Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 2010

[Bhima]

US to deliver 18 F-16s to Pakistan by month’s end

If the West has learnt something or attempts to give the impression it has learnt something this would not be happening.

[arun]

Amazing how the west has just discovered this home truth about Pak and the ISI.AS if they din't know about it all these years! Someone has doublecrossed someone,which is why the truth is now being "outed".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 149089.ece

The duplicity of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan still does not seem to have shut off the armaments tap as Bhima's post shows.

[ajit_tr]

One Pakistani killed in Kyrgyzstan violence

ISLAMABAD: One Pakistani student has been killed and around 15 reportedly taken hostage in Kyrgyzstan's riot-stricken city of Osh, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said on Sunday.
“One student has been killed and there are reports that 15 have been taken hostage for ransom. We are trying to confirm these reports,” Qureshi told Reuters.

“Our first priority is to ensure the safety of our brethren stranded there. We are trying to establish contact with Kyrgyz authorities,” he said.

[ajit_tr]

Sectarian killings’ claim two more lives in Khi
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... -360-hh-08

[anupmisra]

One Pakistani killed in Kyrgyzstan violence

ISLAMABAD: One Pakistani student has been killed and around 15 reportedly taken hostage in Kyrgyzstan's

Pakis are being welcomed in lands far and near with traditional son-e-lumiere exravaganza.

[JE Menon]

Wait until we find out exactly what these "students" were teaching!!!

[chetak]

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/truth-is-out ... ml?from=tn

Truth is out: report says Pak backs Taliban
Reuters
Posted on Jun 13, 2010 at 12:09


Kabul: Pakistani military intelligence not only funds and trains Taliban fighters in Afghanistan but is officially represented on the movement's leadership council, giving in significant influence over operations, a report said.


The report, published by the London School of Economics, a leading British institution, on Sunday, said research strongly suggested support for the Taliban was the "official policy" of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI).



Although links between the ISI and Islamist militants have been widely suspected for a long time, the report's findings, which it said were corroborated by two senior Western security officials, could raise more concerns in the West over Pakistan's commitment to help end the war in Afghanistan.


The report also said Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari was reported to have visited senior Taliban prisoners in Pakistan earlier this year, where he is believed to have promised their release and help for militant operations, suggesting support for the Taliban "is approved at the highest level of Pakistan's civilian government".


A Pakistani diplomatic source described that report as "naive", and also said any talks with the Taliban were up to the Afghan government.


"Pakistan appears to be playing a double-game of astonishing magnitude," said the report, based on interviews with Taliban commanders and former senior Taliban ministers as well as Western and Afghan security officials.

[svinayak]

Truth is out: report says Pak backs Taliban
Reuters
Posted on Jun 13, 2010 at 12:09


Kabul: Pakistani military intelligence not only funds and trains Taliban fighters in Afghanistan but is officially represented on the movement's leadership council, giving in significant influence over operations, a report said.


The report also said Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari was reported to have visited senior Taliban prisoners in Pakistan earlier this year, where he is believed to have promised their release and help for militant operations, suggesting support for the Taliban "is approved at the highest level of Pakistan's civilian government".


"Pakistan appears to be playing a double-game of astonishing magnitude," said the report, based on interviews with Taliban commanders and former senior Taliban ministers as well as Western and Afghan security officials.

This show of surprise and astonishment is false.
This was known for the last 20 years and it was OK till now for the Pak govt to indulge in all this help to terrorist.

Look for any policy change against the Pak govt or change in strategy in Af Pak. If there is no change then all this is hogwash

[svinayak]

Two comments

- Where were western intelligence agencies all this time. If few reporters working for an institute can find this then Obama is in big trouble. Otherwise it means CIA knew this all the time but still wanted US blood to on Afgani soil.
- If All this Talib-ISI was just to counter India............it failed miserably. India command more respect(then Bakis) in Afganistan any given day. Most of the (95%) attacks are against NATO and US troops. So Taliban are using ISI attack NATO and not India.

IMO new "Kabul gate" is in making

This is a long term policy to change the social character of Af Pak region and create a global change to handle a region which could not be handled for centuries. This is th enot the end of it. See the video of the Santa Barbara UCSB discussion and how they talk of future self determination of the entire area including India.

This talk of respect for India in Afg but having zero infleunce and leverage of geo-politics is what the problem is with India foreign policy.

[anupmisra]

Wait until we find out exactly what these "students" were teaching!!!

These porkis were supposedly in Kyrgyztan to study engineering and medicine. Many were from Jhang. Its what they did in their spare time that must be bothersome.

[chetak]

This talk of respect for India in Afg but having zero infleunce and leverage of geo-politics is what the problem is with India foreign policy.

That's what happens if your prime minister sits perched anxiously on the edge of a chair, hands timidly clasped on his lap while the paki faqer lolls around on his chair like his father owned the joint.


If you are a rich and powerful country, don't let anyone forget it. That's how you keep your respect and not by letting piss ants slap you around.

[chaanakya]

Thus spake Trisanku

Ali Sethi is the author of “The Wish Maker,” a novel.

One by one, the founders died — the most important, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, just a year after Pakistan’s birth. Their theory could have died with them. What was the use now of the idea of Muslim specialness — the distinctiveness and separateness of Indian Muslims — in an independent, Muslim-majority country?


But the idea was kept alive and made useful: first by a set of unelected bureaucrats, then by generals, then by landowners, and then by generals again. And, always, to blackmail the people (still indistinct and unspecial). An Islamic dance was danced: sovereignty rested with “Allah alone”; the country would be called an Islamic republic; alcohol and gambling were banned; the Ahmadi sect was outlawed (to please the fringe mullahs) for violating, with their beliefs and practices, Muhammad’s position in “the principle of the finality of [Muhammad’s] prophethood.”

It peaked with the government takeover in 1977 by Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, who announced that his great wish in life was to “Islamize” the people of Pakistan. The Two-Nation Theory, confined so far to political slogans and clauses in the Constitution, now went everywhere: it was injected into textbook passages (the ones I would reproduce, with new words and emotions, in my exam) and radio shows and programs on the one state-run TV channel. And it branched out, becoming anti-Communist (to attract American money), anti-Shiite (to attract Arab money, given for cutting Iran’s influence in the continent), anti-woman (to please the mullahs) and still more anti-Ahmadi (to enhance the pleasure and power of the mullahs).

The Two-Nation Theory was dynamic, useful, lucrative.

[CRamS]

See the video of the Santa Barbara UCSB discussion and how they talk of future self determination of the entire area including India.

I must have missed this, but was this discussion posted? If so, can you post it again?

[A_Gupta]

Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency 'supports' Taliban

Pakistan puppet masters guide the Taliban killers

An reply:

http://criticalppp.org/lubp/archives/12923

[Gerard]

Pakistan spies accused over Taliban

Commander tells of links with Pakistani intelligence

Read the LSE report in full (pdf)
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/G ... SFINAL.pdf

[csharma]

From the LSE article's abstract.

The only sure way to secure such cooperation is to address the fundamental causes of Pakistan’s insecurity, especially its latent and enduring conflict with India.

[vijayk]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/13 ... port-says/

Pakistani military intelligence not only funds and trains Taliban fighters in Afghanistan but is officially represented on the movement's leadership council, giving it significant influence over operations, a report said.

The report, published by the London School of Economics, a leading British institution, on Sunday, said research strongly suggested support for the Taliban was the "official policy" of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI).

I am stunned. What a surprise....

The report also said Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari was reported to have visited senior Taliban prisoners in Pakistan earlier this year, where he is believed to have promised their release and help for militant operations, suggesting support for the Taliban "is approved at the highest level of Pakistan's civilian government".

A Pakistani diplomatic source described that report as "naive", and also said any talks with the Taliban were up to the Afghan government.

"Pakistan appears to be playing a double-game of astonishing magnitude," said the report, based on interviews with Taliban commanders and former senior Taliban ministers as well as Western and Afghan security officials.

double game... As Mush would say this is 400% incorrect. This is quadruple game

[Prem]

From the LSE article's abstract.

The only sure way to secure such cooperation is to address the fundamental causes of Pakistan’s insecurity, especially its latent and enduring conflict with India.

Paki isecurity,mental kamjori ka koi India ne theka nahi kiya hua.
Naa, the onlee soultiuon is to kill them all, all the bad guys. It has worked in the past and will work now otherwise let good guys assume you are just one of the bad guys fighting war by deception.

[NRao]

From the LSE article's abstract.

The only sure way to secure such cooperation is to address the fundamental causes of Pakistan’s insecurity, especially its latent and enduring conflict with India.

Pretty much all references to "India" are from other articles or quotes from other people. While the connection between the ISI and Taliban are based more on current ground realities.

It should be accompanied by support for military and political reform, and a
combination of incentives and disincentives to persuade Pakistan’s elite that support for
Islamic militants is no longer in Pakistan’s national interests (see Fair 2009 and Fischer
2010).

Here is where their strategy falls apart. They assume that IF Kashmir is "solved" then Pakistanis will go on to become more civilized and main streamers. This "reform" they talk of will have to detox Pakistan of their rabid Islamic leaning. Given the regional dynamics for 800 or so years that is not possible by "incentives and disincentives".

It is FAR cheaper to get rid of the ISI and it can be done with an international effort. AND, a PC strategy will never work.

[r_subramanian]

Does anyone know how Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project is to be financed?

The report quoted below states that the project would cost US$7.5 billion and Pakistan needed to build 700 km pipeline within its borders costing US$1.65 billion.

Given the strong opposition to the project from the U.S and KSA, how on earth Pakistan is going to fund its share of the project? I can not believe investors would be queuing up to buy Pakistan Government bonds to finance the project.

Has China made any noises regarding supporting this project?

Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project inked

[A_Gupta]

Pakistanis are not entirely dumb.
http://criticalppp.org/lubp/archives/12863

"“Kill a Shia doctor a day”, a joint operation by the ISI and Sipah-e-Sahaba in Karachi"

[A_Gupta]

They wish it was Watergate!
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=29453

ISLAMABAD: The Bank of Punjab scam is snowballing into Pakistan’s modern-day Watergate scandal as some latest revelations show the son-in-law of former Punjab governor, Lt-Gen (retd) Khalid Maqbool got a whopping Rs 1.8 billion from the bank and defaulted.

The BoP scam, which has already uncovered the multi-billion scandals of Harris Steel loan (Rs 9 billion); the controversial sale of Phalia Sugar Mill of the Chaudhrys of Gujrat for Rs 2.2 billion with BoP money borrowed by a sitting director of the Bank and the mind-boggling lending of over Rs 18 billion to five sitting directors of the BoP in violation of the Bank policy, has now popped up yet another Rs 1.8 billion scam.

Much more is, however, expected to surface as the prime accused of the BoP scandal Hamesh Khan opens his mouth.

[A_Gupta]

Does anyone know how Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project is to be financed?

No. This UAE article says Pakistan will do a one-year feasibility study.
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll ... 39922/1005

Kamran Lashari, the Pakistani deputy energy minister, said Islamabad would conduct a one-year study of the feasibility of building its section of the pipeline.

[A_Gupta]

From April, but worth reading - financing of higher education in Pakistan.
http://lahorenama.wordpress.com/2010/04 ... -pakistan/

[shiv]

That LSE pdf has some thought provoking conclusions in the end. The suthors ask why the US does not want to do anything about Pakistan? Possible explanations are that

• the US is too fixated on "Al Qaeda, or
• The US does no want to take on a nuclear armed Pakistan
• Thee is worry about a backlash from Pakistanis in the West

This article differs from commonly expressed BRF perceptions in some ways. A common BRF view is that the US can handle Pakistan any time it wants unlike a weak India with its treacherous leaders. But he US is using Pakistan to stop the rise of india - i.e Pakistan, for the US is a kind of "safety valve" which is released every time India gets too uppity.

In other words the BRF view is "The US is too strong" and the LSE view is that the US might not be willing to fight - i.e not strong enough.

Possible SDRE-like weakness of the US is something that is generally alien to BRF analyses. Many analyses on BRF tend to assume and attribute unlimited power, perfect planning, immaculate prediction of the future to the US, with incompetence and weakness of India and chutzpah from Pakistan.

It would be interesting to view the same events (even as a game) by assuming weaknessss, vulnerability and fear in the US (covered by a Pakistan like TFTA confidence in public statements) and then see how this impinges upon our view.

If you assume that the US may be weak in Afghanistan, it then needs either Pakistani support or Indian support. Clearly it is not getting Pakistani support and it is losing. Under the circumstances, what does the US gain by making Pakistan even stronger in relation to India? Surely, it would seem that a better option for the US would be to make Pakistan fear an attack from India and make Pakistan "need" the US more. This basically means that the US, instead of "opposing India's rise" would have to support India's rise.

The argument that the US is using Pakistan to "titrate" India's rise - i.e encouraging Pakistan to kick India if India gets too uppity, fails in the face of the information that the US itself is getting kicked continuously by Pakistan. Why would the US sit around getting kicked by Pakistan day in and day out just to allow Pakistan to kick India sometime and keep of India at other times? Like the man who sometimes counted and sometimes did not count how many times his neighbour slept with his wife after losing a bet.

The other possibility is that a weak US, unable to withstand Pakistani pressure in Afghanistan might try and channel Pakistani aggression at any convenient outlet -with India being the easiest target. Assuming this is true, we would still have to give up the idea that the US is in control and is able to control events in Pakistan to "titrate" India's rise. It is Pakistan that is strong enough to hold back the US, so that the US is almost begging Pakistan to hit India rather than the US.

But folks, if that is true - it means that India's weakness wrt to Pakistan has nothing to do with weak leaders or treachery. It means that both India and the US are weak and that Pakistan is in a strong position. Perhaps it would give a better idea of reality if we looked at the world in this way rather than confuse the picture by attributing imaginary strength to the US and weakness only to India.

If Pakistan is strong
and India is weak
and the US is weak
and the US tries to get Pakistan to hit India..

..should India try and hit Pakistan? That will make the US stronger
..should India try and hit the US? That will make the US stronger
..should India try and get the US to cooperate for mutual US-India benefit?

I think we need to view the US s a weak an incapable power in this instance. It has clearly bitten off more than it can chew. By constantly harping on US strength and Indian weakness we are missing and obvious thing - the US is both stupid and weak and its version of corrupt politicians are using US strength and power to botch foreign policy to fool their own people that the US is capable. The best excuse I have heard so far to show that this idea is wrong is "The US has faced no more terrorism since 9-11" That is almost true, but the US has been losing men and material continuously sine 9-11 to teh same people who conduced 9-11. The later are no weaker, but the US is no stronger.


I believe we need to rethink the way the US is viewed.

[A_Gupta]

shiv, quick point:

If you assume that the US may be weak in Afghanistan, it then needs either Pakistani support or Indian support.

No, the US needs either Iranian support or Pakistani support. Indian support is secondary, because India does not have a route to Afghanistan.

Meanwhile Afghanistan just got a whole lot more valuable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world ... erals.html

WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and Blackberries.

The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.

[r_subramanian]

Does anyone know how Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project is to be financed?

No. This UAE article says Pakistan will do a one-year feasibility study.
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll ... 39922/1005
...

Thanks Gupta

[Suppiah]

The US has not hesitated to take on countries much larger and important than TSP when it is genuinely convinced that the regime there is acting against US. Iran and Iraq are but two examples.This is irrespective of Democrat/Republican in power. TSP's nukes are not capable of hitting US, even if so, they would be crazy even to think on those lines so it is NOT a factor.

So what is the factor?

Liberal bleeding hearts? No GWB had same approach to TSP.
Inadequate power? Weakness? -> No, as explained earlier
Not aware that "neighbour is sleeping with wife' to use shiv's analogy -> Cannot be true..if ordinary journalists from west know about it, Unkil surely knows even more..
Useful card to play against India - yes, but I agree with shiv it is only partly true and US has no pressing need to take punishment after punishment to keep a card of this sort...

Something is missing...needs thought..

[shiv]

shiv, quick point:

If you assume that the US may be weak in Afghanistan, it then needs either Pakistani support or Indian support.

No, the US needs either Iranian support or Pakistani support. Indian support is secondary, because India does not have a route to Afghanistan.

Well as per reports the US is openly playing the "keep Iran down" game while we sit on BRF insisting that the US is playing the "keep India down" game. Assuming both are correct, the US's "support Pakistan" game is clearly backfiring. The mineral wealth of Afghanistan might as well be on the moon.

The US is clearly unable to sustain dominance by supporting Pakistan and opposing India and Iran. The US is still opposing Iran. What are India's options then?

As far as I can tell they are exactly like I described in the earlier post. India neds to maximize its strength. Fighting the US would strengthen Pakistan. Fighting Pakistan would strengthen the US. Accepting some losses but fighting neither is the best in the long term - although a better option would be to win over the US and weaken Pakistan sufficiently for the US to continue to use Pakistan and oppose Iran.

[shiv]

The US has not hesitated to take on countries much larger and important than TSP

Apart from the USSR with which a hot war was assiduously avoided, when has the US, after WW2 "taken on" anyone larger and more important than Pakistan? The US is "taking on" Pakistan same as India. Avoiding war. Why add to the myth making of US strength?

Heck Pakistan is fighting the US directly and can see US weakness. Why must we sit and imagine that the US has some great powers. If the US was sitting next to Pakistan it would take hits just like India. The US is taking hits in Afghanistan and only echandee is keeping the US there.

[Pranav]

The argument that the US is using Pakistan to "titrate" India's rise - i.e encouraging Pakistan to kick India if India gets too uppity, fails in the face of the information that the US itself is getting kicked continuously by Pakistan. Why would the US sit around getting kicked by Pakistan day in and day out just to allow Pakistan to kick India sometime and keep of India at other times? Like the man who sometimes counted and sometimes did not count how many times his neighbour slept with his wife after losing a bet.

Perhaps the US is prepared to absorb such kicks as the price for preserving Pak's geopolitical role.

[Carl_T]

That LSE pdf has some thought provoking conclusions in the end. The suthors ask why the US does not want to do anything about Pakistan? Possible explanations are that

Great post. Perhaps the principal weakness in the US is that the nation is simply not willing to fight this war, as a nation it does not have the resolve to do so. Obama was elected with the promise of ending this war, and this country can't tolerate soldiers dying in a war it sees as peripheral to its interests. September 11th was almost a decade ago now, and at some level I feel the country has moved on. (Was a president named Hussein plausible some time ago?)

But it can never truly move on as the threat of terror is still present in the background, so at some point the US needs to make a deal with TSP: we're tired of this war, we'll send you equipment and you make sure none of these guys come onto American soil. Terrorist attacks in AfPak are routine, terrorist attacks in the US are disasters. IMO.


I don't know why it is assumed on BRF that Pakistan is maintained as a check on India, then again, any conspiracy theory involving the West attempting to stop India using covert means is taken as fact.

[A_Gupta]

a. To operate in Afghanistan, the US needs Pakistan. Even though the transport of NATO supplies through Pakistan enriches the Taliban.

b. The US policy seems to indicate that it prefers the RAPE class to remain in power in Pakistan. However, except for BRF radicals (like Shiv) everyone else also thinks that of all the groups in Pakistan, the RAPE should remain in power.

c. The US doesn't have much latitude of action here, and whether the intention is there or not, its actions to keep the RAPE in power in Pakistan will appear like a check on India.

d. The US, I imagine could do business with Iran, despite Iran's theocratic and hostile government, and thereby gain some degrees of freedom against Pakistan, except for the fact that any dealing with Iran is very much against Israel's interests, and US politics is such that the US cannot act independently of Israel here - its legislature will not permit it.

e. If the war in Afghanistan had been presented as a national mission (instead of Bush's "go shop while our soldiers fight") then the US could and would mobilize enough to take care of Pakistan too. But right now this is a war no one in the US wants.

f. Given this situation, anyone who wants to prove that the US wants to check India should cite evidence from other areas - e.g., US actions to counter Indian influence in Nepal, Sri Lanka; or actions to counter Indian influence with ASEAN, Middle Eastern countries, Israel, and so on.

g. If India wants the dehyphenation of India-Pakistan in the eyes of the US, then India should also dehyphenate itself, and not view Indo-US relations through the prism of US-Pakistan relations.

[svinayak]

I don't know why it is assumed on BRF that Pakistan is maintained as a check on India, then again, any conspiracy theory involving the West attempting to stop India using covert means is taken as fact.

What is your opinion on this. What is Pakistan's role in the grand strategy of US and the west?

[abhishek_sharma]

From the LSE Report:

The district commander described how arms and ammunition would sometimes arrive in his
area by trucks, and sometimes by horses, donkeys or camels, which was ‘from the Pakistani
military’. He said that they were paid salaries: fighters receive around 9-10,000 Pakistani
rupees ($110-120) a month and he, as a commander, receives 15-20,000 Pakistani rupees
($170-220) a month. It is apparently provided through ‘hawala’ (the informal money transfer
system). When asked who it came from he replied: ‘The Americans. From them to the
Pakistani military, and then to us.’ He was baffled as to why, in his eyes, the Americans were
supporting their activities. (In fact, many Afghans believe that the United States is
deliberately funding the insurgency. Although this is not credible, it is hardly surprising given
America’s massive and sustained support to the Pakistani military.) Separately, the
commander confirmed that groups receive a reward for killing foreign soldiers, usually $4-
5,000 for each soldier killed.

[shiv]

Perhaps the US is prepared to absorb such kicks as the price for preserving Pak's geopolitical role.

That means "absorbing blows" for some possible future geopolitical benefit is an accepted way of working. India too absorbs blows from Pakistan so that it does not expend itself fighting Pakistan to give the US a long term advantage. No?

How can "absorbing blows" be "weakness" for India but "Chankianness" for the US?

[Pranav]

Perhaps the US is prepared to absorb such kicks as the price for preserving Pak's geopolitical role.

That means "absorbing blows" for some possible future geopolitical benefit is an accepted why of working. India too absorbs blows from Pakistan so that it does not expend itself fighting Pakistan to give the US a long term advantage. No?

How can "absorbing blows" be "weakness" for India but "Chankianness" for the US?

Nice. Both India and US absorb blows from TSP in the hope that it will be the other who will have to deal with the fallout when the sh** hits the fan.

But the difference is that the life support to TSP does not come from India.

[pgbhat]

^So ....that means we are "chankian", no?

[Prem]

http://www.israellycool.com/2010/06/13/ ... he-day-25/

In Lahore,Pakjab. Picture worth whole Pakislamiat.

[Pranav]

^So ....that means we are "chankian", no?

The west is more Chankian - they are providing the life support, and they are protected by distance.