Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): July 07, 2010

archan · Post by **archan** » 16 Jul 2010 23:05

munna wrote: This has to be our paq policy whereby we cannot be boxed into one corner. We may talk we may not talk, we may talk Kashmir, we may talk LMU, yada yada.....

Talking LMU would be one step in the right direction.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Jul 2010 23:10

munna wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Have we maneuvered ourselves deliberately into this position of impotency, knowing that we would have to accept America's generosity in exchange for servitude. I think so! Some in India think, they can live with Pax-Americana, and India would more or less able to manage America as well.
Well as I see it Amir Khan cannot and will not deliver, plain and simple. The current regime of Baba Om is reeling and devoid of any winds in its sail as far as the domestic situation goes. Moreover the economic rebound that was much talked about is petering out and there is hardly anyone in Dupleecitee who has a clue about the Af-Pak situation.
The Paquess know all this and we too know all this. So, what gives?

Munna ji,

hats off to you for a wonderful narrative!

I am not saying that America will deliver India the terrorists. All I am saying is that if America follows the script for a superpower, it should deliver. If they don't, they lose some standing.

I also think, the Pakis are overestimating their significance to the Americans.

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 16 Jul 2010 23:11

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discussio ... h-pakistan
What's the Problem with Pakistan?

Not sure if any one posted this before. Little old but everything stayed the same as before.

Stephen Cohen: What if they stop their ties to jihadi organizations that affect us but not to those that are pointed at India? Is this our problem or India's? And is al Qaeda a jihadi organization?

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 16 Jul 2010 23:18

If amirkhan was not going to cooperate then they would not have given access to India after learning about the LeT-ISI link connecting 26/11. Will they knowingly give the stick to India if they were going to invite a beating because of inaction on the issue? But the question remains whether there is under the table understanding that India will not create loss of face for Unkil.

munna · Post by **munna** » 16 Jul 2010 23:20

archan wrote:
munna wrote: This has to be our paq policy whereby we cannot be boxed into one corner. We may talk we may not talk, we may talk Kashmir, we may talk LMU, yada yada.....
Talking LMU would be one step in the right direction.

Well I think we should suggest a South Asia wide LMU whereby scholars from all over South Asia

can learn the pindigenous science and djinn physics!

RajeshA wrote:Munna ji,

hats off to you for a wonderful narrative!

I am not saying that America will deliver India the terrorists. All I am saying is that if America follows the script for a superpower, it should deliver. If they don't, they lose some standing.

I also think, the Pakis are overestimating their significance to the Americans.

Thanks Rajeshji! Well I agree in toto with your post, IF and a big IF indeed US has some winds left in its sails then H Sayeed should be in Tihar by December. But my fear is that they may try selling us some snake oil by getting a lousy court in paq land to symbolically punish a few 'non state actors'. This will not be enough and none will buy it. Indian swallowed a lot of pride after 26/11 and was also reduced to shambles in Af-Pak stratagem, our price is way higher that what khan can offer it seems.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 16 Jul 2010 23:21

Munna,

Great precis.

Maybe a little off-topic:-

Param Pujya is an honorific for the deceased. Pujya can also mean honored, maybe it would be better not to refer to the PM as param pujya?

hence

Pujya pradhan mantriji = respected/honored PM
Param pujya pradhan mantriji = the late respectable/honorable PM

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Jul 2010 23:24

^ Usually in political circus they use 'Maananeeya' (respected) , Pujya is usually used for Pitashree/Matashree.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 16 Jul 2010 23:48

I used to think that "talks" were a waste of time and a chance for pukistan to show how magnanimous they were in offering a chance for peace to flourish and that it was the big bad yindia which was the war-mongerer by talking about terrorists and didn't want to talk. "Aren't we also victims of terror?" kind of argument. But i think, this particular trip of the FM could be a positive. I mean, everyone saw on the tv just how bluntly the pukis stonewall any talks where we ask them to take action on the terrorists. The == between Hafeez Sayeed and the Home Secretary was so ludicrous that anyone who saw that must have been banging their heads on the walls.

And that kind of behaviour from them, can and will be used by the govt to tell the peaceniks and wkks that 'see we tried to get them to act a teeny-weeny bit on terrorism and they stonewall it. How do you expect them to act truthfully on other important matters' I'm glad that the public at large could see via the press conference just how puki the pukis can be.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 16 Jul 2010 23:56

परम (param) just means (supreme/absolute/ultimate/highest) , and as such is completely okay to use before poojya (does not matter if the person is alive or dead).

(Even google gives it correctly: http://translate.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wT# )

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Jul 2010 00:11

^^^^ From the foreign affairs article above.

Christine Fair: I think it would be a mistake to completely disregard Pakistan's regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations. That misses the point entirely. And I think it is unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan's apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India. Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan. Kabul has encouraged India to engage in provocative activities such as using the Border Roads Organization to build sensitive parts of the Ring Road and use the Indo-Tibetan police force for security. It is also building schools on a sensitive part of the border in Kunar--across from Bajaur. Kabul's motivations for encouraging these activities are as obvious as India's interest in engaging in them. Even if by some act of miraculous diplomacy the territorial issues were to be resolved, Pakistan would remain an insecure state. Given the realities of the subcontinent (e.g., India's rise and its more effective foreign relations with all of Pakistan's near and far neighbors), these fears are bound to grow, not lessen. This suggests that without some means of compelling Pakistan to abandon its reliance upon militancy, it will become ever more interested in using it -- and the militants will likely continue to proliferate beyond Pakistan's control.

Can somebody figure out what is being said.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Jul 2010 00:38

She's saying that Iran tolerates anti-Pakistan activities by India from the Indian mission in Zahedan (which is near the border of Pakistani Balochistan); those activities are so apparent that even a one time visitor can make them out.

And India is building schools in Kunar which are many mountain passes away from Pakistan's FATA, but which is highly subversive. You see, little boys and girls who can read and write are weapons aimed at the heart of Islamabad.

BTW, I looked up the address of the Indian mission in Zahedan, it might warm some hearts:
Consulate of India, Zahedan

Ayatollah Kafemi Avenue,
Near Gurdwara (Sikh Temple),
Zahedan
Sistan Baluchistan Province

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Jul 2010 00:46

What about this part

Christine Fair: I think it would be a mistake to completely disregard Pakistan's regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 17 Jul 2010 00:47

Acharya wrote:^^^^ From the foreign affairs article above.

Given the realities of the subcontinent (e.g., India's rise and its more effective foreign relations with all of Pakistan's near and far neighbors), these fears are bound to grow, not lessen. This suggests that without some means of compelling Pakistan to abandon its reliance upon militancy, it will become ever more interested in using it -- and the militants will likely continue to proliferate beyond Pakistan's control.
Can somebody figure out what is being said.

I think she is saying that to calm down the pakis, either India needs to stop its rise and influence, or gift kashmir to pakistan along with whatever else it asks, so that it won't feel paranoid.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 17 Jul 2010 00:48

A_Gupta wrote:M K Bhadrakumar
http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/jul/ ... failed.htm

In sum, there is really no desire on the part of Pakistan to meaningfully engage India at the political and diplomatic level at this juncture. The Pakistani calculation is that time is working in its favour and simply by sitting out for another year or so, Islamabad can negotiate from a position of advantage.

So, let them enjoy this so called advanatage , it cost India nothing except the bucket load tears of Psers. In fact let Poak crock on the advanatage as long as they want.

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 17 Jul 2010 00:53

Acharya wrote:^^^^ From the foreign affairs article above.

Christine Fair: I think it would be a mistake to completely disregard Pakistan's regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations. That misses the point entirely. And I think it is unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan's apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India. Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan. Kabul has encouraged India to engage in provocative activities such as using the Border Roads Organization to build sensitive parts of the Ring Road and use the Indo-Tibetan police force for security. It is also building schools on a sensitive part of the border in Kunar--across from Bajaur. Kabul's motivations for encouraging these activities are as obvious as India's interest in engaging in them. Even if by some act of miraculous diplomacy the territorial issues were to be resolved, Pakistan would remain an insecure state. Given the realities of the subcontinent (e.g., India's rise and its more effective foreign relations with all of Pakistan's near and far neighbors), these fears are bound to grow, not lessen. This suggests that without some means of compelling Pakistan to abandon its reliance upon militancy, it will become ever more interested in using it -- and the militants will likely continue to proliferate beyond Pakistan's control.

Can somebody figure out what is being said.

She is obviously trying to justify the terrorist army's paranoia by implying that India is doing something evil there.

When bakwas is being repeated by some of these no-so-smart analysts or agenda driven analysts, Samit Ganguly or Ashley Tellis should say some thing like this:

India's concern in Afghanistan is to make sure that a ISI puppet Govt. is not established in Afghanistan. The Pakistani ISI arranged the hijacking of IA 814 plane to Afghanistan to free up the Pakistani ISI terrorists involved in murders and kidnapping. Also, in most of the attacks on Afghan training centers by the US after 2001, the terrorists who died belonged to Pakistani terror groups undergoing training to perform jihad in India.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 17 Jul 2010 01:31

Acharya wrote:^^^^ From the foreign affairs article above.

Christine Fair: I think it would be a mistake to completely disregard Pakistan's regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations. That misses the point entirely. And I think it is unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan's apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India. Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan. Kabul has encouraged India to engage in provocative activities such as using the Border Roads Organization to build sensitive parts of the Ring Road and use the Indo-Tibetan police force for security. It is also building schools on a sensitive part of the border in Kunar--across from Bajaur. Kabul's motivations for encouraging these activities are as obvious as India's interest in engaging in them. Even if by some act of miraculous diplomacy the territorial issues were to be resolved, Pakistan would remain an insecure state. Given the realities of the subcontinent (e.g., India's rise and its more effective foreign relations with all of Pakistan's near and far neighbors), these fears are bound to grow, not lessen.This suggests that without some means of compelling Pakistan to abandon its reliance upon militancy, it will become ever more interested in using it -- and the militants will likely continue to proliferate beyond Pakistan's control.
Can somebody figure out what is being said.

we are doing the right thing so far going by reverse psy ops.

Even if by some act of miraculous diplomacy the territorial issues were to be resolved, Pakistan would remain an insecure state.

Paki increasing its jealousy. It is born of anti-hindu(India) hatred. It is in their genes.(consider paki as a rejected suitor by India, this rejection will be appeased only by its own destruction with time)

Forget Kashmir or afghanisthan, pakis are pakis-- cannot be friendly with India. The territorial dispute is a camouflage for it.

Overall its very foundation of anti India plank will cause its own destruction as seen by the events primarily used to hurt India is causing mayhem all over the world.

This suggests that without some means of compelling Pakistan to abandon its reliance upon militancy, it will become ever more interested in using it

The more we progress the more destructive mentality paki develops to harm India just like a jilted lover.

Overall she wants India to gubo before pakisatan for peace which will never come.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 17 Jul 2010 01:52

The Hindu editorial blames the Home Secretary. *sigh*

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 17 Jul 2010 01:53

I think we all do have a common understanding that diplomacy has failed with Pakistan. Pakistan has failed to take any action against LeT or any India targeted Terror groups.
Now that the talks have failed, its best to call them off and a new policy to harass Pakistan either economy or politically forcing them to take action against Terror outfits should be adopted.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 17 Jul 2010 01:54

Guys:

These comments by Christine Fair are very old. Lot has changed since then. She has back tracked somewhat, but then she proposes a nuke deal for the Paki terrorists. Can't get any worse than that,

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 17 Jul 2010 01:54

abhishek_sharma wrote:The Hindu editorial blames the Home Secretary. *sigh*

Can you post the link, I am too lazy to go look for it

.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 17 Jul 2010 01:56

And do not even read Siddharth Varadarajan's Op-Ed.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 17 Jul 2010 02:10

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 178381.cms

Speaking on background, sources admitted to a "large hiatus" in expectations voiced by Pakistan and India's "workmanlike" approach to moving a step at a time. This did take the Indians by surprise and the Pakistani "all or nothing, take it or leave it" attitude was clearly intended to put Kashmir at the centre of the talks.

Qureshi's deliberate move to keep up the tirade against India on Friday indicates Thursday's events were not driven by the heat of the moment. Though there was hesitancy in naming the omnipresent Pakistan army, sources admitted the mood had changed in Islamabad at the "political level", hinting at the invisible power structure.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2010 02:21

The TOI claims its Congress policy and forgets it runs GOI now. I think the Indian press is having its schizo moment.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 17 Jul 2010 02:38

abhishek_sharma wrote:And do not even read Siddharth Varadarajan's Op-Ed.

Expect more such self goals to follow in the coming days and weeks.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 17 Jul 2010 02:57

CRamS wrote:
abhishek_sharma wrote:And do not even read Siddharth Varadarajan's Op-Ed.
Expect more such self goals to follow in the coming days and weeks.

"Self goal" implies it was scored by a player on your own team. Siddharth Varadarajan is not even an Indian. Amreeki policy towards India has evolved so substantially since the days of Kargil... instead of sending pink-faced people like Thomas Pickering and Robin Raphel to browbeat us, they send brown-coloured ones with Yindoo sounding names. Truly we have arrived.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Jul 2010 03:44

The matter of fake degrees is a big deal on Pakistani TV. In the more serious moments, there was this Pakistani academic who told the camera that Pakistan doesn't have enough qualified people with the time to supervise PhDs in the social sciences; he said that Pakistan should have a moratorium of 10 years on issuing its own social sciences PhDs, until a pool of talent, (educated abroad) is accumulated.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 17 Jul 2010 03:56

Krishna on Pillai: 'Whatever was to be said has been said'

As Pakistan took exception to Home Secretary G K Pillai's recent remarks on Inter Services Intelligence's role in Mumbai attacks, India [ Images ] on Friday said that there is no acrimony between the two sides on the issue. "Whatever was to be said has been said," Krishna, who was in Pakistan on a three-day visit, told mediapersons. He was responding to a question on Pillai's remarks two days ago that Pakistani-American terror suspect David Headley [ Images ] had revealed to interrogators that ISI and Jamat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed [ Images ] had played a "much more significant role" in planning and executing the Mumbai terror attacks [ Images ]. Pakistan Foreign Minister See Mybood Qureshi, who held talks with Krishna on Thursday, took exception to Pillai's remarks.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/jul/ ... rishna.htm

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 17 Jul 2010 04:02

Prestige and the F-16
Drones, Not So Much. F-16s? Yes, Please
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/ ... es-please/

Pakistani officials sounded equally ecstatic. Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman, the Pakistani air chief, welcomed the F-16s as “a dream that came true” while underscoring their importance in the “war against terror,” according to The News, a leading English daily.Ironically, those who oppose American policies towards the country, including drone strikes, also welcomed the induction of American-manufactured fighter aircraft.
Zaid Hamid, a self-styled defense analyst known more for his conspiratorial and sensational commentaries regarding American influence in Pakistan, praised the delivery of the aircraft in a newsletter as “Alhamdulillah (thanks to Allah), another technological milestone achieved by Pakistan air force.”

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 17 Jul 2010 04:27

[/quote] guess it will be another dossier time. A decent writeup by SwapanDas Gupta. I get a feeling that SG reads BRF.
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/dc-comme ... otient-210[/quote]

Excellent article. So finally SMK & MMS company have done something right. They did not play the ball as that slimy SMQ was hoping. Now I want to see how SMQ behaves when Madam Hillary show up in slumbad.[/quote]

I agree, India did not play ball this time. As someone else mentioned, India was promised some action on the issues, which did not materialize, India threatened to take their ball and go home. This resulted in delays, finally talks broke down. I anticipate this is an important turning point in indo-paki relations. We will progressively get tougher, until the pakis behave.

naren · Post by **naren** » 17 Jul 2010 05:13

Rudradev wrote:
CRamS wrote:
Expect more such self goals to follow in the coming days and weeks.
"Self goal" implies it was scored by a player on your own team. Siddharth Varadarajan is not even an Indian. Amreeki policy towards India has evolved so substantially since the days of Kargil... instead of sending pink-faced people like Thomas Pickering and Robin Raphel to browbeat us, they send brown-coloured ones with Yindoo sounding names. Truly we have arrived.

Avatar (Na'vi)

r_subramanian · Post by **r_subramanian** » 17 Jul 2010 05:32

I really liked this news item.
Punjab Govt has no money in the bank!

Data Darbar blasts: compensation cheques yet to be cashed
The compensation cheques, given by Punjab government to the affectees of suicide bombings, which occurred at Data Darbar, could not be cashed out so far in Lahore, Geo news reported Friday.
Sources told Geo news, there was no money in bank account of Punjab government at the time of cheques’ distribution...
People were directed to cash out cheques after two weeks at the distribution time, sources said
...

link

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 17 Jul 2010 05:44

Both agreed on script, rewrite hints at Pak Army hand

Despite the meeting of the Indian and Pakistani Foreign Ministers falling well short of expectations, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, after a detailed feedback from External Affairs Minister S M Krishna, has decided to persevere with engaging Pakistan and keeping open the doors for dialogue. {we need a gagging emoticon, or a banging-head-on-wall one}

While this will continue to remain India’s broad approach as interlocutors get back to finding a way forward, sources said there is strong suspicion here that the Islamabad talks went off-script because of the Pakistan Army’s last minute intervention, which had problems with India holding the ISI directly responsible for the Mumbai attacks.

Otherwise, the modest outcome of the meeting had all been tied-up well in advance and the understanding was that the Pakistan Army was on board.
...
...

In fact, the joint statement was very much in discussion since June last week. Pakistan High Commissioner Shahid Malik and Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad Sharat Sabharwal were in close touch, holding regular meetings in respective Foreign Ministries, ironing out differences. It was at Malik’s repeated urging that India must look to adopt a more flexible approach on Sir Creek, did South Block agree to reconsider its stand only if Islamabad responded to New Delhi’s earlier proposals before the Mumbai attacks.
...
...
The hardening of the Pakistani position left Indian interlocutors perplexed as it went against the tenor of the conversation which the two sides had been having at the official levels in the past three weeks.

Still, when Krishna met the PM on return from Islamabad today, it was decided that engagement was the better option even now and that New Delhi must press ahead with its efforts.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 17 Jul 2010 05:55

In fact, the joint statement was very much in discussion since June last week. Pakistan High Commissioner Shahid Malik and Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad Sharat Sabharwal were in close touch, holding regular meetings in respective Foreign Ministries, ironing out differences. It was at Malik’s repeated urging that India must look to adopt a more flexible approach on Sir Creek, did South Block agree to reconsider its stand only if Islamabad responded to New Delhi’s earlier proposals before the Mumbai attacks.

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but what is PM's solution for Sir Creek? Will he display "magnanimity" there as well?

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 17 Jul 2010 05:59

Another episode of "Aaa bhaile mujhe maar" is complete. Now is the time to see how big/great chanikyan our dear Shri MMS is and waiting for the Shris, Thirus, garus here to know the SMKs chanikyanism on this trip.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 17 Jul 2010 06:16

The business of booze

Jamaat e Islami (JI) Karachi secretary general Hafiz Naeemur Rehman said that there is no precedent in the history of Pakistan to give permission to open wine shops in such a large number in Muslim dominated localities. He recalled that last time, 15 years ago, the then regime had issued 22 licenses to wine shops in one go in Karachi.

He said that the population of minorities living in Karachi is not large enough to justify the opening of 50 new wine shops. He said that allowing so many wine shops to operate in purely Muslim localities is a deep conspiracy and the whole nation should take a serious notice of this sad state of affairs.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 17 Jul 2010 06:27

RajeshA wrote:Right after 26/11, USA did not want India to go to war with Pakistan or even give reason to Pakistan to move their troops onto their Eastern borders, and probably counselled India to go the way of talks.

Actually, right after 26/11 there were quiet messages from the west that they would be quite OK if India attacked TSP. At the same time, however, they have been very complicit in TSP's acquisition of bums.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Jul 2010 06:27

Question 1 - if the Barelvi movement began in 1880 and if most Indian or Pakistani Mussalmans are Barelvi, what were they before 1880? Were they simply an unorganized mass?

Question 2 - how did "Barelvi" go from 0 to 60% in a few short years? Is the mechanism that the mullah at the mosque declares himself to be so (from pre-1880 whatever the name was to post-1880 Barelvi) and then everyone who attends that mosque is counted as Barelvi?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 17 Jul 2010 06:46

US declines to go public on ISI's role in 26/11

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 178449.cms

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 17 Jul 2010 06:51

Was reading the MKB article...

as usual our man is expert in declaring events as predictable when they have occurred already....

...and New Delhi's grave failure to anticipate that the ground was shifting so dangerously in the valley ...

if this wise man had seen it coming, perhaps he would have seen it fit to warn Delhi in one of the numerous articles he writes for all and sundry?

The Pakistani military's hope is that the Americans will be crawling on their fours in a year's time and beseeching Rawalpindi to bail them out in Afghanistan by getting the Taliban to talk

MKB and all others that sing this song are doing us a great favor - by constant singing, Ombaba will be put in a position where he cannot do it, no matter what...H&D is big business in Washington, bigger than Islamabad.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 17 Jul 2010 07:12

Pak haste on composite dialogue the deal-breaker?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 178424.cms