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

ajit_tr · Post by **ajit_tr** » 18 Jun 2010 01:12

BijuShet wrote:
ajit_tr wrote:...can some brfite guru on pakistan shed some light on black september 1970 operation by then brigadier zia in Palestine in which 1000 of palestinians were killed..i'm searching for detailed link on google but couldn't find any info about this.
Try this link : http://letusbuildpakistan.blogspot.com/ ... ts-of.html

Another link : http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue4/jv6n4a2.html

P. R. Kumaraswamy Beyond the Veil: Israel-Pakistan Relations

Thanks for the links.....

ajit_tr · Post by **ajit_tr** » 18 Jun 2010 01:59

Prem wrote:Lest Paki forget, soon to be repeated again.

PAKISTAN: Dacca, City of the Dead
Monday, May. 03, 1971
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z0r8qge1iM
TIME
Correspondent Dan Coggin, who was among them, recently trekked back from India by Honda, truck, bus and bicycle to become the first American journalist to visit Dacca since the fighting started. His report:
Dacca was always a fairly dreary city, offering slim pleasures beyond the Hotel Intercontinental and a dozen Chinese restaurants ^ that few of its 1,500,000 people could afford. Now, IP in many ways, it has become a city of the dead. A month after the army struck, unleashing tank guns and automatic weapons against largely unarmed civilians in 34 hours of wanton slaughter, Dacca is still shocked and shuttered, its remaining inhabitants living in terror under the grip of army control. The exact toll will never be known, but probably more than 10,000 were killed in Dacca alone.
Looting was also the motive for the slaying of Ranada Prasad Saha, 80, one of East Pakistan's leading jute exporters and one of its few philanthropists; he had built a modern hospital offering free medical care at Mirzapur, 40 miles north of Dacca. Dev, Ghosh and Saha were all Hindus.
"Where are the maloun [cursed ones]?" rampaging soldiers often asked as they searched for Hindus. But the Hindus were by no means the only victims. Many soldiers arriving in East Pakistan were reportedly told the absurdity that it was all right to kill Bengali Moslems because they were Hindus in disguise. "We can kill anyone for anything," a Punjabi captain told a relative. "We are accountable to no one."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -2,00.html

Ah!! desperate attempts of clinging on to the past achievements.Indians including ones here on BRF know in hearts of their heart that india has lost its edge to fight pakistan after later acquiring nukes.So its better to sing peace tune rather than being a jingo.

munna · Post by **munna** » 18 Jun 2010 02:13

ajit_tr wrote:Ah!! desperate attempts of clinging on to the past achievements.Indians including ones here on BRF know in hearts of their heart that india has lost its edge to fight pakistan after later acquiring nukes.So its better to sing peace tune rather than being a jingo.

I really marvel at posts like these! 1971 defined the upper limits of the nuisance that pee-land can ever impose over India. After the castration of pee-land in 1971 it tried to get back at India through Khalistan movement, Kashmiri Separatism and general widespread acts of terror.
India on the other hand fought successfully all the three menaces with weakest economy in history of independent India and a collapsed Soviet Union. The 1998 tests froze the borders for meanwhile and let India grow internally. We have acquired a critical mass and momentum now-that will manifest itself in a number of ways. As far as the peace tune goes its just a cloak of convenience. India is too big and complex to led down the garden alley in matters of ideological importance. India is in the process of acquiring some real hard meat and bones to tackle two bit toddlers pee-landers soon. All the taqqiya from the other side is to secure some concessions before India becomes too hot to handle. Peaceniks can only win tactical victories for the strategic stuff they will never get past the glass ceiling. dekhi jayegi

archan · Post by **archan** » 18 Jun 2010 02:29

ajit_tr wrote:So its better to sing peace tune rather than being a jingo.

Be my guest! sing all you want but it is when you start telling others what to do is when the problem arises.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 18 Jun 2010 02:32

^Waah munna ji,what a reply
lets piss on pakistan the Indian piss drinking nation

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Jun 2010 03:32

Munna Man,
Dont know what stirred Ajit but folks on the border know when time come it will be them doing the dusting job. Pakquie vaaquay dont know what they have done and what is coming to them.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Jun 2010 03:49

ajit_tr wrote:So its better to sing peace tune rather than being a jingo.

Why? It takes 2 to tango. What has TSP acquiring nukes got to do with protesting TSP's use of terror as an instrument of state policy as any Indian should, jingo or not?

ajit_tr · Post by **ajit_tr** » 18 Jun 2010 03:59

CRamS wrote:
ajit_tr wrote:So its better to sing peace tune rather than being a jingo.
Why? It takes 2 to tango. What has TSP acquiring nukes got to do with protesting TSP's use of terror as an instrument of state policy as any Indian should, jingo or not?

Sure it does takes two to tango.But to complain against terrorism india needs to be on high moral ground which india is not coz india itself was once involved with mukti bahini in east pakistan with ltte in srilanka.it was clear case of interfering in the internal matters of its neighbours.No doubt today every neighbour in south asia looks suspicious of indian hegemony in the region.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 18 Jun 2010 04:02

ajit_tr wrote: Sure it does takes two to tango.But to complain against terrorism india needs to be on high moral ground which india is not coz india itself was once involved with mukti bahini in east pakistan with ltte in srilanka.it was clear case of interfering in the internal matters of its neighbours.No doubt today every neighbour in south asia looks suspicious of indian hegemony in the region.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 18 Jun 2010 04:04

ajit_tr wrote:coz india itself was once involved with mukti bahini in east pakistan with ltte in srilanka.it was clear case of interfering in the internal matters of its neighbours.

pardon my rather blunt question but do you even realise what you're syaing here? or better, are you even aware of what happened in bangladesh before its independence? If you do, was it 'interefering' in neighbours affairs?!

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Jun 2010 04:04

ajit_tr wrote:

Ah!! desperate attempts of clinging on to the past achievements.Indians including ones here on BRF know in hearts of their heart that india has lost its edge to fight pakistan after later acquiring nukes.So its better to sing peace tune rather than being a jingo.[/quote]

Who is remembering achievements? This is like the Holocaust: "Never forget!"

ajit_tr · Post by **ajit_tr** » 18 Jun 2010 04:05

Fourteen missing Pakistani soldiers traced

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... aced-hs-01

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Jun 2010 04:09

ajit_tr wrote: Sure it does takes two to tango.But to complain against terrorism india needs to be on high moral ground which india is not coz india itself was once involved with mukti bahini in east pakistan with ltte in srilanka.it was clear case of interfering in the internal matters of its neighbours.No doubt today every neighbour in south asia looks suspicious of indian hegemony in the region.

Sri Lanka & India, it is none of TSP's f$%&*ing business. Besides, if India has given up on LTTE and left the Tamils at the mercy of Sri Lankans. The Mukti Bahini crap is pulled out of your musharaff. 1971 was all about Pakijabi genocide against the Bangladeshis. If you want to talk peace as you said, shove the LET up your rectrum, bottle it there; and after that we don't bother with you, we give a f%^&ck about you, and neither do you have to give a f$%7ck about us. But thats not the piss you are talking about. You want rewards for your terror and nuke blackmail. I say kiss my ass.

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 18 Jun 2010 04:34

pardon the pingrezi in this halal dhaaga but...

bhyfore ij thij liquid oxygenullah (ajit) tearing off his burqa and revealing himself (sharm sharm..) in thij manner in the prejence of kaafir brahmin and baniya rejidents of this halal paki dhaaga? hain ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jun 2010 05:10

No doubt today every neighbour in south asia looks suspicious of indian hegemony in the region.

I would love to see that day when Indian leaders have regionals thinking that!!!!!

However, with a growing economy a country does put on some weight and needs more room - just the nature of that beast. And, what can one say, the regionals need to be accommodating.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jun 2010 06:50

CRamS wrote: the only interest US has in that region are the nukes in TSP which culd fall into extremist hands but at the moment are professionaly guarded by TSPA and are only targetted towards India. It was chilling.

Why is it chilling?

At least I have been breaking my head pointing this out on here. That is why I favor a Taliban takeover in Pakistan, and I believe that democracy in Pakisan would certainly elect a Taliban like government

That is why the US is supporting the Paki army and stopping democracy in Pakistan. There are factions of the Paki army that have enslaved themselves to the US. Bad as it may sound, if you ignore the fact that all Pakis hate Indians you find that the anti-US factions of the Paki army and the Taliban are the real Paki patriots.

I am for democracy in Pakistan. I want the Paki patriots to win.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jun 2010 06:52

Just for the heck of it let me cross post 2 posts I made in a Paki liberal forum

I look at opinion polls in Pakistan and it looks like most people dislike the US and hate India. The Taliban too dislike the US and hate India. The Taliban are Muslims. 97% of Pakistanis are Muslims.

It appears to me that a Taliban government could conceivably come to power in Pakistan. Pakistan was violent even before the Taliban came, so what is new about the Taliban? More violence? But that is what freedom fighters will always do. Pakistanis are no strangers to fighting for freedom, having provided “moral and diplomatic” support to freedom fighters in Kashmir and other parts of the world. Surely the cake of freedom from Hindu majority India could be topped with an icing of freedom from the US too?

I am told that polls indicate only a small percentage of Pakistanis support Islamic parties. This and the fact that the Pakistan army is valiantly pushing aside the Taliban in Orkazai and Waziristan are held up as clear examples of Pakistani moderation and hatred for the purely Islamic Taliban.

But there is a problem here. Polls can be held again, and must be held again and again. The Islamists may win the polls next time, and the army may suffer setbacks. The Taliban could still come to power in Pakistan.

Should Pakistanis really try to “prevent” the Taliban from coming to power if they have popular support? How will you know that they do not have popular support unless you hold polls again and again.

and

I see Pakistan as being controlled in the background by the Army. This may seem alright as long as the army allows democracy to survive. But I believe that the Pakistan army has cooperated too closely with the US over the years to be totally free of US influence.

I do not believe that the US will allow free and fair democracy for the simple reason that I think the first thing that self respecting Pakistanis will do is to rid Pakistan of the US.

As long as the Pakistan army and the US are in cahoots – democracy has little chance in Pakistan. There is a more sinister sideshow being caused by US pressure. I believe (without offering any proof) that the Pakistan army is internally split over the US issue. The army is too disciplined to reveal spats like this, but clearly the army is reluctant to follow US dictates, leading to rebound US pressure.

In fact this might possibly split Pakistan yet again into a “Moderate, real Pakistan” consisting of Punjab, Sindh and parts of other provinces and a “Talibanistan” consisting of North Waziristan, parts of Balochistan and areas across the Durand line. Note that this would solve a lot of US headaches about whom to attack and whom to pay off and whom to play off against the other.

I would like to be told why this is unlikely to become reality over the next few years. given that Pakistan has had little real control over some of those areas, while allowing the US to exert its influence.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 18 Jun 2010 06:54

Killing of doctors: survivors recount their tales of horror

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jun 2010 07:08

ajit_tr wrote:Ah!! desperate attempts of clinging on to the past achievements.Indians including ones here on BRF know in hearts of their heart that india has lost its edge to fight pakistan after later acquiring nukes.So its better to sing peace tune rather than being a jingo.

Hard as it may seem to swallow, there is an element of truth in what this guy says. When the usual BR jingos say it - there is some iritation but no protest. When this guy pipes up and says the same thing everyone comes down on him like a ton of bricks.

May I (with apologies) point out a piskological burkha that we on BRF are fond of hiding behind? We find a scapegoat for India's weakenss. We like to say "Oh if it was not for xyz, India would have been strong"

Currently the cause of India's weakness is MMS/Sonia/UPA. Every little fact that reveals India's weakness to us is covered up in a Pakiesque manner by saying "If only MMS was not weak or subsrvient to Italian madam and US interests"

There is yet another tendency on BRF that I believe is going to necessitate our "waking up and smelling the coffee" ourselves. India does not have the military strength to occupy Pakistan, and even if it did it would be a bad idea to get stuck in the Paki quagmire. Theer wil be Pakistanis who hate India until the youngest BRF member is an old man on his deathbed and beyond. And here will be Pakis who are poking fun at India and Indians and demanding things for a long long time to come. All these are victories for Pakistan. And the US is still standing by that Pakistan

The only way forward for India is to cut our losses. Why get upset if some newbie says it? Cognitive dissonance?

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 18 Jun 2010 07:13

shravan wrote:Killing of doctors: survivors recount their tales of horror

How many more doctors do we have in Paki?

....no doctors..no treatment...only disease and death.

Added Later
Thats a long list...1 , 2

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Jun 2010 07:14

This is what Americans are planning:

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2 ... _war_clock

We should not offer what Pakistan has asked us for so often, namely a nuclear deal similar to the one given to India. The Indian deal was costly enough, but justifiable given the possible reward of a long-term shift in the trajectory of U.S.-Indian relations. Until Pakistan comes fully clean about the Khan network, any nuclear deal is a non-starter.

But the thing Pakistan cares about almost as much as (and perhaps more than) a nuclear deal is the Indian file. For nine years we have tried to get Pakistan to see in Afghanistan what we see, a dangerous problem of safe-havens for militant Islamist terrorist networks. Instead, when Pakistan looks at Afghanistan, it sees India -- that is, a possible two-front conflict in which India conducts mischief in Pakistan's backyard. That is why so much of Pakistan's efforts in Afghanistan have been counterproductive. Maybe it is time to leverage that largely unfounded but deeply entrenched view. Maybe it is time to offer them some help on specific asks they have on their India file: say further restrictions on Indian activity in Afghanistan (even though it is benign), or perhaps reinvigorated efforts to deal with environmental and water resource issues related to the Kashmir, or perhaps reinvigorating regional confidence building measures with an expanded U.S.-sponsored Track II dialogue on conventional war doctrine.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 18 Jun 2010 07:22

At least I have been breaking my head pointing this out on here. That is why I favor a Taliban takeover in Pakistan, and I believe that democracy in Pakisan would certainly elect a Taliban like government

Every Indian who has Indian interests foremost in his/her mind will support a Taliban takeover of Pakistan.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jun 2010 08:02

Pakistan holds inter-ministerial consultations ahead of bilateral talks

Mr. Basit did indicate that Balochistan and “India's hand in the unrest” could come up for discussion. “We have been making our point with regard to this particular issue,” he said to a question on whether Pakistan would raise the Balochistan issue.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Jun 2010 08:04

Sorry if posted before

South Punjabi anger in Pak feeds militants

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed ... 59305.aspx

e-paper version has an additional box

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/Articl ... 004&mode=1

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jun 2010 08:07

arun wrote:Would you by any chance have anything turdier on this bit of infamy by way of a weblink?

arun, sorry. I have no more info.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jun 2010 08:19

In the long term we have to stop thinking of "defeating" Pakistan and start thinking of "utilizing" Pakistan for our own interests.

This is not as easy to do as it is for me to say it.

In the first place "utilizing" as opposed to "defeating" means that we need to put war in second place. It cannot be a primary aim. But how can we put war in second place when Pakistan constantly attacks us?

When Pakistan fights us, Pakistan too suffers (not mentally - they love it - but economically and human development wise - they sink). We are happy if Pakistan suffers, but war makes us suffer too and that makes Pakis happy.

Every country who supplies arms or supports either India or Pakistan makes money and political capital out of this conflict. We (India) may say "We do not want conflict". But Pakis are stupid enough to fall into the clutches of nations like the US or China who will encourage them to do their own thing and give them the arms and money to keep doing that. This ensures that Pakistan can never be "defeated".

Now look at this: If Pakistan cannot be defeated because of outside assistance, and if Pakistan constantly seeks war with India, it is India that loses the most. Pakistanis don't care (they are screwed anyway). But their sponsors are happy.

Under these circumstances it is pointless to try and defeat Pakistan. We will have to look at defeating their sponsors in the long term. One possible method of defeating those sponsors is to make peace with Pakistan. This may be a hard fact for some people to swallow, but BRF has spent zero time thinking about this and in the absence of coherent thoughts there is confusion. I will merely throw questions up in the air and end this post.

If India seeks peace with Pakistan then what terms of peace are best for India?

1) India gifts all of India to Pakistan and agrees to allow Kiyani to raise a Pakistani flag on re fort
2) India gifts Kashmir to Pakistan
3) India keeps India along with Kashmir but demands trade and economic exchanges between the two countries with a view to long term reconciliation

If we on BRF have Indian interests in mind and accept that India cannot defeat Pakistan and that an end to conflict is in India's long term interest ten we have to select one of teh above 3 options. If there are any other options I would love to hear them.

After selecting one of the 3 options we can talk about how to go about achieving that or accusing someone of already having selected option 1, 2 or 3.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jun 2010 08:29

Don't you people think that Pakistan, that citadel of Islam should have a proper Islamic government?

Do you folks seriously believe the American/Pakiliberal myth that just because Pakistan has not elected an Islamic government it its 1.5 elections in its 1300 year history the Islamists have no chance of coming to power in Pakistan?

Now you are all Paki experts on here.

Why has there been no democracy in Pakistan? Because the Paki army has always ruled Pakistan.

How come the Pakistani army has managed to survive and rule Pakistan despite defeats and worldwide pressure for democracy? It is US aid and support to the Pakistani army.

Comprendez?

As long as the US is supporting the Pakistan army, Pakistan will always fight India, the Pakistan army will always survive and democracy will never come to Pakistan.

India has to work under these constraints, and "win over" Pakistanis - including Islamists. Not easy, but as long as we take the attitude that we can't do, we won't do.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Jun 2010 08:38

The current government in India seems to have decided that option #3 is the way forward.

But for that to happen, Pakistan and its rulers will need to come to the table and keep both their hands on that table as a sign of true honesty and commitment.

Institutional inertia, engraved old ideas and a poor sinking nation getting more hardened on its echendee issues are the factors that need to be overcome for that to happen.

One way this process will get accelerated, is if the highly pure get to a state where the takeover of Pakistan is imminent. The situation is bad in pakistan, but the RAPE is still quite comfortable in their northern punjab cities protected by their own flesh and blood - Pakistan army for now.

The punjabi terror boys, and the rank and file of the Pakistan army is islamist militant who sympathize idealogically with the highly pure talibs, sharia in pakistan, shuttlecock burqas for women, public lashings, hand chopping, khoon ka badla khoon - that kind of tripe. There is some level of understanding by the common abdul that this islamization will probably not affect the common malnourished abdul. It will affect the zamindars and the rich RAPE, which is why the abdul is all for it. So there is an element of a class struggle in this islamization movement that is underway in pakistan.

I would say, the fact that the elites in paksitan have supressed >95% of their own population who are rising under the banner of islam to get their rightful due is something that is appreciable. In pakistan, the poor have just no other avenue to get any form of social justice - the government is corrupt, the courts are inept and corrupt, the rich punjabis hold all the cards. The poor just bears an ever increasing burden.

Fot the Rich punjabis to come to their senses, the poor will have to take over that country under the flag of islam, impose sharia there.

Pakistan needs more Islam, it is their rightful destiny.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 18 Jun 2010 08:44

If India seeks peace with Pakistan then what terms of peace are best for India?

1) India gifts all of India to Pakistan and agrees to allow Kiyani to raise a Pakistani flag on re fort
2) India gifts Kashmir to Pakistan
3) India keeps India along with Kashmir but demands trade and economic exchanges between the two countries with a view to long term reconciliation

The flaw in the above argument is failing to identify which constituency in Pakistan is being solicited for "peace" by making concessions.

Very simply, Pakistan has no constituency capable of accepting any concession from India... short of Paki flag flying on the Red Fort... and being able to guarantee "peace" in exchange.

If Pakistan had a thriving middle class with any sort of clout, if they had even the faintest promise of economic development or the vaguest interest in advancing as a nation, then there might be a constituency one could appeal to with concessions (even then, I would have grave doubts, given the deeply vested interest of the all-powerful TSPA in *not* having peace with India.)

But Pakistan doesn't have any such class. Not in any numbers that matter anyway. What they have is 180+ million "pure" with no skills, no education, no hope, and one gun for every three adult males. What interest will they have in "peace"?

Anything less than Red Fort, if given to Pakistan, will only be an encouragement to demand more. This is not BRF "conventional wisdom"... it is borne out by the entire history of India-Pakistan relations.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jun 2010 08:53

abhishek_sharma wrote:South Punjabi anger in Pak feeds militants

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed ... 59305.aspx

from the above,

Intelligence officials worry that the SSP may come closer to the Seriakistan movement, headed by local politicians like Durrani, who once belonged to the right-wing Jamaat-e-Islami party.

There are two points to be noted here.

One is that SSP getting closer to the Seraikistan Movement. SSP is deeply embedded in AQAM (Al Qaeda & Allied Movements) today. SSP and other terror organizations reinforce each other's agenda. They will exploit any crack anywhere to take advantage of. The Shariat Movement in Swat was hijacked earlier. The sectarian divide has been exploited. The plight of the landless in Swat/Malakand were also exploited though Islam is not an egalitarianism-preaching religion. Hardcore Deobandi/Wahhabi organizations such as JI, JUI vehemently opposed land reforms in Pakistan and the CII (Council of Islamic Ideology of which Prof. Hafeez Saeed was once part of) denounced land reforms as inconsistent with Islam. So, AQAM, especially the Punjabi Taliban (BTW, this was a tag bestowed on HuJI by none other than Mullah Omar when Qari Saifullah Akhtar was his close advisor in Kandahar), will use any ruse to spread their tentacles. Seraikistan Movement will be no exception.

The second is that there is a war of attrition going on between the Punjabi Taliban and the LeT. This is akin to the migration that took place from Sufi/Berelvi sects to the Deobandi/Wahhabi/Salafist ideology in Punjab & Sind since the 90s. The latter employed several techniques such as threats, taking over mosques, discrediting pirs & sajjada nashins etc. The PA & LeT are forced to launch terror attacks on India and raise jihadi passions to retain the LeT cadres.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jun 2010 09:19

Rudradev wrote: The flaw in the above argument is failing to identify which constituency in Pakistan is being solicited for "peace" by making concessions.

There is no problem here. India has many excuses for not making peace with Pakistan. with your statement being just one of them. And that is why we have this constant conflict which we may not lose but we will not win, while we are unable to check the US or China.

Constiuencies have to be built over time. The US and China have built their constituencies in Pakistan. The US has even lost part of its constituency. I believe we should be grabbing what the US has lost and others. As long as we are unable to face the idea that we have to eat humble pie and create a pro-India constituency out of Pakistanis and worry that they will ask for more and more - all that we will see is more of same.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 18 Jun 2010 09:31

No, the problem is our failure to create such a constituency despite 63 years of making concessions. Even following 1971, we made concessions at Simla hoping to create a constituency. The constituency went home, laughed in our face, told Pakistanis to eat grass while nuclear weapons were developed, and eventually got hanged.

In 1999 Vajpayee tried to make concessions and create a constituency. He got Kargil instead. He invited Musharraf to Delhi, again hoping to build a constituency. He got the Agra debacle. It was only when the Vajpayee government mobilized in 2002, that relative peace returned in some measure to J&K... as seen in the figures for terrorism-related deaths in the state before and after Parakram. Only the threat of a war could bring relative peace with Pakistan.

A few years ago Manmohan Singh tried to barter away Indian sovereignty over J&K, again in hopes of building a constituency. A few years later the dictator he was trying to placate is history. The foreign minister of that dictator, KM Kasuri, makes forlorn statements about how close we had come to an "understanding on Kashmir." Now they have another dictator who is distancing himself from any hint of such an understanding with the previous dictator... and adding "water" to Pakistan's list of demands.

So what should we offer this one in order to make him a constituency that can (and will) guarantee us peace in exchange?

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 18 Jun 2010 09:32

As to defeating the sponsors of Pakistan, the best way to go about is to notice the fact that there are two of them, who mutually dont like each other...so whoever comes with Pak's head on a silver plate gets our support - and while we are waiting for that, send clear message (through growth, increasing military strength, covert or overt or diplomatic counter measures, etc) that the strategy comes with costs and is not a cheap option to keep India down...

We have nothing much to offer to Unkil because Unkil is unreliable. Perhaps 'taller than mountain' is a candidate...

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Jun 2010 09:42

From abhishek_sharma's link, thus spoke TSP; the brazen demands to stop supporting terrror are simply breathtaking.

1) The US should limit Bharati presence in Afghanistan.
2) Pakistan should be given a Nuclear Deal with the US.
3) Pakistan seeks parity with Bharat in all dealings with the US—in other words the relationship has to be re-hyphenated again.
4) The US and NATO countries should pressure Bharat on resolving Kashmir.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 18 Jun 2010 09:53

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... terror-860

Army of pure animals facing funds shortage...bring out the begging bowls...

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jun 2010 10:08

CRamS wrote:From abhishek_sharma's link, thus spoke TSP; the brazen demands to stop supporting terrror are simply breathtaking.

That comes naturally to the all-conquering PA. Even when thrashed soundly in 1971 and even when 93000 of their PoWs were in Indian hands, the PA's demands were breathtaking and Ms. Gandhi's advisors told her not to press Pakistan too hard and be magnanimous in victory to win over that nation.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Jun 2010 10:45

On the forum that Shiv mentions, it is interesting to see how easily the mask slips off some of the "secular, liberal, moderate" Pakistanis (and their pet Indians) when they are persistently contradicted by Indians.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Jun 2010 10:53

A_Gupta wrote:On the forum that Shiv mentions, it is interesting to see how easily the mask slips off some of the "secular, liberal, moderate" Pakistanis (and their pet Indians) when they are persistently contradicted by Indians.

Which site is this? As usual, Shiv putting them on wrong path of kuffar reasoning ? How can paki be liberal and secular when his onlee identity consitutes that of Koranic injuctions against Kaffirs. We must turn every Paki into islamist egg so the next generational choochas know nothing but good citizen making pakistaniat.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 18 Jun 2010 10:57

Regarding Ajit_tr, we welcome him and ask him to state his real name as it is perfectly obvious he is from the land of the Pure

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 18 Jun 2010 10:58

shiv wrote:Don't you people think that Pakistan, that citadel of Islam should have a proper Islamic government?

Do you folks seriously believe the American/Pakiliberal myth that just because Pakistan has not elected an Islamic government it its 1.5 elections in its 1300 year history the Islamists have no chance of coming to power in Pakistan?

Now you are all Paki experts on here.

Why has there been no democracy in Pakistan? Because the Paki army has always ruled Pakistan.

How come the Pakistani army has managed to survive and rule Pakistan despite defeats and worldwide pressure for democracy? It is US aid and support to the Pakistani army.

Comprendez?

As long as the US is supporting the Pakistan army, Pakistan will always fight India, the Pakistan army will always survive and democracy will never come to Pakistan.

India has to work under these constraints, and "win over" Pakistanis - including Islamists. Not easy, but as long as we take the attitude that we can't do, we won't do.

US and the erstwhile Soviet Union were in a similar stalemate for over 4 decades. The reasons for the stalemate were not the same as India-paki stalemate - as the USSR on its own was capable of thwarting any over aggression from America and vice versa. They did not fight a direct war, fought several proxy wars and never ever came close to having real peace. But both sides took extraordinary efforts to cast the 'other' side as ideological 'them'. America made it its state policy to cast the USSr as an evil empire and most of the Americans were on board because the gotus took extraordinary efforts to make sure that it was always cast as an ideological war. They had cold war or cold peace and both side made it an existential issue.

In the end the USSR buckled under its own contradictions and the US promptly declared its way of life as the ultimate winner.

Unless the GoI recasts the India-paki struggle as an ideological one (carefully keeping Islam out of it) it will never find a wholehearted participation from the aam junta. Making half-hearted peace attempts with an ideological implacable foe just keeps the pot boiling. It keeps your own citizens confused and keeps them in the dark about the evil that is the other side. Why can't the GoI recast pakiland as the source of evil, the modern day Kauravas? Because it is scared that the latent Dharmik soul of the nation will demand a Mahabharat that it is not prepared for?