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

[ramana]

Talk, defeat terrorists : Pak

[vera_k]

Indian government fears serial attacks

[ramana]

Indian government fears serial attacks

If it fears, what is it doing about it? Maybe time to let some one else do the needful instead of stoking fears with such language?

[vera_k]

The least cost common sense solution to this is to break off talks with Pakistan so the terrorists have no reason to attack India. Another possibility is to have a multiparty group of MPs come out and say they do not support continuing with talks and will not abide by any decisions reached.

In any case, this attack again proves that the Pakistan government does not have any control over their non-state actors. So they have no locus-standi in the matter.

[Gagan]

So India is going to have a foreign secretary level talks.
And the Pakistani foreign secretary is going to report to...
Zardari or geelani?

Again the problem here is that Billa-Raanga (Kiyani-Pasha) can hide behind a burka and are not stakeholders in any promise made by pakistan on anything. They have the convenience to back out at any given time.

The good thing about having a dictator in power in pakistan - after Indo-Pak relations have gotten over his attempt at military misadventure, is that he is a direct stakeholder in the talks, and he by virtue of having the proverbial tooti (scruff of the neck) of the jihadi tanzeems can regulate the flames, and usually keeps it in 'sim' mode.

[Virupaksha]

Indian government fears serial attacks

If it fears, what is it doing about it? Maybe time to let some one else do the needful instead of stoking fears with such language?

They are all look we warned you about it, save your a$$ stuff from Chidu and co, so as to avoid being a Shivraj Patil.

[debadutta]

Simple we do not have any intelligence, so even if there are any attacks there is no intelligence failure. Plus hitting soft targets is not going to deter India from talking to PAk, since thats what Massa has ordered.
I long for the days of 1965 and 1971, when inspite of having inferior weapons compared PAk , we had proper leaders who had the BALLS to take the battle to Pakistan.
what exactly is our threshold for reacting?
When is GOI going to react? when there is a nuclear terrorist attack on one of our big cities??

[A_Gupta]

How does one untangle the fact and fiction in this story of river waters?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KA13Df01.html

or this more recent:
http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showarticle ... value0news

[Chinmayanand]

I think GoI is like a trader with one billion goats . TSP is the butcher . US is the finance manager of the butcher. So, what is happening is goats are being sold to the butcher for heck lot of $$$$$ being deposited in the banks for the GoI personnel .

One solution is since these honourable arthshashtris and rakshaks of the billion people have failed to give any suraksha , either they provide AK's to every citizen or forego their Z class security cover for themselves. To top it all , these scums instead of solving the security issue , they keep announcing that more is to come. Don't know whether to laugh or cry .

[Anujan]

The least cost common sense solution to this is to break off talks with Pakistan so the terrorists have no reason to attack India. Another possibility is to have a multiparty group of MPs come out and say they do not support continuing with talks and will not abide by any decisions reached.

In any case, this attack again proves that the Pakistan government does not have any control over their non-state actors. So they have no locus-standi in the matter.

I read through pages of talks-bashing and also the two HT articles, thought about it a bit.

There is no harm in talking. What have we achieved in not talking? Making Pakistan a bit uncomfortable? Will that change their behavior? Everyone in the international community knows what a basket case the country is (an "international migraine") but still are cynical in helping Pakistan out. Hey as long as the jihadis dont attack them, right? 13Billion $ from the US is not enough to buy their loyalty and they are still assassinating CIA, protesting KL bill and taking out processions for Aafiya.

It is clear that terror attacks from Pak can be stopped only by developing suitable deterrence mechanisms.

I have faith in what MMS is trying to achieve for India though his methods may be less than TFTA.

I do hope that in addition to talking with Pak, we sit down, think and build some retaliation options. Give the man a year.

[Chinmayanand]

What have we achieved in not talking?

Bliss to throw some light on the unwashed as what have the talks achieved . Were we not talking pre Mumbai ? As far as giving him time is concerned, he was there for the last six years or so when multiple terror attacks happened . What did he do ?

[Chinmayanand]

MMS is an economist/banker at core. He looks at everything from the profit/loss perspective. He thinks he will secure India by bringing a 15 trillion dollar economy till then he can afford to sacrifice some people here and there as long as it's not his kin . He sees economy first , terror second. In the long run , there will be no economy if terror is not fixed. He has to fix naxalism and paki terror first to achieve his targets. If terror continues unabated like this, he can kiss his dreams goodbye. You cannot provide Z grade security to every person and every inch of this vast land called Bharat. Offence is the best defence. This should be the guiding motto. Meek will not rule the world.

[vera_k]

I read through pages of talks-bashing and also the two HT articles, thought about it a bit.

There is no harm in talking. What have we achieved in not talking?

Not talking will save Indian lives that would otherwise be lost in terror attacks.

[Virupaksha]

What have we achieved in not talking?

Bliss to throw some light on the unwashed as what have the talks achieved .

and Anujan also note the number and severity of attacks has always been proportional to our antogonism to Pakistan. Till this chaman ki tamasha came about from mumbai attack, there have been no attacks. But the moment we agreed to talks,...

I will leave it to you understand where the causality lies.

[Anujan]

Bliss to throw some light on the unwashed as what have the talks achieved . Were we not talking pre Mumbai ? As far as giving him time is concerned, he was there for the last six years or so when multiple terror attacks happened . What did he do?

Not talking will save Indian lives that would otherwise be lost in terror attacks.

vera_k-ji, Durgesh-ji

First a clarification

1. I believe that strengthening local police, NSG, revamping intelligence etc is necessary. But wont stop attacks, Only way to stop them is for attacks are rooted out from their source: Pakistan

2. I also believe that there is not "negotiated settlement" for the problem of terror attacks from Pakistan. As in, there is no "list of things" that they want, if we give, the terror attacks stop. This is what a reasonable observer of history and will conclude. (The paper that I linked off one of the earlier posts also points in this direction. As in people with no specific grievances against India are more likely to support terror outfits against India)

Given 1 & 2, two things are clear

1. Talks will achieve settlement of some disputes. Sir Creek maybe, Siachen maybe. Wont stop terror

2. Only way of stopping terror is penalizing them for it. Maybe we block aid to them. Maybe we bomb them. Maybe we destabilize their politics & territorial integrity. Maybe build a dam over the Kabul river. I dont know yet, this is what I called by "deterrence".

So I agree with you, talks wont achieve anything towards *reduction of terror attacks from Pakistan*. Not talking wont achieve that either. Unless it is part of a deliberate escalation strategy, where the next step is a resounding kick in the musharraf. Is there an assured kick in the musharraf as next step of "not talking"? That is the only thing that will save Indian lives.

Civilized nations talk. We engage US, Russia, China, Myanmar. Lets also engage Pak. It wont achieve a rat's musharraf.

Our focus should be single minded. Dont waste time doing rona-dhona about talks. What are our options for deterring terror attacks? Flood newspapers with letters. Talk to your Paanwallahs. Talk to media personalities (it is not so difficult - Several Indians are in twitter with whom I do have interesting conversations, Swapan-da, Vir Sanghvi, Vikram Sood ityadi) - Lets try to make a difference!

[Chinmayanand]

What are our options for deterring terror attacks?

IMVHO !!! Now , you are talking . Let us have a thread on this. We have brilliant people on this board who will throw in their lot .

[vera_k]

So I agree with you, talks wont achieve anything towards *reduction of terror attacks from Pakistan*. Not talking wont achieve that either.

Wonder how you are concluding the part in bold when the terror attacks are meant to get us to stop talking.

The right approach would be to trot out a 5 year plan to fix internal security and build retaliatory capacity. This can be followed by talks if the Pakistan government agrees to allow Indian retaliation against non-state actors on its territory who get in the way of talks proceeding.

[JwalaMukhi]

The right approach would be to trot out a 5 year plan to fix internal security and build retaliatory capacity. This can be followed by talks if the Pakistan government agrees to allow Indian retaliation against non-state actors on its territory who get in the way of talks proceeding.

That seems to be the way GOI is operating, but with a minor difference that it is in the mode of perennial building of retaliatory capacity. aka, GOI is perennially in "yuddha kale shastrabhysaye" mode.
Isn't this building of capacity (be it economic, military etc.,) a tacit acceptance of underpreparedness or worse unpreparedness. Or is GOI planning and working towards a "Mother of all Victories" where the disease called pakistan is eradicated forever?
IOW right now, the actions/non-actions of GOI is tacit acceptance of lack of prepardeness on the part of it or rather acceptance of superior paki strategy in holding onto checkmate India.
If so, what if Pakis go in and initiate a full fledge war, anytime now, how would the ground preparations dramatically change. Other than who started what non-sense, it would have no bearing on the outcome. So, what is GOI afraid of ?

[Chinmayanand]

So, what is GOI afraid of ?

The Godfather, Obama !

[vera_k]

That seems to be the way GOI is operating, but with a minor difference that it is in the mode of perennial building of retaliatory capacity.

If we trust the HT article posted earlier, GoI has not been building retaliatory capacity. The aim instead is to make peace with Pakistan so a) the defence spending can be reduced, b) the economy grows and c) India is seen as a 1st tier world power.

[SSridhar]

How does one untangle the fact and fiction in this story of river waters?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KA13Df01.html

or this more recent:
http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showarticle ... value0news

The first gives the appearance of a 'balanced' article but is simply echoing purely Pakistani propaganda.

The second has inaccuracies and distortions. Like for example, the author says that IWT allows India 'limited utilization for generation of hydro-electric power.' There is nothing like that in the treaty. It doesn't put any limit on the number of HEPs India can build or the MWs of electricity it can generate. The author is simply playing with words to create an impression that the IWT specifies even limits to HEPs and India is violating that by constructing many HEPs.

A_Gupta, for a wider appreciation of Pakistani perfidy over waters and the issues involved, see this SRR article

[A_Gupta]

A_Gupta, for a wider appreciation of Pakistani perfidy over waters and the issues involved, see this SRR article

Thanks, I was unaware of this SRR article!

[abhishek_sharma]

No rethinking on talks with Pakistan

Siddharth Varadarajan

http://www.hindu.com/2010/02/15/stories ... 440100.htm

With investigations into the attack still under way, officials said on Sunday there would be no “knee-jerk reaction.” India knows the situation is complex, they added.

...

The message from Mr. Krishna and senior officials was clear: there will be no backing away from talks. Even if the Pune incident is traced to a Pakistan-based organisation like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, this would only strengthen India’s position that terrorism needs to be the main focus of the coming meeting.

...

“What we do know is that the terrorists are opposed to the dialogue. Why should we oblige them?,” the official added.

In Sunday’s interactions of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Home Minister P. Chidambaram, National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon, the intelligence chiefs and others, all stakeholders agreed there should be no deviation from the current policy of trying to have a dialogue with Pakistan on terrorism. And the Congress party supports this line as well, the sources said.

“If we stop talking, it is not given that terrorism will stop,” a senior official said. “Terrorist threats require a different response. Calling off talks will not reduce those threats.” He added that the government was still not sure who was responsible for Pune. “We have our suspicions but Pakistan has been creating layers of deniability over the years which may make it difficult to directly pin the blame on anyone there.”

As far as the talks themselves are concerned, the sources stressed that they had low expectations. “We are not dealing with the Pakistan of 2004 or 2005,” said an official, referring to the period when the two sides made progress on a number of issues. “There is a very different situation across the border today.”

[abhishek_sharma]

^^ If we have low expectations, why this rush for talks?

[A_Gupta]

For your amusement, in two parts:- an American lament

a.

We feel secure in our military power today and our powerful economies, but a tiny band of Muslim terrorists have managed to throw quite a bit of sand in our economic gears. Most effectively, they have induced us to squander trillions in absurdly unprofitable wars.

b.

It always strikes me that the United States could learn a lot from how India responds to terrorist attacks. From an outsider point of view, India seems to have a few clear priorities. They want robust economic growth. They want to maintain a clear military edge over Pakistan. They want to be able to deter a Chinese attack. And they want to be respected on the world stage as a great power. They understand that these are difficult but attainable goals. And they understand that neither Pakistan nor sundry irregular Islamist groups has it within their power to prevent India from meeting those goals. So when India’s citizens are killed by terrorists, it’s of course important to try to reduce vulnerability to future attacks, but most of all it’s important not to allow low-cost terrorist attacks to derail India’s national priorities.

US policy, by contrast, is dominated by hysteria, moralism, and a self-defeating quest for absolute security. It’s conventional wisdom that terrorism is a tool of the weak, but unwillingness to take a deep breath and realize that al-Qaeda is, in fact, weak. If we want to build a strong, prosperous, respected America then Osama bin Laden can’t stop us. He can only goad us into taking actions that undermine our strength, prosperity, and international standing.

Don't take this as psy.ops, neither writer is in that kind of position.

[shiv]

There is no harm in talking. What have we achieved in not talking?

The story that I see being peddled (piddled?) nowadays seems to be as follows
1) Talks are necessary for eventual peace
2) There are people ("dark forces", extremists) who do not want peace and do not want talks or peace
3) These people's aims must be thwarted.

Fine. Nobody can find fault with the above concept.

But I have questions regarding these "dark forces"/extremists who do not want peace

1) Are these dark forces situated in

• a) Pakistan
  b) India
  c) India and Pakistan
  d) Outside these countries
  e) all of the above

2) Are these dark forces/extremists

• a) Islamic jihadis
  b) Hindu fundamentalists
  c) Both Islamic and Hindu fundamentalists
  d) Pakistan army
  e) Indian army
  f) All "faujis"/khakis?

3) Are these dark forces operating out of

• a) Pakistan
  b) India
  c) Afghanistan
  d) All of the above
  e) Globally

4) Talks between India and Pakistan will be bad for these dark forces because

• a) They fear talks as they have sensitive ears and fear getting a bad name
  b) They cannot understand the language and will get marginalized

5) If dark forces are to be marginalized are they mainstream now in

• a) India
  b) Pakistan
  c) Afghanistan
  d) The US
  e) Globally

I have more questions - but every answer leads to a few more questions. One last question

6) Which power broker in Pakistan has the most influence, with whom talks may be relevant

• a) Army
  b) Jihadi groups
  c) Zardari/Gilani/Zaid Hamid/Mazhari and co
  d) All of the above

[pgbhat]

The story that I see being peddled (piddled?) nowadays seems to be as follows
1) Talks are necessary for eventual peace
2) There are people ("dark forces", extremists) who do not want peace and do not want talks or peace
3) These people's aims must be thwarted.

Fine. Nobody can find fault with the above concept.

But I have questions regarding these "dark forces"/extremists who do not want peace

1) Are these dark forces situated in

• a) Pakistan
  b) India
  c) India and Pakistan
  d) Outside these countries
  e) all of the above

2) Are these dark forces/extremists

• a) Islamic jihadis
  b) Hindu fundamentalists
  c) Both Islamic and Hindu fundamentalists
  d) Pakistan army
  e) Indian army
  f) All "faujis"/khakis?

3) Are these dark forces operating out of

• a) Pakistan
  b) India
  c) Afghanistan
  d) All of the above
  e) Globally

4) Talks between India and Pakistan will be bad for these dark forces because

• a) They fear talks as they have sensitive ears and fear getting a bad name
  b) They cannot understand the language and will get marginalized

5) If dark forces are to be marginalized are they mainstream now in

• a) India
  b) Pakistan
  c) Afghanistan
  d) The US
  e) Globally

I have more questions - but every answer leads to a few more questions. One last question

6) Which power broker in Pakistan has the most influence, with whom talks may be relevant

• a) Army
  b) Jihadi groups
  c) Zardari/Gilani/Zaid Hamid/Mazhari and co (democracy has to be strengthened)
  d) All of the above

WKK answers have been highlighted for posterity.

[Anujan]

The story that I see being peddled (piddled?) nowadays seems to be as follows
1) Talks are necessary for eventual peace
2) There are people ("dark forces", extremists) who do not want peace and do not want talks or peace
3) These people's aims must be thwarted.

Shiv-ji

I dont know what your interpretation of my post is. But I am forced to clarify.

As I have repeated many times before, terror attacks cannot be stopped unless Pakistan's patronage is stopped. Pakistan's patronage cannot be stopped through negotiations because there is nothing that we can give them to stop it. Maybe we can kill half of us, rape the half of the remaining and convert the other half. Even then they will bomb those who converted to Shia and kill the others complaining that they are Mohajirs. So I am not buying, even for a second, any of the "non-state" bullshit. Every one of the b4st4ds have been recruited, funded and trained by Pakistani government agencies, probably staffed by army/ISI and is an integral part of their foreign policy and national security strategy. Ergo I do not believe that the terrorists gaining by not talking, or "resolving cashmere is root to biss in south asia" or "stable aphghanijtan means cashmere given to Pakistan".

I do not believe that lack of terror attacks for the past 1 year was because of not talking to Pakistan.

I do not believe, not talking to Pakistan punishes Pakistan in any way and will change its behavior in any way.

I do not believe that we should talk to Pakistan to get any kind of Kudos from the "International community", because they were the ones who created the terror issue in the first place (first by Britain vis-a-vis Kashmir, then by US arming Pakistan to the teeth and by setting up the Jihad infrastructure, then by China, then by Japan & Saudis, then by all nations who sell arms to them).

BUT

I do believe Sir Creek, Siachen, transit trade to A'stan can be secured by talking.

Ergo, lets talk.

Lets also sharpen our knives while talking.

[abhishek_sharma]

Talks under way for N-deal with US: Haqqani

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... 520--bi-01

LAHORE: Pakistan’s Ambassador to US Husain Haqqani has said the government has started negotiating with the United States for an agreement on nuclear technology.

“The US is not sceptical about our nuclear programme. Talks between Pakistan and the US for cooperation on atomic programmes are under way and we want the US to have an agreement with us like the one it had with India on civil nuclear technology,” Mr Haqqani said at a reception hosted by Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer on Sunday.

He said Pakistan would get 16 latest F-16 aircraft in June. He said although the expectations of Pakistan and the US with each other usually did not fulfil, both were indispensable for each other.

“We have to largely depend upon the US for our defence related matters.

...

Giving a reason as to why Pakistan had to look towards the US for enhancing its military capacity and capability, Mr Haqqani said the European countries did not offer soft terms for buying weapons. “Ties with the US are important for a secure, stable and prosperous Pakistan.”

Mr Haqqani said Pakistan had also made it clear on the US that it should ensure a strengthened and Islamabad-friendly regime in Kabul before leaving.

[SSridhar]

No rethinking on talks with Pakistan

Siddharth Varadarajan

http://www.hindu.com/2010/02/15/stories ... 440100.htm

“What we do know is that the terrorists are opposed to the dialogue. Why should we oblige them?,” the official added.

The 'no-talks' posture is not to oblige the terrorists. It is to make Pakistan take action. Pakistan has been cleverly linking these two. The idea of course is to hit India economically and also to keep up the terrorist pressure on India while the talks take place.

[shiv]

I dont know what your interpretation of my post is. But I am forced to clarify.

No problem. I can see your point - but the reason for my hairsplitting is that I smell the possibility of snake oil being sold.

When someone refers to "dark forces" is he referring to Shiv Sena in India or Jamat ud Dawa in Pakistan or all racist Australians?

Complete clarity and transparency are not there notwithstanding the fact that your views are valid.

When India is being attacked by terrorism from Pakistan, I need to know if a group of Indians and Pakistanis are going to sit together and say "You have your Lashkar e Toiba and we have our Shiv Sena. These are opponents of peace. Let us bypass them and talk. They will never want peace like we do"

I suspect that "talks" with Pakistan probably do not involve doing an equal equal as I have alleged, but I also believe that they will not involve Si Creek either. Talks, if any will focus on terrorism alone. That is my opinion.

Why do I feel this way?
1) America is definitely involved in asking India to talk so that Pakis cannot hide behind Indian threat
2) India does not really want to talk about anything but terrorism

Nobody is saying these things out in the open but that is my reading. I may be wrong and am worried that equalequalitis can occur as I have mentioned above.

[Pulikeshi]

“If we stop talking, it is not given that terrorism will stop,” a senior official said. “Terrorist threats require a different response. Calling off talks will not reduce those threats.” He added that the government was still not sure who was responsible for Pune. “We have our suspicions but Pakistan has been creating layers of deniability over the years which may make it difficult to directly pin the blame on anyone there.”

As far as the talks themselves are concerned, the sources stressed that they had low expectations. “We are not dealing with the Pakistan of 2004 or 2005,” said an official, referring to the period when the two sides made progress on a number of issues. “There is a very different situation across the border today.”

What is different today as opposed to 2004/5? Stability? TSP becoming a headless monster?

Is India worried about an impending collapse in TSP and the cost? Hence talks to engage civil society?
Will that give the monster its head back?
If so, has anyone done an analysis of the cost in timing any action?

Clearly, it can be estimated - the cost of acting now versus waiting for 5 more years.
Is it less expensive and hence the "jaw-jaw"?

Of course it could all be SV blowing smoke up the proverbial... Would not put that past him!

[Akshut]

I did not notice this before but notice how this guy's guitar has the colors of the TSP flag! It looks like the TSP flag has been painted on it.



Btw, this is a screenshot from the "Phir Mile Sur" song which aired on Jan 26th, any coincidence with Aman ki Badmasha or is there deeper bakasura appeasement at work?

Hey did you notice green and white in Indian National Flag?



TSP's colors!!

[RamaY]

Indian government fears serial attacks

If it fears, what is it doing about it? Maybe time to let some one else do the needful instead of stoking fears with such language?

My take is that GOI did a pressurized/Chanikyan move to initiate talks. TSPA is confused by this move and initiated Pune attack (if connected) to force GOI to stop the talks initiative. GOI plans to press TSP on talks and is worried about serial attacks that come with such a strategy.

[RamaY]

There is no harm in talking. What have we achieved in not talking? Making Pakistan a bit uncomfortable? Will that change their behavior?

Anujan-ji,

We have achieved nothing by talking. But another fact is that we achieve nothing by talking either. So why talking and commit more S-e-S type mistakes (assuming it is a genuine drafting error).

TSP will not change its ideology, strategy or behavior irrespective of talks or no-talks. It understands only the language of power that to military power.

So GOI should focus its energies in developing a sustainable internal security mechanism and implementable external military strategy directed at TSP. MMS and his UPA govt can do a great favor to India by not appearing weak while the nation prepares for the final push.

[svinayak]

Hey did you notice green and white in Indian National Flag?



TSP's colors!!

Indian flag has different shades and also different meanings to it.

[Anindya]

Folks

For an article - I'm looking for links to articles and/or analysis in main-stream Pakistani media, where they have supported continued terrorist attacks on India - for example the KS article where he suggests that Haqqani promoted hitting bangalore.

Any such references will help.

Thanks

[Karna_A]

TSP will not change its ideology, strategy or behavior irrespective of talks or no-talks. It understands only the language of power that to military power.

So GOI should focus its energies in developing a sustainable internal security mechanism and implementable external military strategy directed at TSP. MMS and his UPA govt can do a great favor to India by not appearing weak while the nation prepares for the final push.

The real question is whether each terror strike in India is actually making it into a stronger nation or a weaker nation.
In punjab and haryana the terror actually made the police a first rate counter terror force for sometime, though now its back to (ab)normal.
26/11 improved quite a lot as it spawned NIA, Force1, better BPJs, 24 hour MAcs, and many many more improvements.
Funds previously thrown on swanky cars for Home department were actually used for training and re-armament.

Pune was a low level attack in comparison.
The thinking behind it for AiAsAi maybe that it's better to have 10 low level attacks than 1 big level as big level unites Indians and improves the overall future security whereas low level are just shoved under the carpet and politics as usual.

[Akshut]

Hey did you notice green and white in Indian National Flag?



TSP's colors!!

Indian flag has different shades and also different meanings to it.

I know Sir!

I was taking the *conspiracy* to a new level.

[derkonig]

I know Sir!

I was taking the *conspiracy* to a new level.

^^^
Lets add one more level to this. The guitarist is Eshaan, a follower of a non-Indic faith, which also happens to be the majority faith in TSP.