Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby JE Menon » 06 Feb 2010 17:57

>>>What happened to the TV? Or the bulb? No news of that yet?

Doc this was probably in the "not a suicide bomb by nature" category, just by inclination...

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8281
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby anupmisra » 06 Feb 2010 18:02

JE Menon wrote:Doc this was probably in the "not a suicide bomb by nature" category, just by inclination...


In paki parlance, its called "man bites dog" or "people walk into explosive bomb".

shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby shravan » 06 Feb 2010 18:30

Shiv ji,

It must be TV.

DIG Operations said that the bomb was planted on a motorcycle and weighed 8-10kg.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby A_Gupta » 06 Feb 2010 18:35

The Monkey Trap has its counterpart, though we haven't identified it as such - perhaps because we have no fable that quite matches the situation. While this is big talk
The Pakistani demand has been succinctly laid out by Munir Akram, one of its top diplomats: "Pakistan's cooperation should be offered only in exchange for tangible and immediate US support for Pakistan's national objectives: an end to Indian-Afghan interference in Baluchistan and FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas); a Kashmir solution; a military balance between Pakistan and India; parity with India on nuclear issues; transfer of equipment and technology for counter-terrorism ; unconditional defense and economic assistance; free trade access.''
and isn't going to happen, it illustrates the problem (quote from the TOI article linked earlier).

Basically, in terms of our Monkey Trap fable, the monkey is claiming its hand in the jar has a finger on a bomb trigger.

jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby jaladipc » 06 Feb 2010 18:55

I am seriously concerned about MMS keeping most of his eggs in yankee basket. OTOH our natural and time tested ally Russia took a serious and commendable stance for itself and its allies
"Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against it and its allies, as well as an aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons jeopardising the very existence of the state," a military doctrine signed by President Dmitry Medvedev said.

[url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Russia-unveils-new-nuclear-doctrine/articleshow/5542192.cms]Link from TOIlet paper
[/url]
Even after so many faiscos including the gorshy and other spare parts deals,which are after all monetary.But the nuclear umbrella it is providing in the name of SSNs and nuclear reactors tech and even attacking the agressor if its ally was under attack,Russia fares zillion times better than the opportunist yankee.

I wonder how many times does the congress needs a current shock to come out of american trauma.They are proving that history always repeats.

IMHO,Porkis are playing the real game for their cause using the yankee.A small dig at the relation between yankee and porki from the past is an eye opener.This time under the Afghan umbrella.

Chandragupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3469
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 15:26
Location: Kingdom of My Fair Lady

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Chandragupta » 06 Feb 2010 18:59

Talks are alright. We could talk to them on all issues including Kashmir, while at the same time going full throttle on covert ops inside the land of Pure & making sure those fissures in their states grew larger & larger. Taking out Dawood, Sayeed & company, creating such pandemonium in Paastan that each power center feared & distrusted the other, creating such fear to these stone age barbarians that their women, children & even goats were afraid to step outside the home lest they were blown to pieces by their own beoble, all this while India held on to its magnanimous tag for talking on Kashmir.

But I don't think any of this forms Munmohan ji's agenda, who appears more interested in having chai pakoda in La'whore with his pre-47 neighbours. To quote a dialogue from Rang de Basanti : "Yeh India hai India, yaha kuch change nai ho sakta..Yahan aisa hi hota aaya tha aur aisa hi hota rahega.."

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby A_Gupta » 06 Feb 2010 19:08

Regarding free trade access demanded by Munir Akram:
With Market Access TTRI (including preferences) rank near the worst at 117th (out of 125), Pakistan’s exports faces much greater barriers than other South Asian economies.


This from a World Bank Brief from 2008, the lastest numbers are available here:
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/wti/1a.asp

The figure you want is the External Environment MA-TTRI, which means "Market Access -Trade Tariff Restrictiveness Index (applied tariff incl. prefs.) - All Goods - This index reflects the equivalent uniform tariff of trading partners facing the exporter country, that would maintain the imports of the trading partners constant, including preferential tariffs. "

I suppose it is the nature of Pakistan's exports (e.g., textiles) that cause it to face higher barriers - I suppose India is simply exporting more kinds of stuff (e.g., machinery).

PS: from the above page, there are links to look at specific numbers and to compare. It is instructive how much being Terrorist Central is hurting Pakistan.

On imports, Pakistan is slightly more restrictive than India (Pakistan's 12.2 compared to India's 12).
On exports, Pakistan faces much higher barriers than India (Pakistan's 7.26 compared to India's 3.47).
On logistics, Pakistan is behind (2.53 to India's 3.12)
On ease of doing business, Pakistan is way ahead (ranked 85th to India's 133)

Yet Pakistan is doing poorly on trade and investment.
Last edited by A_Gupta on 06 Feb 2010 19:19, edited 1 time in total.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby arun » 06 Feb 2010 19:18

shaardula wrote:Steve Coll, Walk the Talk Indian Express

‘India’s security problems are graver than America’s in relation to jehadi terrorism’ {Snipped}.....................


More from Steve Coll. This time an interview from TOI:

Responds to some interesting questions and comments, among them:

There are many, particularly in Pakistan, who believe that if you resolve Kashmir you take out the real cause of terrorism in South Asia. Do you agree?


Won't the Pakistani military establishment keep Kashmir alive?


Having attended a few hearings in Capitol Hill, I get the sense that the US Congress is getting fed up with giving aid to Pakistan.


Besides the above, some other questions dealing more directly with India:

Do you agree with the belief that Indian Muslims are not radicalised at all?


Why do you think there have been no attacks in India since 26/11?


Read it all:

Everybody in Pak knows India's prosperity is the next big story: Steve Coll

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby A_Gupta » 06 Feb 2010 19:23

We love to hate Indian diplomacy. But from the World Bank Brief on India:
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/wti200 ... taag86.pdf

Ranked 59th out of 125 countries on the latest Market Access TTRI (including preferences), Indian exports face more favorable access to foreign markets than its comparators.’ More than a third (35 percent) of its exports were MFN duty free, significantly higher than the regional mean (26.4 percent). However, its agricultural exports face significant tariff barriers; the 2006 rest‐of‐the‐world applied tariff (weighted) average for agriculture products (10.3 percent) was more than twice that for nonagriculture exports (4.3 percent). A Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) beneficiary with a number of industrialized countries, India’s utilization rate of EU and U.S. preferences is relatively high at 80.2 percent, though their value is just 1.3 percent of bilateral exports. India has several agreements in force with the EU, including an Agreement on Sugar Cane, the Co‐operation Agreement, the Science and Technology Agreement and the Customs Co‐operation Agreement. Regionally, India is a member of the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT), the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA), the Bangladesh‐India‐Myanmar‐Sri Lanka‐ Thailand Economic Cooperation (BIMST‐EC), the Tripartite Agreement, and the Bangkok Agreement, and is a signatory to a free trade agreement (FTA) with Sri Lanka and a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with Singapore. India is pursuing FTA negotiations with Thailand, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to broaden its trade relations within Asia. Tense political relations with Pakistan, however, limit bilateral trade between these two neighbors and are also a hindrance for developing overland trade routes between India and Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia.


The situation favoring India relative to Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc., certainly has something to do with India's trade agreements.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13108
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby negi » 06 Feb 2010 19:28

Chandragupta
while at the same time going full throttle on covert ops inside the land of Pure & making sure those fissures in their states grew larger & larger
man which world are you in brother ? Do you think that declaration in S.e.S leaves any scope for the above ? And moreover you think a country which after being attacked umpteen times only replies in dossiers has the political will and the means to pull off covert ops in TSP at an intensity and level to force latter into submission ?

Let us first get the basic fundamentals of this relationship right , a line has to be drawn and action taken when crossed by adversaries to show we mean business only when the fear of retribution is instilled in the enemies of the state and International community such dialogues/peace talks will have any value. Tashkent and Shimla accord are different from other chai biskoot sessions which India has had with TSP because these took place at a time and place of our liking and on our terms and more importantly in the backdrop of sound TSPA thrashing, what is absurd is we still command a similar advantage and clout in the region and yet somehow tend to punch too low for our weight .

For time being even if we assume MMS means no harm and he has a noble agenda he needs to actually let the country at a high level know as to what is it exactly he is gonna discuss there (at least TSP has let even Martians know that they wish to discuss everything from Kashmir to Water ,trade and problems of aaam abdul with India ) so that end of the day when some honcho drafts a toilet paper as a joint statement we are not kept guessing as to if it is a drafting error or a chanakian ploy . :roll:

jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby jaladipc » 06 Feb 2010 19:38

A question to strat-i-gists of BR :P
What are the implications for porki and its sponsor chiny if India changes its NFU policy and challenges its neighbours along the Russian lines?

Will it give ample opportunity for the bad bloods to ignite more tensions? or will porki feel the heat and tighten their border security?
I can see them scrambling their resources when our COAS mentioned a two front tackling scenario.

shaunb
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 22 Oct 2009 01:42

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby shaunb » 06 Feb 2010 19:38

Are we focusing too much on the short term??

Given the fact that all institutions; the forces and home ministry, are raising alarm about infiltration in huge numbers, and the gut feeling that the next attack is something big, we need to see what the next big event in India is going to be.

I have a feeling that the Commonwealth games would be a big target.

And maybe this dialogue is to ensure that TSP control its so called "non-state uncontrollable actors".

shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby shravan » 06 Feb 2010 19:54

Man who 'kills humans like chickens' to replace Hakeemullah as Pak Taliban chief ?


New York, Feb.6 (ANI): Even as the US and Pakistani governments are uncertain over death of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Hakeemullah Mehsud, reports indicate that the banned extremist organisation has appointed its new commander.

According to The New York Times, Maulvi Noor Jamal, a native of the restive Orakzai region, has assumed charge as an acting leader of the TTP.

It is worth mentioning here that Orakzai is one of the most strategically situated parts of the ungoverned tribal areas because of its proximity to more settled and peaceful parts of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and its capital, Peshawar.

Jamal was recently seen officiating the flogging of a teenage boy and two men in a video, aired by a private television channel.

According to the newspaper, Jamal, is in his late 30s and was a teacher and prayer leader at a local religious school before he was made a Taliban commander in Kurram by Hakeemullah, who is supposed to have died in a US drone attack in North Waziristan last month.

Jamal was given the additional responsibilities for the adjoining area of Orakzai when the Pakistani military began an offensive against the Taliban in its stronghold South Waziristan in October.

He is also considered as brutal, and ferocious a warrior like his predecessors Hekeemullah and Baitullah Mehsud.

"He kills humans like one will kill chickens," said one resident, on conditions of anonymity, who ran away from Kurram last year because he was wanted by Jamal. (ANI)

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23836
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby SSridhar » 06 Feb 2010 20:01

abhishek_sharma wrote:From the ToI

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Is-Indias-neighbourhood-set-to-get-even-more-dangerous/articleshow/5541012.cms

The Pakistani demand has been succinctly laid out by Munir Akram, one of its top diplomats: "Pakistan's cooperation should be offered only in exchange for tangible and immediate US support for Pakistan's national objectives: an end to Indian-Afghan interference in Baluchistan and FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas); a Kashmir solution; a military balance between Pakistan and India; parity with India on nuclear issues; transfer of equipment and technology for counter-terrorism ; unconditional defense and economic assistance; free trade access.''


I had missed this before, but this is what I wrote elsewhere:
The two therefore agreed that the only way Pakistan could contribute to the US efforts would be if the Americans recognized that India was Pakistan’s only existential threat, that Pakistan be therefore allowed to re-establish its strategic depth in Afghanistan, that India’s influence in Afghanistan be rolled back and curtailed, that the US increase its arms and economic aid to Pakistan over and above what is publicly committed, that the US uses its influence with India to settle the pending issues, and that the Indians considerably reduce their deployment in J&K. It may be also that the Pakistanis have demanded that they be treated pari passu with India in civilian nuclear technology, something that has been riling the Pakistani mind ever since the Indo-US Nuclear Deal was signed last year. That may be a gift in waiting to Pakistan when the whole Afghanistan effort came to a successful and satisfactory conclusion.


The Pakistanis, for their part, know only too well that this time around, the talks will not stop even if there is another terrorist attack on India because the Indian Prime Minister had already conceded to de-link the talks from acts of terrorism at Sharm-el-Sheikh. He also agreed to the Pakistani demand that India will look into any incidents brought to its notice about mischief by India in Balochistan and else where. Pakistan never brought to India any evidences it may have on Indian involvement in Balochistan. It has been saying that it will present them at an appropriate time. The appropriate time will be when the next terrorist attack happens on India and an angry India demands action or else threatens Pakistan with punitive action. Pakistan will then present its fabricated evidence to the world at large and the exasperated world community will admonish both India and Pakistan for childish and immature behaviour inconsistent with those possessing nuclear weapons. This will put India on an equal footing with Pakistan as far as terrorism went and the Indian balloon will be pricked and deflated.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8002
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Gerard » 06 Feb 2010 20:07

The Pakistanis, for their part, know only too well that this time around, the talks will not stop even if there is another terrorist attack on India because the Indian Prime Minister had already conceded to de-link the talks from acts of terrorism at Sharm-el-Sheikh.


Political pressure after an attack will override any SeS concession.

This will put India on an equal footing with Pakistan as far as terrorism went


This may have worked in the past but with US/Nato troops being killed by TSP proxies, such equal-equal has passed its expiry date.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby A_Gupta » 06 Feb 2010 20:19

The Pakistani demand has been succinctly laid out by Munir Akram, one of its top diplomats: "Pakistan's cooperation should be offered only in exchange for tangible and immediate US support for Pakistan's national objectives: an end to Indian-Afghan interference in Baluchistan and FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas); a Kashmir solution; a military balance between Pakistan and India; parity with India on nuclear issues; transfer of equipment and technology for counter-terrorism ; unconditional defense and economic assistance; free trade access.''


The only one I can see that the US can help with on this is free trade access. Even there, as noted above, though Pakistan has some favorable indicators, investment and trade are not going to flow in unless it ceases to be Terrorism Central.

Pakistan is not Israel that it can command the unconditional transfer from the US taxpayer to its treasury. If Pakistan had a dynamic economy, perhaps a military balance could be maintained; but as of now it would take an enormous regular infusion of money and the starving of India of defense technology to provide a balance. Military balance could also be provided by a suitable alliance, but if China doesn't take Pakistan under its umbrella, the US is even less likely to. Likewise, parity on India on nuclear issues can only be achieved by strangling India - there will be little political support in the US for providing more to Pakistan, especially with its record of proliferation.

There is absolutely no incentive for anyone to meet any of Munir Akram's demands in reality - certainly a lot of lip-service will be paid.

"The dog barked when it saw the wedding procession and grandly thought it was responsible for the movement of the people." Too many people attribute too much power to the barking Pakistanis.

Or to put it another way - RDF (Reality Distortion Field) (a term used w.r.t. Apple's Steve Jobs) definitely surrounds these Pakistani spokepeople. Do not get drawn into it.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby shiv » 06 Feb 2010 20:33

A sudden aha moment after reading Sridhar's post..

Just wondering if there is any explanation for GoI behavior.

Look at it like this. If there are no talks or relations what will happen if there is another terrorist attack? It has to be war or something beyond "breaking of relations"

What is being done now is to set up a situation in which talks can be broken off yet again in case of an attack. In other words there is a deliberate perpetuation of the very situation that has been recognised and pointed out on BRF i.e. "talks-more terror-break off talks...talks-more terror-break off talks...talks-more terror-break off talks..." ad nausaem.

What we are demanding in general is "talks-terror-break off talks-stay broken off-terror again-hit Pakistan"

The latter course seems to be undesirable for the GoI (and maybe unkil?) They rationale may be as follows: "If there are no talks - the GoI's only response to terror can be war - ergo that is good for the terrorists. Therefore talking is essential.

Our obvious frustration with this policy is that we are expecting yet another terror attack and talks mean that there is already a decision that there will be no punishment for Pakistan. We will only "break off talks" temporarily as "punishment". Pakistan wins because every terror attack only earns the "punishment" of "no talks".

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13108
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby negi » 06 Feb 2010 20:35

This trade part is even a bigger farce so now that Unkil's economy is in shambles and it is finding it hard to feed the pup they want growing Indian economy to serve as a crutch for the TSP ,there are at least a hundred other countries which can supply and sell what TSP has to offer in trade but for TSP there is no other India which will give it a MFN status and make way for DI in economy under the garb of 'Ama ki Asha' , all this talk of peace notwithstanding FI in TSP has dwindled I am completely baffled as to why do we need to even carry trade with such unworthies.

As I see it unless the terrorist hubs are destroyed , increased trade and transit of men and material will only increase our security headache and provide an excellent media for the terrorists to exploit and strike . We should have stopped all trade with TSP after 26/11 in the first place and here we are talking about free trade .

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23836
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby SSridhar » 06 Feb 2010 20:50

Gerard wrote:Political pressure after an attack will override any SeS concession.


Gerard, there are two conditions that need to be considered. One is the severity of the attacks. Of course, a Mumbai-style attack will cause a major problem once again. But, attacks of lesser magnitude may not evoke the same sharp reaction. 26/11 set a high water mark, I think. For that matter, the terrorist-related fights going on in J&K almost everyday, with terrorists talking to their handlers in Pakistan for instructions etc., nowadays are being dismissed as regular occurrences even after 26/11. We shouldn't even tolerate these after 26/11 but there is hardly a ripple. This is the first point. The second condition is that even if there is a major attack, the dialogue may be stopped for a short while, unlike now, and resumed subsequently. The reasoning would be that 26/11 taught us a lesson that 'no talks' give only diminishing returns and we should not give any room to the terrorists who want the talks to be disrupted.

This will put India on an equal footing with Pakistan as far as terrorism went


This may have worked in the past but with US/Nato troops being killed by TSP proxies, such equal-equal has passed its expiry date.

True, but the US still feels that Pakistan has a 'genuine security concern' with India. The American military feels that Indian presence in Afghanistan complicated matters. So far, Holbrooke has been saying that there is no evidence of India playing any mischievous role in Balochistan from Afghanistan even though Christine Fair at one point of time had a different view. But, a time may come when Pakistan's strategic location and its military support may outweigh India's economic assistance to Afghanistan. The US may be forced to take even if only a tactical position that equated the two.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13108
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby negi » 06 Feb 2010 20:51

shaunb wrote:I have a feeling that the Commonwealth games would be a big target.

And maybe this dialogue is to ensure that TSP control its so called "non-state uncontrollable actors".

Chankian maharaaj , did you not hear Gilli the Groper say that TSP government is facing 'sau sau' 26/11 in single year and hence cannot guarantee that another 26/11 type attack wont take place hence GOP cannot be held responsible for any terror attacks in India. QED.

Moreover Gillu in a way right for all this is under the control of TSPA/ISI and if worthies think that these people can be talked into mending their ways for good without making huge concessions then they are a bunch of 'retards' to say the least . And for time being lets concede that ISI/TSPA are party to these talks and agree on controlling the terror hubs operational in POK the next question is what is the message that goes out to the ISI and public in India ? i.e. it is ok to kill innocents in India and then force the GOI to make concessions on the negotiating table .

Pakistan's sincerity and position has always been crystal clear look even in this case within moments of MMS's chanakian moment sources from GOP have clarified Kashmir and Water are the two critical issues which they want to discuss this shows that they are not only unfazed by GOI's hollow threats about 26/11 but have not budged from their unjust demands .

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby shiv » 06 Feb 2010 20:56

shiv wrote:What is being done now is to set up a situation in which talks can be broken off yet again in case of an attack. In other words there is a deliberate perpetuation of the very situation that has been recognised and pointed out on BRF i.e. "talks-more terror-break off talks...talks-more terror-break off talks...talks-more terror-break off talks..." ad nausaem.

What we are demanding in general is "talks-terror-break off talks-stay broken off-terror again-hit Pakistan"



Quoting myself - further thoughts.

The former (what the GoI is doing) is to formally set up the game of tit for tat where one party forgoes tit for tat in the hope that the other party too will respond by foregoing tit for tat.

The latter game, that we demand is a game of tit for tat with escalation. That means that there will be an inevitable cycle of escalation unless one party or the other forgoes tit for tat and does not hit back.

There are some very interesting outcomes from these games but I will reserve them for later - because supreme HQ may murder me for not showing up where I need to be now.

krithivas
BRFite
Posts: 432
Joined: 20 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Offline

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby krithivas » 06 Feb 2010 21:23

This is an excellent observation. I don't think Indian press is there yet barring some exceptions. Some of the best technical proposals I've had some visibility to were "best" not just because of the presenter or content, but the sheer quality of questions asked by the audience.

It is not clear to me if the culture of asking tough question (Katie Couric to Gov. Palin that shut the gate for McCain) exists in India, and above all an institutional/constitutional setup which mandates politicians to open up for such a healthy scrutiny.

I have not seen an Indian PM in India "standing behind a podium" and answering questions, while all reporters are seated? I think feudalism to a lesser degree is still alive in India.


CRamS wrote:Just a week or so ago, Nirupama Rao was decaling that TSP is just that a terrorist state, and no talks. A vigilant media will ask tough questions as to what changed in week to go from the position to readiness to talk about all issues. Can you how the US media, which Indian media models itself after, will go bersk if a US administration exhibits such whimsical behavior?

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Dipanker » 06 Feb 2010 21:32

"Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against it and its allies, as well as an aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons jeopardising the very existence of the state," a military doctrine signed by President Dmitry Medvedev said.


This is a preemptive warning to Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Russia knows that if Pakistan is successful in getting the Taliban back in power in Afghanistan then it's only a matter of time when it would revive its pre 9/11 pan-islamist agenda of bringing the neighboring CAR states into Pakistani's sphere of influence. The bigger goal is establishment of Greater Khilafa of Pakistan with CAR states as members. Taliban/Alqaeda are tools and Afghanistan the base for launching operations into CAR's.

In the worst case scenario Russia can also lose Chechniya, Ingustia, Dagestan etc. thus the preemptive warning.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby harbans » 06 Feb 2010 21:36

I have not seen an Indian PM in India "standing behind a podium" and answering questions, while all reporters are seated? I think feudalism to a lesser degree is still alive in India.

Indeed and i have mentioned this before. Check out how dismissive and arrogant some of these Ministers behave with the press waallas. There are not too many press conferences like in the US in India, and it's sort of in and out of meetings that hordes of reporters have to thrust a mike to get a few sound bytes from these arrogants. Meanwhile invite them to literary no meaning fests with RAPEs and you'll discover all love and bhaichara comes in. That hypocracy in our system needs some exposing and shaming before we have people who respect our need for relevent sound bytes.

Shiv ji that 'aha' moment was explained here a few pages back. Gagan elucidated it quite well IIRC. You possibly missed it.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby harbans » 06 Feb 2010 21:38

Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against it and its allies


Who are Russia's allies?

shaunb
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 22 Oct 2009 01:42

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby shaunb » 06 Feb 2010 21:48

negi wrote:
shaunb wrote:I have a feeling that the Commonwealth games would be a big target.

And maybe this dialogue is to ensure that TSP control its so called "non-state uncontrollable actors".

Chankian maharaaj , did you not hear Gilli the Groper say that TSP government is facing 'sau sau' 26/11 in single year and hence cannot guarantee that another 26/11 type attack wont take place hence GOP cannot be held responsible for any terror attacks in India. QED.

Moreover Gillu in a way right for all this is under the control of TSPA/ISI and if worthies think that these people can be talked into mending their ways for good without making huge concessions then they are a bunch of 'retards' to say the least . And for time being lets concede that ISI/TSPA are party to these talks and agree on controlling the terror hubs operational in POK the next question is what is the message that goes out to the ISI and public in India ? i.e. it is ok to kill innocents in India and then force the GOI to make concessions on the negotiating table .

Pakistan's sincerity and position has always been crystal clear look even in this case within moments of MMS's chanakian moment sources from GOP have clarified Kashmir and Water are the two critical issues which they want to discuss this shows that they are not only unfazed by GOI's hollow threats about 26/11 but have not budged from their unjust demands .


Maybe TSP is trying to make Kashmir the Tibet of Commonwealth!!

Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4069
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Lilo » 06 Feb 2010 21:51

Why do you think there have been no attacks in India since 26/11- Steve Coll
Ans) In the US after 9/11, we had the same question: Why are we terror-free ? First, there are always multiple explanations. Second there's a kind of cyclical pattern. These groups don't have the capacity outside of Pakistan and Afghanistan to carry off a succession of sophisticated attacks. It's too hard for them to get one attack off and then immediately do another. They do have a capacity problem.

In the case of India I would assume that at least two factors are at play. One, the Indian security services and the government have clearly taken the imperative of domestic surveillance and counter-terrorism more seriously after Mumbai than ever before. And maybe for the first time it's become a political issue. There have been lapses in the past and the politicians didn't pay a price. This time it was obvious (laughs) that you would pay a price. That gets people motivated. The system has responded to that. (now who can believe that ?)

I also think that it's probable that the Pakistani security services concluded, however reluctantly, that they did not want to permit follow-on attacks of that sophistication and scale. It was too much for them to handle at this time. I don't believe they have given up on their idea of jihadi violence in India but in their very complicated calculation of costs and benefits in their relationship with the US and the toys they are trying to pull down out of that, to be caught either facilitating or being negligent about another Mumbai cell coming up in their territory, they would have to pay such a high price that it may have caused them to tell their people to chill for a while. It's a guess but it's hard to explain this pattern of quiet without reference to the Pakistani security services. Obviously infiltration in Kashmir is continuing, and so the Pakistani state may have said to their clients, "Let's go back to fighting on the ground."


Some nice insights by Steve Coll in other parts of Q&A.

Just shows that relieving pressure on PA's western flank will have disastrous consequences for india.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10024
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby sum » 06 Feb 2010 22:01

There is a peace constituency in Pakistan and talking to them will both strengthen that constituency and inevitably split them from the more rabid populace.

Whatever be the constituency, the only thing very Paki agrees on is that India doesn't deserve to rise in world status and everything is game in helping avoid India reach the high table. All this split-wit business happens only in foggy bottom and WKKs in India.

man which world are you in brother ? Do you think that declaration in S.e.S leaves any scope for the above ? And moreover you think a country which after being attacked umpteen times only replies in dossiers has the political will and the means to pull off covert ops in TSP at an intensity and level to force latter into submission ?

Since i was too young and innocent of world affairs when IKG was PM, i can imagine the frustration of people in IKG's time when a WKK becomes PM and overrides all common sense for personal glory.
I am actually seeing history being made live wherein 20-30 years later, people will be talking about how the UPA part-II was a dark age in Indian strategic affairs!!!! Amazing...

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby A_Gupta » 06 Feb 2010 23:30

shiv wrote:A sudden aha moment after reading Sridhar's post..

Just wondering if there is any explanation for GoI behavior.

Look at it like this. If there are no talks or relations what will happen if there is another terrorist attack? It has to be war or something beyond "breaking of relations"

What is being done now is to set up a situation in which talks can be broken off yet again in case of an attack. In other words there is a deliberate perpetuation of the very situation that has been recognised and pointed out on BRF i.e. "talks-more terror-break off talks...talks-more terror-break off talks...talks-more terror-break off talks..." ad nausaem.


Back on page 19, I wrote:
Question - if there is vague intelligence of an impending pigLet strike and GOI thinks its chances of stopping it are at best 50-50, then does it work for GOI to start talks? If pigLet strike occurs then GOI is then seen as fully justified in ending the talks; and also GOI can cite to Indians that it stopped the talks in retaliation for the strike and having this readymade action in hand, GOI can continue not to do anything more than that. Plausible?

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6760
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby CRamS » 06 Feb 2010 23:43

Kirthi/Harbans et .al,

I know I am guilty of making this comparison with US media, but lets not push that too far. As for US media asking tough questions, sure they do, but only within certain parameters that the corporate, pentagon, and church bosses set. Kati Curic may ask "tough" questions to Palin (I don't if they were tough or Palin was weak), because thats within the ambit of dems Vs reps; equal equal onlee. Kati is balanced by Fox's demi goddess treatment of Palin. So, lets not get too carried. On matters of supreme national interest, US media is a carbon copie of Xinhua and Pravda. In broad daylight, Bush & Co pulled off the Iraq WMD fraud and went on an oil loot binge in Iraq. You think Kati baby would keep her job if she dared ask any of the Washington gangsters tough questions as they were steam rolling into Iraq? Would Katie darling dare question why $4 billions plus in aid to Israel? Closer to home, does Katie sweetie ask why all the moolah and arms to TSP?

The key & significant difference between Indian media and US media, and this is reflected in the respective power of the respective countris and the outlook of their citizens, is that in US, white nationalism runs in the blood of every man, womamn, and child. So dems or reps, there is this clear "us Vs them" thread. The media is just the 5th real estate of govt without actual formal govt control. So on matters of "us Vs them", they all agree. And it becomes easy within this sandbox for Katie chickie to put on her lip stick, short tight skirt and act maacho with an Arab or Iran diplomat and win a Pulitzer.
Last edited by CRamS on 07 Feb 2010 00:10, edited 1 time in total.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby harbans » 06 Feb 2010 23:47

^ Yes indeed, i remember it being discussed here. However it's not that 'cutting talks' is the only thing the GOI can do in response to a repeat 26-11. We give Paki's MFN status and stuff. We can block and board a few tankers enroute Pukistan and carry out a humiliating search. Things can be done to humiliate and punish Pukistan without resorting to War, if that's unpalatable. I'm sure folks here can dig up a lot of things to make Pukes uncomfortable apart from 'cutting off talks' to placate Indian public opinion. Closing airspace, recalling the High commissioner, raising Baluchistani rights every fora, lot's of stuff really can be done.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby A_Gupta » 07 Feb 2010 00:00

harbans wrote:^ Yes indeed, i remember it being discussed here. However it's not that 'cutting talks' is the only thing the GOI can do in response to a repeat 26-11. We give Paki's MFN status and stuff. We can block and board a few tankers enroute Pukistan and carry out a humiliating search. Things can be done to humiliate and punish Pukistan without resorting to War, if that's unpalatable. I'm sure folks here can dig up a lot of things to make Pukes uncomfortable apart from 'cutting off talks' to placate Indian public opinion. Closing airspace, recalling the High commissioner, raising Baluchistani rights every fora, lot's of stuff really can be done.


Don't take Paki cricketers in I.P.L :D

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6760
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby CRamS » 07 Feb 2010 00:17

A_Gupta wrote:
harbans wrote:^ Yes indeed, i remember it being discussed here. However it's not that 'cutting talks' is the only thing the GOI can do in response to a repeat 26-11. We give Paki's MFN status and stuff. We can block and board a few tankers enroute Pukistan and carry out a humiliating search. Things can be done to humiliate and punish Pukistan without resorting to War, if that's unpalatable. I'm sure folks here can dig up a lot of things to make Pukes uncomfortable apart from 'cutting off talks' to placate Indian public opinion. Closing airspace, recalling the High commissioner, raising Baluchistani rights every fora, lot's of stuff really can be done.


Don't take Paki cricketers in I.P.L :D


I agree. Of course TSP will retaliate with its LeT cadres and Bakara will find fault with India to impress her gora and ISI bosses, but as a nation, India should be able to deal with that.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby harbans » 07 Feb 2010 00:36

Don't take Paki cricketers in I.P.L :D

Yes good point. Lots of things where RAPE H&D is really pricked. I think this is the place where Pakistan is understood deeply in terms of it's psychological profile. Can make a list of things that can hurt their sense of well being.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby rohitvats » 07 Feb 2010 01:13

Here is my naya paisa on this sudden ( at least to us) turnaround on the talks front:

--It is quite obvious that Uncle has a hand in this. With Uncle sitting across the border, the nudging will be a constant one.

--But one thing strikes pretty strange to me. It is the agressive behaviour by the Pakistani officials.The points they have raised for inclusion in the talks (the K-word/Indus Water Treaty) and the way they have behaved is pretty strange, even by Pakistan's standards.Geelani's statement about world pressure and India being forced to table are pretty provocative as far as foreign policy lingo goes. And our friend, Mr. 10% is completey missing from the scene.

--In addition, the holding of rally by Hafeez Saeed so openly and at this juncture and with the inflamatory remarks (K-word) is stranger still. This could not have been possible without the clearance from the topmost level in TSPA. And again, it was obvious that his remarks will be picked up by Indian media and played to the gallery. Now, here is a man who people very clearly identify with 26/11 and he goes ahead and shows his fang so brazenly?

--Add to it the TOI article about the developments in London on Afgan round table and outrageous demands of TSP.

--The way they are behaving and spreading bad blood even before the first ball is set rolling, it seems they want the talks to stall and fail. They have already outlined the maximalist postion none of which is ever going to be met.

--Is it possible that by getting TSP and India to talk, Uncle wanted to blunt the official line in TSP about threat from east and get it going on the Taliban? And India has been roped in to call the TSP bluff.

--Another thing:Is the recent statement by Gates on "India may not maintain calm in case of another 26/11" an assurance to the GOI that in case of another 26/11 type attack, GOI can take off the gloves? And a warning at the same time to elements in TSPA to not get adventurous and try another stunt to "derail the talks"?

Thoughts are welcome.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Satya_anveshi » 07 Feb 2010 01:22

We could have avoided talks further if we had managed the intensity of victimhood perception for more time but once it started getting diluted and related mismanagement, then we better review our approach and methodology.

So far two major facts on the ground are:

1. Somehow terror attacks against Indian interests (in India) have stopped implying that the state as well as non-state actors have a control mechanism and that mechanism is in the loop. This fact cannot be ignored.

2. There is a de-facto civil war in pakistan that has been sustained from within Pakistan; So, regardless of our talking to Pakistan, the turmoil there is self sustainable and cannot be influenced within these series of talks.

Given these two, the possible outcome of the talks are

a) to regain the leverage with pakistan and manage worldwide perception thereof.
b) recognize (and reward) the good behavior of pakistan (and the control that is mentioned in 1)
c) review and correct our stance of "no-talks" (blunder) we may have done
d) gain understanding from Pakistan on our role in Afghanistan; instead of wholesale handover to non-friendly interests.

I find it inconceivable that after all that happened during the last few years and knowing the state of Pakistan, we lose ground on something.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby harbans » 07 Feb 2010 02:58

X posting a strain of thought from the Nuclear thread..

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Special Envoy Shyam Saran told Global Zero Summit on nuclear disarmament in Paris Wednesday.

The conference held discussions on eliminating all nuclear weapons by 2030.

"We are prepared to negotiate a verifiable FMCT in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. We are not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and cannot respond to calls for universal adherence to that treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state," he said.


There's one thing that sprung to my mind reading this and wrt Obama's pending trip to India. All this Aman ki Asha and talks despite the signals being so negative even from among ruling elite, is the Obama Adminstration wanting to bring India into the NPT as a NWS?

Biden for example has been pretty pro India by past records. India might be making a show it's responsible and wants good relations etc..blah blah. All the right PC noises emanating from our side as far as opinion building in the West is concerned. MMS might be aiming for this as his feather in the cap..rather than the nobel as folks are trying to figure out. Maybe this fits in with his anger over the IPL snub too.

Also fits in with Paki's suspect this coming up too for India and hence the desperate maximalist position the revisionist state is attempting to take.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Rangudu » 07 Feb 2010 03:10

Can anyone read this report from PTI and still say there is anything "Chanakyan" about this latest chakka dance?

On the issue of terrorism, the sources said India has been conveying concerns over it through various channels but it would be better to directly put across India's point of view to Pakistan through the forum of bilateral dialogue. :roll:

...

We see people connected with terrorism are freely roaming in Pakistan. Those are our concerns and we are going to the talks with all our concerns. :rotfl: We are not leaving them outside the door and then going....," the sources said


The "sources" above is almost surely MMS' hand picked National Insecurity Advisor...

Fate has an interesting sense of humor. The same soil that gave us Maharaja Ranjit Singh gives us this...

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21144
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby Prem » 07 Feb 2010 03:30

Rangudu,
Its the soil of Punjab but the water of Dili which has makes Babu of Man Singh.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Postby harbans » 07 Feb 2010 03:36

Whats this fad about 'Chanakya neeti'? That's mostly connoting 'craftiness' in Foregn policy. India must be straight forward and blunt in putting it's point forward. Chanakya's neeti won't stand in today's world.

Though as i said earlier, my guess is all this is a side show to get India admitted into the NPT as a NWS. Thats what MMS is aiming for. Pukes everyone knows are down in the dumpos. Not even Allah can help them going down the sewer. MMS and team sure know that.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests