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

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by Pranav »

RajeshA wrote: "Either you totally destroy an enemy, or you leave him alone." - is another way of saying "Either you get nuked, or you get terrorized."
I had reworded that - If you think you are not strong enough to totally destroy an enemy, at acceptable cost, then don't go and poke him in the eye.
[*]Destroy TSPA's sheen. My suggestion was, that this is best possible, by grabbing chunks of land from Pakistan as compensation for their terrorism in India.
No... that would be a poor choice. There are plenty of other options, however.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by shiv »

Rajesh - there is one problem with what you suggest. It assumes that Pakistanis are all united in loving their land and will uniformly feel pain when part of that land is taken. What follows from this idea is that if any Pakistani is a terrorist, he and his supporters can be made to feel pain by taking a random piece of land from the whole "Pakistan". This would be fine if all Pakistanis were equal in their love for Pakistani land.

In fact loss of East Pakistan and of FATA, and the gifting away of parts of PoK did not cause pain to the main culprits who were supposed to ensure that all the Paki land was to remain intact - i.e the Pawki army.

I would agree (partially) with your suggestion if it was modified to a much simpler act. One terrorist act earns retaliation in the form of one General's/mad Mullah's private home blowm up by a PGM because this is closest to making the guilty feel pain.

But I believe the situation is even more complex than this in some ways. For example, I could say why not a PGM on Dawood's properties in Karachi? There are several downsides to that. Perhaps special ops/saboteurs to blow up houses of generals would be useful But that would mean earning goodwill from a group who could be saboteurs allied to us. That cannot be done by blind bombing where the saboteurs groups own folks get hurt.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by RajeshA »

Pranav wrote:
RajeshA wrote: "Either you totally destroy an enemy, or you leave him alone." - is another way of saying "Either you get nuked, or you get terrorized."
I had reworded that - If you think you are not strong enough to totally destroy an enemy, at acceptable cost, then don't go and poke him in the eye.
Enmity is not something static in the context of India and Pakistan. Enmity here is very dynamic.
  • They are recruiting Indians, brainwashing them and turning them into Islamic zealots and extremists. Destroying the fabric of our communal harmony and peace.
  • They are sending own terrorists to conduct terrorist acts within India.
  • They are contributing all they can to the boil in Kashmir.
  • Not to speak of Khalistan, and all the arms smuggling to various groups fighting India.
.

So enmity is very dynamic here. Who is poking whom in the eye? Why don't the Pakistanis think "Either you totally destroy an enemy, or you leave him alone.". They are not destroying us completely, but they are still poking in our eyes. I wonder why is this 'wisdom' not accessible to the Pakistanis.
Pranav wrote:
[*]Destroy TSPA's sheen. My suggestion was, that this is best possible, by grabbing chunks of land from Pakistan as compensation for their terrorism in India.
No... that would be a poor choice. There are plenty of other options, however.
Please, care to elaborate what other options are there to take away the sheen off TSPA? I am very open for education on this.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by Pranav »

RajeshA wrote: So enmity is very dynamic here. Who is poking whom in the eye? Why don't the Pakistanis think "Either you totally destroy an enemy, or you leave him alone.". They are not destroying us completely, but they are still poking in our eyes. I wonder why is this 'wisdom' not accessible to the Pakistanis.
Yes, they have been poking us in the eye. But that may end up hurting them, if India gets a sufficiently competent and nationalistic leadership.
Please, care to elaborate what other options are there to take away the sheen off TSPA? I am very open for education on this.
What is needed is long-term social engineering. One has to be able to steer forces within Pak society. Capability to carry out deniable covert actions is necessary. But it is not necessarily an advantage to get rid of one fanatic only to have him replaced by another fanatic.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by shiv »

I saw a strange news item in the paper todin. It said that suicide bombers are being readied to target P. Chidambaram by people who do not want talks between India an d Pakistan?

*deleted*

More seriously who in Pakistan is against talks? And who is the group that is for talks? Who gains (or loses) and what?
Last edited by SSridhar on 25 Jun 2010 06:08, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Shiv, I know you meant it as a joke, But, this is not appropriate in the existing situation and could land us in trouble. Deleted the offending portion.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by RajeshA »

shiv wrote:Rajesh - there is one problem with what you suggest. It assumes that Pakistanis are all united in loving their land and will uniformly feel pain when part of that land is taken. What follows from this idea is that if any Pakistani is a terrorist, he and his supporters can be made to feel pain by taking a random piece of land from the whole "Pakistan". This would be fine if all Pakistanis were equal in their love for Pakistani land.

In fact loss of East Pakistan and of FATA, and the gifting away of parts of PoK did not cause pain to the main culprits who were supposed to ensure that all the Paki land was to remain intact - i.e the Pawki army.
shiv ji,

I believe there is a difference between loss of East Pakistan, FATA or parts of PoK to China, and a land grab from India.
  • Pakistan lost East Pakistan, but who won it? Again it was Bangladeshi Muslims. So the land eventually remained part of the Ummah. Maybe the Bangladeshis were not all that TFTA like the Pakjabis and the Pushtuns but they could be considered Muslims, and all was well. It was not Palestine or Cordoba or Andalucia.
  • FATA is actually a loss to the more pious strain. That is hardly a loss.
  • Parts of PoK acceded to China probably hardly had anybody living there, or hardly any Muslims. It would not even register in the Ummah Land Holdings.
TSPA considers itself as the neo-Mughal Army, the holders of the Flag of Islam on the Indian Subcontinent. Loss of 'Muslim' Land to Kufr would not go down well with the pious, nor the most pious for that reason alone. Pakistani nationalists who hate India, regardless of own piety, too would consider it an ignominious defeat. Every single TSPA soldier will get disdain in their village, disdain reserved for losers.

The 'irregular' terrorists would not feel the pain, as they would have done their job well in India. Their masters, the TSPA generals, however would have a serious loss of face if they suffer a defeat at the hands of the Kufr.

All Pakistanis are not necessarily in love with all Pakistani land, but most are still in awe of the Pakistani Fauj. Up till now, the TSPA could always sell every defeat at the hands of India as some sort of victory, or at least a draw, with a few complaints of back-stabbing by Americans, etc. thrown in to justify the lack of a complete victory. India holding on to some piece of Pakistani land would be a reminder to the Pakistanis that their Army lost and lost without a doubt.

It is in defeat, that all the knives come out.

Any frontal attack on some Pakistani general may or may not put fear in his heart and in the hearts of his colleagues. Let's not forget they too have many resources and agents in India. Assassinations and counter-assassinations can go out of hand. Pakistani propaganda can deal with such an attack far more easily. The general would be considered a martyr. Another general would take over and the story would continue. There will be pressure on the general to hit at India in any way possible, and if he does not show the guts to do something about it, the Army and its Islamic benefactors would find some other general, who is willing to hit out. May be their attacks would become more covert or deniable for the rest of the world, but attacks for which the general would be able to collect the laurels from his peers.

The attack on the general would work, only if there was a small coterie on top making all the decisions, and they would get scared from such a counter-attack. In the meantime, there is a whole network of stake-holders in this enmity and posture, and they would not allow any general to go easy on India.

Grabbing a piece of Pakistani Land puts this whole anti-India Islamic TSPA milieu on notice, because if their stupid posture towards India causes further defeats at the hands of Kufr India, then they have to answer to the Ummah, why the self-styled neo-Mughals are spreading this stench of defeat to the Muslims of the Ummah and how could they have allowed such a decrease in the Ummah Land Holdings.

This may force the entrenched Pakistani Establishment to reconsider their policy of terrorism towards India.

An Analogy:

A father raises his son to be a tough bully. Everyday the son comes home, with a new shirt and tells his father how he beat up a boy and took his shirt. The father says 'Mugambo khush hua'!

One day, the son comes home with a nose bleed and no shirt. Upon inquiry he tells his father, the other guy beat him up and the other guy is now wearing his shirt. Hearing this, the father admonishes him and gives him a slap on the wrist.

So what does the son do now? Will he go and fight the other guy again? If he gets beaten up again, he will lose another shirt and get more admonished.
Last edited by RajeshA on 24 Jun 2010 19:10, edited 1 time in total.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by rohitvats »

Sri wrote:
<SNIP>

My contention is that CS is inherently a flawed concept and doesn't act as an deterrent at all. I think the whole strategy achieves nothing and creates massive hullabaloo which in longer run the Indian polity will come to detest (like the 'diplomatic offensive' after 26/11).
Please explain your reasons for this.
As you mentioned above, until unless we do not have the stomach to for a long drawn conventional conflict, NO other military response will ever be enough. If anything, if we do successfully implement the CS doctrine without a huge conventional back up, then it gives PA all the more reason / motivation to continuing LIC.
How is CS and having strong conventional back-up exclusive?

Thanx.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by rohitvats »

shiv wrote:Here is what I feel about cold start. I believe we tend to think about what cold start will do after it starts, but don't you think that after it starts

<SNIP>
There is a huge cost angle - PA is going nuts in trying to stave off the CS, when the evidence in open forum shows that the IBGs are not even on the horizon.Yes, those assets (to counter CS) can and will be used in case of PA assault - but that is another story.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by shiv »

RajeshA wrote: TSPA considers itself as the neo-Mughal Army, the holders of the Flag of Islam on the Indian Subcontinent. Loss of 'Muslim' Land to Kufr would not go down well with the pious, nor the most pious for that reason alone. Pakistani nationalists who hate India, regardless of own piety, too would consider it an ignominious defeat. Every single TSPA soldier will get disdain in their village, disdain reserved for losers.

The 'irregular' terrorists would not feel the pain, as they would have done their job well in India. Their masters, the TSPA generals, however would have a serious loss of face if they suffer a defeat at the hands of the Kufr.
Agree

RajeshA wrote:Any frontal attack on some Pakistani general may or may not put fear in his heart and in the hearts of his colleagues. Let's not forget they too have many resources and agents in India. Assassinations and counter-assassinations can go out of hand.
Disagree. The reason why terrorists have moved down the line from hard targets to soft targets is because the top targets are hard.

If we can "arrange" to get top targets in Pakistan and still keep our top targets safe we are winning.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25382
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by SSridhar »

British Foreign Secretary sees Pakistan as a better investment destination
He agreed to the questioner that Pakistan was still a better destination for investment.
Better than whom ? Liberia ?
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by RajeshA »

shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Any frontal attack on some Pakistani general may or may not put fear in his heart and in the hearts of his colleagues. Let's not forget they too have many resources and agents in India. Assassinations and counter-assassinations can go out of hand.
Disagree. The reason why terrorists have moved down the line from hard targets to soft targets is because the top targets are hard.

If we can "arrange" to get top targets in Pakistan and still keep our top targets safe we are winning.
With PGMs, there is some difficulty in credible deniability. Hence my doubts about a "frontal attack".

I will be the last Indian, to criticize "arranging" a meeting between a Pakistani General and his well-earned 72 raisins. That may serve as just punishment, but could just as well motivate the next general to do more for his right-flank by attacking India even more. I am just not convinced, that it would lead to less terrorism in India.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60276
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by ramana »

Why are we discussing Indian options in this thread? Control folks control.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by RajeshA »

ramana guru,

Which thread would be appropriate to discuss Indian options against Pakistan for the Terrorism they perpetrate?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by shiv »

rohitvats wrote:
shiv wrote:Here is what I feel about cold start. I believe we tend to think about what cold start will do after it starts, but don't you think that after it starts

<SNIP>
There is a huge cost angle - PA is going nuts in trying to stave off the CS, when the evidence in open forum shows that the IBGs are not even on the horizon.Yes, those assets (to counter CS) can and will be used in case of PA assault - but that is another story.
CS causes takleef because it blows the "terrorists are independent of the Paki army" cover. Slow mobilization allowed that hijab/cover to survive.

It is costly only if they seek to remain mobilized all the time. The other option is to stop sponsoring terror attacks. Takleef either way.
Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by Chinmayanand »

Only way to control this paki whore is to punish the Chinese. If pigs carry terrorist attacks on India, India must defang the pig army. If the pigs destroy our dams, we must first destroy the Chinese dams and then the paki ones. If pakis use nukes on India, we must use nukes against China first and then the pakis. We must let the Chinese know , what lies ahead for them for arming the pakis with military hardware and nukes. Why should India bother about a whore propped up by the Chinese , instead let China control its dog or else China gets the punishment. But we don't have bold leaders , our leaders are our greatest enemies. :(
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60276
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by ramana »

RajeshA, Start a new thread for this thread is to discuss news of TSP and its implications. By posting about India it loses focus and the discussion is not in one place for later use.

Dont worry about NTP: Non-Thread Proliferation. If the topic is good the thread will last or meet its whither or demise due to lack of interest.
Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by Altair »

shiv wrote:I saw a strange news item in the paper todin. It said that suicide bombers are being readied to target P. Chidambaram by people who do not want talks between India an d Pakistan?
[edited]

More seriously who in Pakistan is against talks? And who is the group that is for talks? Who gains (or loses) and what?
I guess the suicide bombers are actually chappal bombers. :rotfl:

Kiyani looses in long term if talks succeed. He must then keep the "act" going for a little longer. Its not easy to hide a knife inside ones undies and still talk with a straight face. There is a risk it might ruin the already circumcised organ.
Last edited by ramana on 25 Jun 2010 10:42, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: See SSridhar's edit
Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by Altair »

RajeshA wrote: I will be the last Indian, to criticize "arranging" a meeting between a Pakistani General and his well-earned 72 raisins. That may serve as just punishment, but could just as well motivate the next general to do more for his right-flank by attacking India even more. I am just not convinced, that it would lead to less terrorism in India.
Actually it might lead to less terrorism.
If Paki taliban or even disgruntled ex or current PA goes for bounty killing of PA jernails.They would be mistrust within PA. Its not easy to pass commands down the chain in an environment where there is a price on your head.Dollars can be very tempting. It has been proven in Iraq that the Generals went for self-preservation rather than save Saddam or Bath party.Knowing pakis for such a long time, It is very much possible that the Paki jernails would go for self-preservation rather than attack the country which has put a price on his head. There are many instances of back stabbing in the Iraq case which can replicate in Pakistan.

Added later:I do not suggest such a measure lightly. I just feel this is the most opportune moment for such a radical measure. There is a battle of wits going on with PA at one end and other parties at other end.
ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by ajit_tr »

Pak again plays Kashmir card, says look into it first
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 086596.cms
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by Pranav »

India, Pakistan agree to insulate dialogue from terror - http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-Pak ... 62573.aspx

What the dialogue needs to be insulated from is Indian retaliation against terror
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10205
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by sum »

Pranav wrote:India, Pakistan agree to insulate dialogue from terror - http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-Pak ... 62573.aspx

What the dialogue needs to be insulated from is Indian retaliation against terror
What will the GoI do after the next attack then? :-? :roll:

Their only Brahmastra against Paki terror was the "dreaded" option of suspending talks. With even that delinked, GoI might just be left option less after the next Paki attack!!!
Brad Goodman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2443
Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by Brad Goodman »

Perhaps they need to add a footnote that any future attack on Indian soil or against Indian interest anywhere in world would invoke a strong retaliation on pakis involved or suspected to be involved in it. That way we can talk and bomb :lol:
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60276
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by ramana »

Making statements that are not backed up will lead to further erosionon of power soft or hard.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5874
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by SBajwa »

It has been proven in Iraq that the Generals went for self-preservation rather than save Saddam or Bath party.Knowing pakis for such a long time, It is very much possible that the Paki jernails would go for self-preservation rather than attack the country which has put a price on his head. There are many instances of back stabbing in the Iraq case which can replicate in Pakistan.
The paki jernails carry the genes that have surrendered millions of time to Mughals as well as Afghanis!! At one time Lahore Governor (before Sikhs took over) was paying tribute to both Mughals at Delhi and Kabul.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by Pranav »

sum wrote:
Pranav wrote:India, Pakistan agree to insulate dialogue from terror - http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-Pak ... 62573.aspx

What the dialogue needs to be insulated from is Indian retaliation against terror
What will the GoI do after the next attack then? :-? :roll:

Their only Brahmastra against Paki terror was the "dreaded" option of suspending talks. With even that delinked, GoI might just be left option less after the next Paki attack!!!
I don't necessarily advocate overt action, but that is a one-sided statement. I think henceforth the standard statement should be "insulation of dialog from both terror and retaliatory actions against terrorists".
AdityaM
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2063
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by AdityaM »

timesnow calls in all and sundry for their panel discussions. but if u notice, all the professional retired diplomats are against these talk & calling this directionless & ill conceived.
only the channel hosts & professional journalists are welcoming the talks
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4274
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by Rudradev »

RajeshA wrote:
Rudradev wrote: It is a 400% empty threat as long as Pakistan is illegally sitting on nearly 100,000 square kilometers of our land, and we aren't able to do a goddamn thing about that. What "land" of theirs are we going to confiscate, when for 63 years we have not been able to take back even the land that is our own?
Rudradev ji,

You are comparing apples to oranges in this case, or let's say apples to apple-orange-hybrids.
Rajesh A-ji,

Not at all. You are recommending the punitive seizure of Pakistani land, to which Pakistan has legal rights under international law. I am pointing out that we are not even capable of reclaiming Indian land currently under the illegal occupation of Pakistan, to which India has legal rights under international law.

Very much the same fruit, albeit on different trees.

However, you propose confiscating the high-hanging fruit from the tree in our neighbour's yard... when we cannot even enforce our claim to the lower-hanging fruit from the tree in our own yard, to which the neighbour has been helping himself with impunity all these years. This is simply not practicable.

If we are to seize any land from Pakistan it must first be our own land that they illegally occupy... then at the very least, we will have a case under international law to back up our intent to possess that land in perpetuity.
  • Apples: Compensation for damages, due to Pakistan's current state policy of terrorism
  • Oranges: Historical issue in cryostasis


The political class, and I guess, the majority of the people, in India has already come to terms with living in State with a birth defect (PoK), for a number of reasons. The people are however not happy with the ongoing terrorism campaign coming from next door.
I would say this is inaccurate. If the political class and the people of India were content with the idea of POK and NA belonging to Pakistan, we wouldn't have parliamentary resolutions affirming that these are parts of India. We wouldn't maintain an expensive and difficult troop deployment in Siachen which is nowhere near the LOC. The establishment in New Delhi very well recognizes the strategic value of the parts of J&K under illegal Pakistani occupation.

No GOI has publicly offered Pakistan a permanent settlement based on LOC=IB, and with good reason... it's against the law, against the Indian Constitution, and if any government openly took the position that they were willing to cede 97,000 sq. km. of Indian land to Pakistan in perpetuity, they would not last very long. It also flouts the Instrument of Accession, on which basis the WHOLE of J&K (as it was before October 1947) acceded to India. If we are now going to say "ok ok, you Pakis can keep 1/3 of the state" does it not undermine the legal basis for our claim on any part of the state?

Only IG in the immediate aftermath of Bangladesh liberation had amassed enough political capital to survive offering a permanent LOC=IB solution to Pakistan; and that one chance was blown by the Pakistanis themselves.

The prevailing situation is that Indian political classes have determined that reclaiming POK and NA is too potentially expensive an option to actively pursue at the moment, that our resources are best spent elsewhere at this time; and the people of India largely agree with this.

This is a far cry from either the political classes or the Indian people coming to terms with the permanent Pakistani occupation of one-third of J&K.

J&K is anything but unrelated to the current policy of Pakistani stat terrorism in India. It is anything but a historical issue in cryostasis; it is the single most effective rallying cry for ALL Pakistani jihadi groups engaging in terrorism against India. The people and political class of India know this as well as anybody.

Land grab in Pakistan for every terror attack in India is to serve as a form of compensation/retribution/justice. It is supposed to hurt the terror perpetrators, where it hurts them the most, in the loss of H&D. It is not primarily for the sake of land itself.
Honestly, I believe the over-emphasis on H&D is often a case of us BRF-ites getting carried away with our own rhetoric.

Just because the TSPA and RAPE constantly mount soapboxes and claim H&D as a rationale for their demands, does *not* mean that a loss of H&D is actually something that could actually harm them. It isn't. We think, that because they talk about "H&D-Vech&D" all the time, it must be an important determinant of their policies and a force to reckon with in their internal political structure. It isn't.

If it were, the Pakis would never have rolled over for Armitage on 9/12/2001. They would not allow Predators to refuel in Pakistan, take off from Pakistani airbases and bomb Pakistani citizens. They would not have allowed themselves to be a condom for the United States during the Cold War. They would not be the rentier state that they have been throughout their history. No nation which is actually concerned with its Honor and Dignity would have done these things.

H&D isn't a genuine political commodity at all, but a tool for the TSPA to brandish about for a number of other purposes (detailed below.)

Why do I say this? Because loss of H&D has never, ever hurt the leadership of TSPA, or compromised its political power. Tikka Khan lost Bangladesh and went on to become Minister of Defense. Musharraf lost Kargil and went on to become President. No TSPA jernail has ever suffered for the loss of H&D inflicted on Pakistan by India, because the TSPA looks after its own and the RAPE collaborate willingly in this.

No, H&D is nothing more than a pretext, an excuse, a contrived fabrication that the Pakis (mainly TSPA) use for various other purposes. Such as:
1) Begging: Like Bhutto at Simla "please jee, don't force us to make a commitment on Kashmir jee, what about our H&D jee."
2) Making a case to depose inconvenient civilian leaders: like Nawaz Sharif getting blamed for Pakistan's H&D loss in Kargil when in fact it was entirely a TSPA operation.
3) More begging: Like Kiyani and co. to the US today. "See we have spent so much on your war of terror, we are doing so much for you, we have angered our own people. Let us airlift our assets out of Kunduz no. Get the Indians out of Afghanistan no. Give us F-16s no. Make the Indians negotiate on Kashmir no. It will help our H&D."
4) Conjuring up a justification to do something they wanted to do anyway: "What! The Dirty Kaffirs of India have conducted a nuclear test of five bums! Now we will conduct a nuclear test of six bums! For our H&D onlee!" (Also note "We will eat grass but we will build a nuclear bomb." That was also a use of H&D as a political pretext. The TSPA/RAPE themselves would never have to eat grass, and it didn't matter to them if the Mango Abdul had to eat grass, so H&D was used as the pretext for asking the Mango Abdul to eat grass while TSPA/RAPE developed the bums they wanted.)

Every new day, India holds on to this piece of land in Pakistan, be it even a couple of hundred square kilometers, conquered in response to a terror act in India, would be a day, when the Pakistani Army would be hauled over the coals. By the right-wing for losing a fight to the kafirs, and by the people and media for precipitating a clash leading to a loss of land.


I am deeply skeptical about this. If H&D were a genuine political commodity, a factual determinant of anything about Pakistani policy or internal politics... like the Bushido code of Imperial Japan for example... then I might believe it. But it isn't.

Loss of H&D has never, ever been used to harm or erode the power of the Pakistan army (the institution which has been chiefly responsible for all the most major losses of Pakistani "H&D" so far.) The collective resentment that will be caused across all sections of Paki society over a loss of H&D to India, IMHO far exceeds the disruptive effect of other groups within Pakistan blaming the TSPA for that H&D loss. If the SDRE Kaffirs grab land it will be a rallying point, not a source of internal dispute, for Paki society.

If India
a) Somehow manages to confiscate Pakistani land at what Indian leaders consider a reasonable cost and risk to itself... which isn't something I can imagine;
b) Somehow manages to hold this land at reasonable cost to itself;

History shows us that the last people who will be blamed for this in Pakistan are the TSPA. They cannot be judged for H&D loss... they are the judges who condemn and blame other parties for H&D loss, who cite H&D loss as a pretext for blackmailing other countries into giving them what they want. H&D is a tool in the TSPA's hands, and neither the Islamist right-wingers nor the Mango Abdul currently have anywhere near the kind of power required to wrest that tool away and use it against the TSPA itself.

Nobody will haul the TSPA over the coals. The TSPA will be the ones shouting "H&D! H&D!" as a rallying cry that will inspire the right wing Islamists, the Mango Abduls AND the Pakistani media to put aside their differences and unite against the Kaffir Yindoo who aggressively and illegally occupies their land. This will abrogate whatever fissiparous forces are currently destabilizing Pakistan, to a very large extent.

Meanwhile, we would have the whole international community breathing down our necks for illegally occupying Pakistani land in response to non-state aggression. We would give the TSPA a new excuse to seek weaponry, and the 3.5 friends (and others) a renewed excuse to supply weaponry to the TSPA.

We would receive lectures and possibly sanctions, and achieve a whole new level of equal-equal hyphenation from an international perspective ..."India claims Pakistan is in illegal occupation of Kashmir, while Pakistan claims India is in illegal occupation of Kashmir PLUS blah-blah-blah land seized by India, allegedly in response to a terrorist attack by non-state actors."

No great loss really, but on the other hand, not much use at all.

For all in India who think, there is a peace constituency in Pakistan and it needs to be strengthened, this is the way to go about it.
I humbly disagree. It seems to me that it would be the wrong way to go about it. Time and again, TSPA effectively silences any "peace constituency" in Pakistan by citing Indian aggression. Our occupation of Pakistani land would give TSPA a bonanza of fuel to feed the national paranoia about India and thereby consolidate their own position.

Do you really think the "peace constituency" will be able to convince the Mango Abdul (or any other class of Pakistanis) that the loss of land to India was actually TSPA's fault? This is not a society that has ever shown itself to be capable of honest introspection.

Never underestimate the TSPA's capacity for spin, or the gullibility of other classes of Pakis to succumb to that spin. Don't misconstrue the TSPA's degree of control over the media and Paki public opinion.

The magnitude of the TSPA's falsification of history, such as "we won the 1965 war", or "we were never involved in Kargil", is matched only by the willingness of the Paki people to swallow that spin via doublethink. The level of delusion endemic to that society is truly Orwellian in nature.
ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by ajit_tr »

Pakistan making vital strides, not a failing state: US expert
WASHINGTON: Citing return of democracy, successful anti-militant operations and an expanding infrastructure network, a top United States expert on south Asia has said Pakistan is making vital strides in the face of numerous challenges and is not a failing state, as wrongly bracketted by a recent Foreign Policy Index.

The Failed States Index is clearly only one side of the die. While sitting at a computer crunching numbers, even with expert input as the index apparently uses, the larger story is missed,” Christine Fair, an eminent political scientist, contended on the Foreign Policy magazine website.
Brad Goodman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2443
Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by Brad Goodman »

ajit_tr wrote:Pakistan making vital strides, not a failing state: US expert
WASHINGTON: Citing return of democracy, successful anti-militant operations and an expanding infrastructure network, a top United States expert on south Asia has said Pakistan is making vital strides in the face of numerous challenges and is not a failing state, as wrongly bracketted by a recent Foreign Policy Index.

The Failed States Index is clearly only one side of the die. While sitting at a computer crunching numbers, even with expert input as the index apparently uses, the larger story is missed,” Christine Fair, an eminent political scientist, contended on the Foreign Policy magazine website.
Is Christine Fair the new propoganda minister of TSPA regime? :shock:
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by shiv »

Gee I hope Christine Fair says that India is not failing too, because her saying it will make it so.
“The election of 2008, despite a difficult start with voter registration and manipulation of electoral rules, was reasonably fair and peaceful, despite Taliban threats to disrupt the process. That election saw the peaceful and democratic transfer of power which brought President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani into office.”
Benazir's assassination was peaceful and democratic.
ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by ajit_tr »

Rental power plant fails test run, eats up Rs225m
FAISALABAD, June 24: A 150 megawatt rental power plant (RPP) installed in Samundri has consumed furnace oil worth Rs225 million provided by the government over the past year, but is yet to pass a reliability test run mandatory to join the national transmission system.

Because of its old age, the plant manufactured by China in 1958 failed its first test conducted on June 4 by a Dutch engineer hired by the Asian Development Bank. The engineer gave another chance to the Techno E-Power, the company which had installed the plant, suggesting that it should replace old equipment to make it work. The plant failed another test on June 11.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25382
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by SSridhar »

Chidambaram to take Thimphu-spirit forward
Mr. Chidambaram will also seek more vigorous investigation by Pakistan into the role of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) on the basis of interrogation of David Headley, a Pakistani-American suspected of reconnaissance of sites for the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. India will also seek greater focus from Pakistan on prosecuting the Mumbai attacks accused, especially LeT founder Hafiz Saeed and the handlers who directed the attackers.

Mr. Chidambaram will also ascertain the progress made by Pakistan in investigating the leads provided by India in the 10 dossiers submitted from time to time.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25382
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by SSridhar »

An opportunity to 'talk to' each other, not 'talk at': Nirupama Rao
On terrorism, India is said to have reiterated the need for the Mumbai terror trial in Pakistan to proceed in a manner that ensures justice is done, because public opinion in India continues to be agitated over that attack. While conceding that Pakistan was going through a terror-infested phase, Indian official sources said New Delhi underlined the need for Islamabad to have a non-segmented approach to terror.

With specific reference to Jama'at-ud-Da'wah chief Hafiz Saeed, India said there was a need to rein him in, particularly in the light of his anti-India propaganda. While Pakistan said it did not have enough evidence to keep him behind bars, the Indian contention was that his anti-India rhetoric was detrimental to the dialogue process.

India articulated its concerns over attacks on its facilities in Afghanistan, pointing out that these assets are purely developmental and should not be allowed to create bad blood between the two countries. Pakistan, according to Indian officials, maintained that it was not against India-Afghanistan relations.

As to where this process was headed, the Indian contention was that New Delhi would not force the pace. “We are ready to move when Pakistan is,” said Indian officials; echoing Ms. Rao's point that the destiny of the two countries is linked. Amid growing acknowledgement of dialogue being the best way forward crops up the question in the Indian camp if prolonged non-engagement was creating leverages for India.
ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by ajit_tr »

Holbrooke impressed with cultural heritage of Pakistan


US Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, paid a visit to Lok Virsa, the National Institute of Folk & Traditional Heritage along with his entourage on Thursday.

A group of popular drummers from Punjab escorted the diplomat from Lok Virsa’s main entry point to the entrance of the museum in a very traditional and welcoming manner.

Holbrooke was taken around various three dimensional cultural displays in the Pakistan National Museum of Ethnology, popularly known as Heritage Museum, depicting the living cultural traditions and lifestyles of the people of Pakistan not only from the mainstream, but also from remotest regions of Pakistan.

Holbrooke was very much impressed with the cultural dioramas in the Heritage Museum displayed in the authentic and artistic way. He took keen interest in the display of ‘Truck Art’. He termed the art of embellishing the trucks as ‘Art on Wheels’.
ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by ajit_tr »

Aman Ki Asha voice of peace-loving people, says leader of Yatrees
NANKANA SAHIB: The group leader of visiting Indian Sikh pilgrims and member of Amritsar Shrumani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Sardar Amarjit Singh has said he has brought the message of love, peace and brotherhood from India and wants to take back the same from Pakistan.

Talking to The News at Gurdwara Janamasthan here on Wednesday, he said Pakistan and Indian governments should not accept American interference in their internal matters. “America is a merchant and Pakistan and India are buyers so America wants both theses countries to purchase its products.”
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Pakistan Is Said to Pursue a Foothold in Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/world ... mabad.html
Pakistan is exploiting the troubled United States military effort in Afghanistan to drive home a political settlement with Afghanistan that would give Pakistan important influence there but is likely to undermine United States interests, Pakistani and American officials said.
Pakistani officials say they can deliver the network of Sirajuddin Haqqani, an ally of Al Qaeda who runs a major part of the insurgency in Afghanistan, into a power-sharing arrangement.
Richard C. Holbrooke, the Obama administration’s special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, said on a visit to Islamabad last weekend that it was “hard to imagine” the Haqqani network in an Afghan arrangement, but added, “Who knows?”

At a briefing this week at the headquarters of Pakistan’s premier spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistani analysts laid out a view of the war that dovetailed neatly with the doubts expressed by Mr. Karzai. They depicted a stark picture of an American military campaign in Afghanistan “that will not succeed.
Pakistan has already won what it sees as an important concession in Kabul, the resignations this month of the intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, and the interior minister, Hanif Atmar.
Coupled with their strategic interests, the Pakistanis say they have chosen this juncture to open talks with Mr. Karzai because, even before the controversy over General McChrystal, they sensed uncertainty — “a lack of fire in the belly,” said one Pakistani — within the Obama administration over the Afghan fight.
Last edited by abhishek_sharma on 25 Jun 2010 06:55, edited 1 time in total.
ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by ajit_tr »

India-Pak-BD — need for a triple entente
Friday, June 25, 2010
By Brig A R Siddiqi

The Jang and Times of India (Groups) initiative in promoting enduring understanding, accord and peace between the two surgical twins-India-Pakistan - is indeed most timely and laudable. Its sheer endurance over the past several months must be the source of a sense of no mean achievement and gratification for the supporters and lovers of peace in the sub-continent.

However, as the third main affectee of the Great Divide, Bangladesh, should also be taken as an integral part of the Aman Ki Asha initiative. The emergence of Bangladesh is not only the consequence of Partition but may well be a prelude to yet another physical shake-up, if the Post-Partition crises are not sensibly handled and resolved before getting out of hand.

What it appears to have been lacking until now is the conspicuous absence of a sober analysis of the abiding India-Pakistan tensions, and deep-rooted misgivings besides a perspective solution of the problems no matter how tentative.

Is not it time, to stop talking too much about the wisdom or lack of it of the Great Divide itself, take it as an irreversible fait accompli and look into its underlying causes to ensure the evil is buried once and for all.

The need of the hour is for the two majority communities - Hindu and Muslims - to get out of their pre-partition communal mindset and behave as responsible citizens of their respective states - free and sovereign - as Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis first and foremost rather than Hindus and Muslims: The existence of two nuclear archrivals, India-Pakistan, saddle the sub-continent with a compulsive international dimension. The sprawling body of water between the North Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal and overlapping land borders with East, West and Central Asia generate an active interest and possible intervention, diplomatic/physical, of the global players either via a third force (UN) or at their own individual initiative.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by NRao »

Pakis may be making vital strides, but they need help in every way:

BBC :: Renewed strains between Islamabad and Washington

Pakistani officials are threatening to pull troops out from the sensitive north-western tribal areas unless the US and Europe comes up with more money for military campaigns.
: ). Not again!!!
anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9203
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by anupmisra »

Pakistan’s nuclear status
This is apropos of F. Siddiqui’s letter (June 22). It seems to reflect a delusional mindset that apparently afflicts many Pakistanis. The two pillars of this worldview are: (1) a great over-estimation of Pakistan’s true strength in the world, and (2) a misunderstanding of what our real prowess is as a nation.
The world couldn’t care less for what a ceremonial Pakistani general might say; the very fact that the chairman JCSC has to demand that the world accept Pakistan’s nuclear status is a tacit admission of weakness.
While many resources have been spent on the nuclear programme and the military since 1998, Pakistan has slipped to 141 from 138 in the United Nations’ Human Development index rankings. The champions of our nuclear weapons’ status would blame the politicians for this decline but then the army has ruled the country for most of the period since 1998.
The writer says that Pakistan is a responsible nuclear state. The world weighs such statements against the scandal of the Dr. A.Q. Khan network. In Libya’s case, the Libyan government has itself confessed using the good doctor’s network. While Pakistani leaders may not come out straight in their statements regarding the nuclear issue, Pakistan’s history of actions pertaining to nuclear weapons’ technology is definitely controversial.
ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): May 21, 20

Post by ajit_tr »

Reduce distrust for constructive dialogue —Amit Ranjan
Terrorist groups are growing powerfully and are a big hurdle for the Indo-Pak peace process. They have hijacked almost all conflicting issues between India and Pakistan....

To do this, more people-to-people contacts through various exchange programmes by issuing visas to students, journalists, artists, academicians, etc, must take place, without any problems or hassles. Second, the sportspersons from the two countries should be encouraged to play in each other’s countries without hesitation. There must be tournaments at regular intervals, with the host state taking responsibility for security of sportspersons. This practice must continue even if the peace process gets disturbed due to certain unwanted reasons or ill-fated incidents.
Due to the amount of distrust present between the two countries, it is not possible to have joint management of water from the River Indus, which had been proposed by David Linthel in the 1950s. If this happens, it will be the best solution to judiciously use the water from the Indus River System. But that is an ideal position. In the present context, the best way to resolve this conflict is to make the people from the catchment area participate in any policy-making process and take decisions according to their interests. This process is in the spirit of the Helsinki provisions and has been effective in resolving various water disputes in many countries.
On the Afghanistan issue, both India and Pakistan have to understand the ill effects of the presence of extra-regional powers in their neighbourhood. Instead of looking to establish their hegemony over Afghanistan, they must show the way to resolve the issue in a democratic way. Both of them are regional powers and so they have a responsibility towards the region. Instead of locking horns over Afghanistan, they must try to establish peace there by defeating the Taliban in all forms.
Finally, the Kashmir issue is the mother of all confrontations and conflicts between India and Pakistan. Every war and war-like situation between the two countries has emerged on the Kashmir issue. Frankly, it is very difficult to resolve this issue unless both sides are ready to make certain compromises. The policy-makers are aware of this fact but they hesitate to go for it because of the risk of a public reaction to any form of compromise made by any side. There are also external as well as internal actors who have their vested interest in making this issue linger because it suits their political and economic interests.
Locked