allies.

For India

Support civilian govt of Pakistan
Support Taliban
Help TSP civilian goverment talk to Taliban
Moral support to Taliban
Propagate among Paki citizens the right place for Army is in the barracks.
Encourage TS Paki Army to over thrown civilian Goverment
Give them moral support
Encourage Unkil to station troops in TS Pakistan like in SOuth Vietnam.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Nov 2009 22:01

Jarita, You do not understand Indian Islam. Advise self editing your post.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 03 Nov 2009 22:18

ramana wrote:Jarita, You do not understand Indian Islam. Advise self editing your post.

I second this post.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 03 Nov 2009 22:21

Pak Taliban ‘prepared for a long war’

“We are prepared for a long war,” Azam Tariq told an Associated Press reporter by telephone. “The areas we are withdrawing from, and the ones the army is claiming to have won, are being vacated by us as part of a strategy. The strategy is to let the army get in a trap, and then fight a long war.”
Tariq also denied Army claims that hundreds of militants have been killed, saying only 11 have died so far.

Are the talibunnies losing? Is it a good idea to disclose the strategy? Also 11 seems to be a small number...

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 03 Nov 2009 22:22

Rahul Shukla wrote:
Abbas says that to win, the army must be seen as operating independently of the United States: "We told the Americans, stay away. Let us do it." To demonstrate that independence, the Pakistanis asked the United States to halt its highly effective Predator drone attacks over South Waziristan. "Public support is more important," explains one military official.

Predator was showering love on top talibunnies effectivetly disrupting their terror operations across Af-Pak.
This pakistani offensive is killing small fry's who are expendable while the top talibunnies are safe in the knowledge that predator will not pay them a visit.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 03 Nov 2009 22:23

I third it. (about jarita)
Focus on external opportunities and threats, dont create them(internally) or exacerbate.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 03 Nov 2009 22:37

Umrao Das wrote:I third it. (about jarita)
Focus on external opportunities and threats, dont create them(internally) or exacerbate.

Problems already exist internally. I understand why forum may not want to bring that up

On the point of Taliban. How is having people who dont care about the consequences of the problem in any way good for India? You are talking about a set of people who don't care about exploding a couple of nukes on Kufr India because the consequences will send them to a 72 houri heaven. Just because they'll lob this at anyone else does not make this a better option.
The pakistani army is equally anti India but they care about the consequences of lobbing a couple of nukes in our direction because they care about their good life - scotch, kababs etc.

Is an irrational enemy better than a rational enemy?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 03 Nov 2009 22:40

Jarita wrote:On the point of Taliban. How is having people who dont care about the consequences of the problem in any way good for India? You are talking about a set of people who don't care about exploding a couple of nukes on Kufr India because the consequences will send them to a 72 houri heaven. Just because they'll lob this at anyone else does not make this a better option.
The pakistani army is equally anti India but they care about the consequences of lobbing a couple of nukes in our direction because they care about their good life - scotch, kababs etc.

Is an irrational enemy better than a rational enemy?

There is a mad stray dog and a trained attack hound fighting on the street outside your house. The hound has been bred and trained to attack only you. Who will you root for ?

I vote for the oppressed freedom fighter stray dog.

Pashtunistan Paindabad !

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Nov 2009 22:42

Jarita - i don't think that taliban guys wake up in the morning and wonder "how do i crush india?" whereas the PA guys do. PA guys similarly don't wake up every morning and say "How do i create khilafat?" and similarly al qaeda guys don't wake up and say "how do i control afghanistan?" that said, these questions come to all the players as 2nd or 3rd order problems. its all a question of priority and the temporary convergence of interests.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Nov 2009 22:50

Is an irrational enemy better than a rational enemy?

first of all TSPA can't be called rational, it just cares more about its own survival than low end talibans. at best it's pseudo-rational, that is irrational about ends but rational about means.
a more dangerous opponent than talibans who are oftentimes irrational about both.
in such a situation, yes, irrational enemy is better than a pseudo-rational enemy.

for one, they can be expected to take many decisions that harm their own cause and more importantly, it creates a much stronger case for taking care of the problem. the equal-equalitis that ties our hand will thankfully, no longer apply.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 03 Nov 2009 23:13

^^
Second that, at least there will be no "shared culture and values" to stop us from retaliating.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 03 Nov 2009 23:13

Perhaps, it depends upon who is driving the enemy. If unkil and aunty are the driving force behind the factions, we will be back to square one

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 03 Nov 2009 23:14

Lalmohan wrote:Jarita - i don't think that taliban guys wake up in the morning and wonder "how do i crush india?" whereas the PA guys do. PA guys similarly don't wake up every morning and say "How do i create khilafat?" and similarly al qaeda guys don't wake up and say "how do i control afghanistan?" that said, these questions come to all the players as 2nd or 3rd order problems. its all a question of priority and the temporary convergence of interests.

If Taliban is on our border they will be waking up in the morning and wondering "how to crush India". India will be the next frontier

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 03 Nov 2009 23:16

Jarita wrote:
If Taliban is on our border they will be waking up in the morning and wondering "how to crush India". India will be the next frontier

How different is it from PA scenario? One tactically brilliant fauj will be replaced by another.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 03 Nov 2009 23:20

Gagan wrote:
anupmisra wrote:I am surprised that the sPookies did not present three or four captured jehadis with their pants around their ankles as "pojitive piroofs" of evil Yindoo involvement.
Ahem,
Pesh-e-khidmat hai:

The second photo looks like a soon-to-happen-execution.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Nov 2009 23:22

pgbhat wrote:
Jarita wrote:
If Taliban is on our border they will be waking up in the morning and wondering "how to crush India". India will be the next frontier
How different is it from PA scenario? One tactically brilliant fauj will be replaced by another.

that would actually be to our advantage. as an attacking force taliban will obviously be a much inferior force than a modern armed force like TSPA.

archan · Post by **archan** » 03 Nov 2009 23:23

Jarita wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:Jarita - i don't think that taliban guys wake up in the morning and wonder "how do i crush india?" whereas the PA guys do. PA guys similarly don't wake up every morning and say "How do i create khilafat?" and similarly al qaeda guys don't wake up and say "how do i control afghanistan?" that said, these questions come to all the players as 2nd or 3rd order problems. its all a question of priority and the temporary convergence of interests.

If Taliban is on our border they will be waking up in the morning and wondering "how to crush India". India will be the next frontier

so?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Nov 2009 23:23

Prefer the taliban to the Pak army any day.
The pak army has international legitamacy as representatives of the pakistani state. Any attack on them will be an attack on that state, and will be embroiled in international problems of war against two states.
The taliban are irregulars, if they go overt, all will disown them. As non state actors, they are fair game, even better if they've taken over pakistan. The anarchy there will allow military operations with impunity. Most powers in the world can be expected to join in, even the chinese to some extent.

If one thinks that India hasn't been battling these talibans in the past think again. In 47 these pashtoon irregulars were the majority of the fighting force that attacked J&K. The pakistan army came in after these guys were decimated by the Indian Army. Ditto in 65 - Operation Gibraltar, and now in the early days of the Kashmir Insurgency in the 90s and again now, when local kashmiri youth don't take up arms. Pakistan has had to rely on pushing these guys into kashmir to keep the Jihad alive there. Most of these guys get killed when they are trapped in the valley when the passes close in the winters.

archan · Post by **archan** » 03 Nov 2009 23:25

Jarita wrote: Problems already exist internally. I understand why forum may not want to bring that up

It is important to be clear on why you were asked to edit your post. It was the derogatory way that you addressed a group of Indians.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 03 Nov 2009 23:26

Rahul M wrote: that would actually be to our advantage. as an attacking force taliban will obviously be a much inferior force than a modern armed force like TSPA.

Agreed because before attacking kufr they have to get rid of munafiqs among them.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Nov 2009 23:38

pgbhat wrote:Agreed because before attacking kufr they have to get rid of munafiqs among them.

My pet theory is that if these guys are boxed inside pakistan for a while with no successes in their operations against the kufr, they will turn inwards to clean out the munafiqs.
Such is the nature of the beast that victory and blood is what keeps it going. In some ways this is what is happening in pakistan today.
The taliban have been boxed into pakistan, with pakistanis yelling that the center of ops has been shifted from Afghanistan to Pakistan. If the americans continue to push the talib fighters into pakistan, these fighters will find their munafiqs to bring their deen to - in their own special way.
Pakistan will then have no option but to take them out. This is what pakistan is being forced to do, and I guess this is why the US keeps funding it at one end, and boxing in the talibs at the other end. Pakistan knows its time is running out, there is a real threat of all out civil war, and the Pak Fauj will lose credibility in a massive way leading to the end of pakistan as a single state.

Their only option now is:
1. The americans depart afghanistan so that these fighters are given afghanistan to do what ever they want to do with it, and pakistan gets its strategic depth. Pakistan has tried to bide its time here by a few operations carried out for the cameras, while trying to keep the talibs alive.
2. The pakistanis relieve the pressure building up inside by opening another front. Directing these fighters into kashmir, doing another 26/11, directing the suicide bombing against the Iranian revolutionary guards etc. Looks like no one's taking the bait so far.
The longer this continues the worse it is for the cohesion and unity of pakistan.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Nov 2009 23:42

So far the talibunny bums are taking out the police and the ordinary population. The attacks are gradually moving into the punjabi heartland.

What happens if one fine day one of the attacks takes out members of the Pakjabi terror boys - Pakistan's strategic forces for their eastern border hain ji?

Then you will have the two forces, talibs on one hand and the pakjabi terror boys on the other side, both armed to the teeth, baying for each others' blood, with the Martial Pak Fauj browning its pants and singing the quaumi tarana in the middle.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 03 Nov 2009 23:53

Gagan wrote: http://www.app.com.pk/photo/photo_lib/0 ... 6c41f2.jpg

Their helmets provide good protection

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 04 Nov 2009 00:17

Rahul M wrote:
Is an irrational enemy better than a rational enemy?
first of all TSPA can't be called rational, it just cares more about its own survival than low end talibans. at best it's pseudo-rational, that is irrational about ends but rational about means.
a more dangerous opponent than talibans who are oftentimes irrational about both.
in such a situation, yes, irrational enemy is better than a pseudo-rational enemy.

for one, they can be expected to take many decisions that harm their own cause and more importantly, it creates a much stronger case for taking care of the problem. the equal-equalitis that ties our hand will thankfully, no longer apply.

I have to ask is the Taliban irrational about its means?

Utterly repugnant, yes, but irrational?

Its fine to consider chosing to lose what you have as irrational, but what if you don't have much to lose?

The Taliban leadership's lifetime has been defined by war, exile, tribal identities, limited literacy, and religious orthodoxy.

I would say they have a better idea of what they are doing than the Pakistan Army, which is thrashing about and mostly damaging itself. The Taliban on the other hand is still growing.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 04 Nov 2009 00:41

Pakistan captures two Taliban strongholds in South Waziristan

The military is clearly taking and holding ground in South Waziristan, but the Taliban clearly is not putting up a serious fight against the Army as they have done in the past.

At the outset of the South Waziristan operation, US intelligence officials told The Long War Journal that all indications were that the main body of the Taliban force and its commanders have left the region while a rearguard force was left behind to harass the Army.

"The Taliban appear to want to deny the military a decisive victory so they have pulled up some units and key leaders," a US intelligence official said on Oct. 17. "A substantial rearguard unit will be left to bleed the Army."