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

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2010 22:54

abhijitm, dont get into a slanging match and get banned. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 Jul 2010 23:01

Osama, Mullah Omar still in Pak: Hillary

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday said she believed that al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was still in Pakistan.

Ms. Clinton also said Washington believed that Taliban chief Mullah Omar was also in the country.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 19 Jul 2010 23:04

Pakistan Navy frogmen trained Kasab, other terrorists
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 188134.cms

Indian government should find out whether these statements that are coming from Headly are true. These statements should be taken up with PAkistan government and ask them to find out which one in ISI and government officials were involved in such activities. If the policy of Pakistan government is towards such activities then it is essential that Indian government takes a tougher step and make sure that Pakistan is isolated as a terror supporting government.

The present government exposes the weakness of India's role in relation to neighbours.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 Jul 2010 23:07

UK- Telegraph Headline..
All sweet talk ...
Hillary Clinton lures Pakistan with $500m

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, called on Pakistan to do more to tackle militant groups hiding in the country'...
...
Of course there is a legacy of suspicion that we inherited. It is not going to be eliminated overnigh
she gave warning that the country must get tough with militant groups on its own doorstep.
"There are still additional steps that we are asking and expecting the Pakistanis to take," she said. "There is no doubt in anyone's mind that should an attack against the United States be traced to Pakistan it would have a very devastating impact on our relationship."
In an interview with Pakistani television journalists, she said she believed that Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda militants were hiding in Pakistan.
"It would be very helpful if we could get them," Mrs Clinton said.

muraliravi · Post by **muraliravi** » 19 Jul 2010 23:12

http://www.zeenews.com/news642145.html

Pak Navy trained Kasab

Need for more analysis on who is revealing this information. Headley might have revealed more or less, but who from the GOI is releasing these tit-bits, I am sure MMS is not sleeping hearing all this.

Someone in the govt. is making sure that pakis will be exposed slowly. and of course they are detsroying mms and his coterie's aman ki asha.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 19 Jul 2010 23:23

negi wrote:Can we resort to name calling babooze ? I am sure I can pull out something from my Musharraf and attribute it to 'chankianness'.

Not sure if your reply was to me...

Boss, my calling Qureshi a 'Jack Ass' is consistent with his behavior since he showed up on the scene (way before this press conference).

What is missing is that if SMK got a mandate of 'reduce trust deficit' -
that does not equate to capitulate or do not 'shadow box' if the other guys pulls a fast one from his Musharaff.

I do not for one buy any cankiyaness or good cop bad cop on India's part -
If Pillai was told by the left hand to issue a statement, then should not the right hand be prepared to handle the fallout?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 19 Jul 2010 23:27

Pulikeshi wrote:
"If Pillai was told by the left hand to issue a statement, then should not the right hand be prepared to handle the fallout?"

Assuming there is a brain in the middle—yes.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 19 Jul 2010 23:38

I think we have to move beyond the discussion of whether Pillai ji did "as a representative of hawks to teach a lesson to doves" or the whole thing was beautifully orchestrated by GOI. No news paper/article will ever write that explicitly for another decade or until MMS retires. The end result has no difference. There is a good news if in case it is really hawks Vs doves and that is the check and balances of India are very well stress tested.

The BRF reasoning that "why this stupid talks with TSP" still stands. Is it Uncle's pressure or is it the way we deal with uncle's pressure. The argument that India gave legitamacy to TSP government still holds. Though the GOP is not a power center and it is just a guboing-end of ISI+TSPA, India agreed to talk with GOP. As we already talked to these untouchables several times starting from SeS, even arguing against talks is futile. I guess we should move on to what next on the game board of three players (Uncle, India and TSP).

I firmly beleive that TSP and Uncle were very happy buddies when the terror was just India specific. For uncle, the entire terror machine is not global and for TSP it keeps the nation united as Kashmir is a motivator for all the bearded ones to be united. The problem started when the machinery moved global and TSP is seen as a terror machine and not "moral support to Kashmir". The broader reasoning for the talks-pressure from uncle is India has wherewittal to take terrorist attacks as life is very cheap and has a lot of population where death does not matter much. So it wants to put back the genie into bottle so that (1)terrorism again becomes basically a South Asia thingy, (2)TSP lives on as a country (3) Kashmir is back as most dangerous point on the planet. If that is ensured, it can leave Afghanistan to dogs and exit from there. A rollback to good olden days is what is being ordered.

There are certain things/agreements that have happened post Kargil and US directly asking India to make some compromises on Kashmir like those during Clinton admin is not yet possible. It want to box India and TSP to talk and keep talking so that the inevitable discussion about Kashmir comes on to the table so that Kashmir can be referenced again going forward. For India it is the terror originating from TSP that is important and it want to talk just that before any other gentlemen topics can be discussed. Who blinks first? Kashmir or Terror?

Several meetings starting from SeS took place and the ice is not broken yet and so what is next?
(1) Since the percieved goals are not reached, US keeps TSP engaged in AF-Pak. As a pressure release, another attack in India from TSP may be ordered and the rollback game gets delayed again as India will have more pre-conditions to talks. So far we are only talking Mumbai, Headley, Hafeez. We will have more of such parameters in talks.
(2) US may think enough is enough and comes out open and asks India to make some compromises on Kashmir. This will jeopordize their commercial interests viz. nuclear reactors, FA-18s etc.etc.

I do not think US can afford (2) and to make Kashmir as primary agenda in talks unless US prevails upon TSP to yield to India on terror and convince TSP to handover Haffez types, ISI types and Dawoods etc. Here is where the tension and jack-assism of TSP comes into picture. They just want to avoid a situation where US asks TSP to yield to India. As long as jackasses as there in TSP the possibility of Kashmir becoming central agenda is remote.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 20 Jul 2010 00:25

Iran shuts Taftan border because of suicide attack

19 Jul, 2010

QUETTA: Trade activities between Iran and Pakistan have been suspended as the former has closed the ‘zero-point’ in its border town of Taftan because of a suicide attack in Zahedan.

According to sources, Iranian border authorities have informed Pakistani officials of their decision to close the border crossing.

“Yes, Iran has closed the zero-point, suspending all trade activities,” Tufail Baloch, a senior official of the Chagai district administration, said.

Local traders are facing serious problems because most of the edible items come from across the border through the zero-point. “If the border is not opened soon there will be a shortage of food and other items in Pakistan’s border areas,” officials said.

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 20 Jul 2010 00:41

I beg to differ on your analysis. here is what I feel is how Unkil thinks

1) First and foremost is short term solution to get out of Af Pak before the next election circus begins. Ombaba will have a tough time defending it along with a weak economy, moth eaten healthcare bill and no starter immigration reform. So they are giving carrots to pakis like the KL bill and reconciliation with good telebunnies etc. Now Pakis as smart as they are are raising India bogey to say boss we cannot take on bad bunnies because our troops are tied on eastern border. So amrikhan wants India to talk to pakis and create a semblance of aman ka tamasha which will negate this paki bluff

2) Amirkhans interest in paklands as strategic ally (basically a hit man) to control Middle East, C Asia, China & India. Now you must be suprised that I mention China here but trust me pakis are capable of selling their mothers for arms and money so cheena might be tallel than mountains and deeper than ocean friend but $$ are lot taller and lot deeper for pakis so if unkil quotes a right price in future (not peanuts) some new zia will step out of rawalpindi and take over the awan e sadar to wage the jeehaad in east turkestan. So for unkil pakis are easy to hire handy man to get all the dirty jobs done and done for cheap. They dont care the long term consequences of their acts. Hell every one has to pay some price for all actions & inactions so I beleive they are fully cognizant of the price they pay for supporting pakis and the benefits far outweigh the risk's of working with this international leper country.

3) Amrikhan is interested in india for two things. Its a big economy with huge skilled manpower and friendly population which it can cultivate as an future partner to further its strategic vision for Asia. Look at it this way NATO was unkils right hand for past 60 years slowly NATO is losing its shine. Neither they have developed any new technology nor have enough manpower to help unkil in global policing. They are more of a mill stone around unkils neck than an asset. Its like a close cousin who is slowly becoming old and poor and you know that in few years will start begging you for help and money. So like a smart baniya (capitalist) you weigh what benefits you can get from this relation ship and what risk you carry and decide to distance yourself from this person. Plus Unkil can exploit Cheena, India and Pakis to play one against the other to keep every one dependent on unkil so that way sam can maintain his status as global power and judge.

We can already see that when MMS and pakis run to Ombaba with complaints like school children. I am all against MMS wasting his precious time as 1 on 1 with Ombaba talking about pakis he needs to use that time wisely to further trade, visa, technology and education. As for pakis we have been taking blows on our cheeks and all parts of body for 20 + years now we can take a few more till we turn into 3rd largest economy in the world then hell can anyone tell us to act in restraint. We need technology and money to put up a fight right now we are short on both so all talk of bravardo is waste till we can muster up enough of these two.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 20 Jul 2010 00:46

Cross posting from the Red Menace thread. For all those who are holding forth on the idea that the SMK/Pillai performance last week is in fact some brilliantly well-organized stratagem of "Good-cop-bad-cop" spawned by the redoubtable genius of Manmohan Singh.

Please see the fine example of Ninja-like coordination of policy in the same Manmohan Singh government when it comes to dealing with the threat of Maoist terrorism within India's borders.

arun wrote: Digvijay Singh, General Secretary of the AICC authors an article in the Economic Times.

In the article Digvijay Singh takes a potshot at his fellow Congress Party member, Home Minister P. Chidambaram, on policy towards the Maoist / Naxalite terrorists. Digvijay Singh claims off course that his potshot at his fellow Congress Party member is “personal”.

Rethink counter-Maoist strategy: Digvijay Singh to P Chidambaram

Later...

Congress party General Secretary Digvijay Singh expresses regret over writing the above linked article in the Economic Times (ET) that attacked Home Minister and Congress party colleague P. Chidambaram over policy regarding the Maoists / Naxalites:

Diggy sorry to embarrass party & govt

Still later...

Digvijay Singh now says he does not regret the attack on P. Chidambaram and that the attack reflected Congress Party views:

Digvijay says his article on Maoist problem reflected Cong views

This would be funny if Indian citizens weren't getting killed ... by Pakistani terrorists and by Maoist terrorists...while the sycophants bicker.

With "strategy" like this who needs Pakistan?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 20 Jul 2010 00:49

^^^^

Opinions are being created carefully to make JK look like a migraine to be gotten rid of. There is a constant background signal (I wouldn't call it noise as it has a specific objective and vested-interests) in Indian media and policy circles that JK is undermining India's growth and solving/getting-rid-of JK problem is panacea of all Indian ills. This is where Unkil and his voices in India come to force.

Leaders are human too and they love to create legacy and are irritated by constant noise (this is how it is orchestrated). A week leader (for that matter strong ones too) make wrong decisions when things get beyond certain critical mass. The argument about the cabinet recommendation versus parliamentary resolution during the nuke-bill issue, is a good indicator of how things could be pushed in right conditions.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 20 Jul 2010 00:52

Looks like the taller and deeper friends took TSPians for a cheeni ride.
From The News editorial Page : Short of sugar

Monday, July 19, 2010
As the holy month of Ramadan approaches it would be inconsistent if somewhere somebody had not manufactured a crisis related to a vital commodity that will affect all and sundry. This year it is to be sugar that may be the crisis of choice, with the more pessimistic of pundits predicting that its price may rise to Rs100 or more per kilo. The tale is one of good intent gone bad and calls into question the competencies of those at the top of the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP). It appears that the $50 million contract that the TCP made with a Chinese import company for 100,000 metric tons of the sweet stuff may not be fulfilled despite their having been granted an extension of the deadline for the first delivery. Do not for one moment deceive yourself that the sugar is en-route from China because it is not; it is coming from South America, Brazil to be precise, and our embassy there has confirmed that the port from which the sugar is to leave is congested and delays are likely. So how has the TCP got itself – and us – into this bitter-sweet tangle?

Perhaps the first thing to understand is that there is no Plan B, and the government is in a bit of a tizzy as there is no secret stock of sugar which may be fed into the markets to prevent a shortfall. An unintended consequence is almost certain to be a ballooning of local prices and the hoarding of what stocks there are. The chairman of the TCP has called an emergency meeting for Saturday, the outcome of which we are as yet unaware, but during which he is expected to cancel the contracts awarded to Yunnan and Sadat and further seek damages from them for their failure to fulfil the order. The Chinese had won the order after putting in a tender so low that it practically gave a heart attack to our indigenous sugar importers and a $50 million credit line was opened to them through the National Bank of Pakistan. Had the deal come off we might have saved ourselves as much as $10 million on a single contract. The Chinese may lose the $1 million earnest money that they deposited but the sugar, if it ever arrives, is going to be costly; certainly more than the $488 per metric tonne that was quoted against a market rate above $700 per metric tonne. That a figure so far below the market rate was accepted as credible by the TCP and, what is more, accepted from an importer who has previously defaulted, makes one wonder if there may be a few fake economics degrees held by the directors of the TCP. We now await the reports of pre-shipment inspection companies, but the word circulating in official circles is that the TCP, via a basket of failed contracts, has incurred losses of Rs4.5 billion. And the sugar? Still in Brazil.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 20 Jul 2010 01:27

More details on the Sugar Saga
From The News : TCP in a fix over second sugar contract

Monday, July 19, 2010 - Chinese firm blacklisted, $976,000 seized - By Rauf Klasra

LONDON: Top guns of the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP) are in a fix about the second sugar import contract awarded to the son-in-law of Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani’s cousin after $976,000 performance bond deposited by him was forfeited and the state-owned Chinese firm Yunan & Coal, involved in the sugar import, was blacklisted for failing to execute the first contract to import 100,000 tons of sugar.

The Chinese firm, Yunan & Coal, working in close collaboration with Ali Syed, son-in-law of former defence secretary Saleem Abbas Jilani, had won two separate contracts of $50 million each for the import of two consignments of 100,000 metric tons of sugar each. It has failed to execute the first contract of 100,000 metric tons of sugar worth $50 million thus landing the country in a big crisis.

The TCP banned the Chinese firm on Saturday when it failed to deliver despite being given 10-day extension in the deadline to import sugar. An LC of $50 million was established in favour of the Chinese firm in the National Bank of Pakistan. It was expected that if the firm executed the contract as per agreement, Pakistan could have saved $10 million in the one deal alone as prices offered were the lowest. But this ‘$10 million gamble’ could not work as per expectation.

The Law Division is now being contacted to get the legal opinion whether the Chinese firm could be allowed to execute the second contract. The TCP bosses were severely criticised by market forces for awarding contract to a firm, which did not have the required capacity to import sugar. But TCP bosses had offered counter argument that had they not awarded the contract to the firm, they would have been accused of ignoring the lowest bidder to benefit the higher bidder.

Talking to The News, TCP chairman Anjum Bashir said he had blacklisted the Chinese firm after its default was established. He said he had also directed the authorities concerned to forfeit $976,000 performance guarantee from the firm, adding the blacklisting process would start as per law. However, he claimed the TCP had enough stocks to provide sugar in the market through outlets of the Utility Stores Corporation. “If government and the ECC will decide, I will release stocks to market as and when required,” he added.

However, Ali Syed, the son-in-law of the premier’s cousin, did not respond when contacted to get his comments. Ali was quite confident that his Chinese friends would do some miracle to meet the deadline of July 16 to provide details of ship from Brazil port heading towards Pakistan. But an official said this ‘miracle’ never happened - bad luck to Ali and top guns of the TCP.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 20 Jul 2010 01:44

Details on TSP's role in blocking the Transit trade corrider between Afghanistan and India.
From The News : US meddling in transit trade talks irks ex-diplomats

Monday, July 19, 2010 - By our correspondent

PESHAWAR: Former diplomats, intellectuals and leaders of public opinion have shown concern over the American pressure being exerted on Pakistan to extract unilateral concessions for allowing transit trade facility for the Afghanistan-bound Indian goods through the land route from Wagha to Torkham.

Some of them approached The News to record their serious concern on the occasion of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan as she was expected to exert pressure on the Pakistan government on this issue. They said this would be unacceptable because Pakistan’s policy of not allowing the use of the Wagha-Torkham land route was based on a broad national consensus giving due weight to vital security considerations and the history of its relations with India.

The former diplomats, members of the intelligentsia and public opinion leaders pointed out that this issue in the recent context cannot be delinked from Indian activities in using Afghanistan’s soil to subvert and destabilise Pakistan.

They explained that Brahmadagh Bugti’s operations in organising the Baloch insurgency from the Afghan territory with Indian collusion was a case in point.{MMS may now be regretting his joint statement on Indian role in Balochistan at SeS}

They felt that following the Indo-US nuclear accord, there was a clear convergence of the strategic interests of New Delhi and Washington in the region. They argued that the US pressure on Pakistan to yield its position, which was based on inter-state principles of sovereign equality and mutual benefit, was a blatant manifestation of lack of balance in its policy in the region.

In their view, Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan was taking place in the backdrop of interesting and mixed diplomatic developments in the region. They said it was preceded by the intensive dialogue between Pakistan and the US in 13 key areas, which is expected to enhance their bilateral relations.

However, they felt that on the negative side, her visit had come soon after the failure of Indo-Pak bilateral dialogue in Islamabad. They opined that the signing of the MOU on May 6, 2009 during the trilateral heads of states meeting between US, Afghanistan and Pakistan had raised serious concerns in Pakistan. They claimed four American officials sitting in an adjoining room were instantaneously being briefed by the Afghan delegation during the recent official level talks between Afghanistan and Pakistan on the transit trade in Islamabad. In their opinion, this showed the level of US interest in the issue.

The Pakistani diplomats, intellectuals and public opinion leaders said they were aware of the concerns of the US government about the pervasive anti-US sentiment that was nurtured in Pakistan as a result of past US policies.

They appreciated the Obama administration’s efforts to reduce the mistrust and suspicions between the US and Pakistan, especially the modus operandi of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her last visit to Pakistan. From the point of view of this policy, they felt it would be not only counter-productive but would also hurt American interests in Pakistan if it got unilateral concessions for India in context of the transit trade through intercession at the highest political level. Such concessions, in their view, would not be sustainable and would give a fillip to mistrust between the US and Pakistan.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 20 Jul 2010 02:36

DIFFERING STANDARDS- The US must not wink at a Sino-Pak nuclear deal by Kanwal Sibal

...
China’s transfer of nuclear weapon technology and materials to Pakistan was a deeply hostile act towards India. China’s political objective was to strategically neutralize India in its own region by propping up Pakistan with nuclear capacity so that the latter could pursue its confrontationist policies without fear of military reprisals by a conventionally superior India. The extent of China’s involvement in Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear programme and its extended consequences were brought out dramatically by the A.Q. Khan affair. Khan himself has revealed the intimacy of the nuclear links between the two countries in making available to Pakistan fissile material and weapons designs and so on. It is widely believed that Pakistan’s nuclear programme is being sustained with Chinese technological and material help. Pakistan needs natural uranium, replacement of spare parts for its nuclear reactors, technological back-up for its plutonium reprocessing plant and so on, which China, as Pakistan’s all-weather friend, supplies
....
...
The US reaction to China’s new nuclear plans for Pakistan is most disturbing. For weeks, US reports prepared international opinion for a tepid American response to this frontal Chinese challenge to the non-proliferation regime and the NSG. It was speculated that the US and China had struck a deal under which China would support US-led sanctions against Iran in the security council against the US’s condoning of the Sino-Pakistan nuclear deal. It was also conveniently argued that the NSG guidelines were not legally binding, and that if China was bent on going ahead the US could do precious little, especially at this juncture of financial dependence on China. Not surprisingly, in a travesty of facts, the blame for creating such a situation was placed on the failure of the Bush administration to secure any non-proliferation concessions from India. The anti-India US non-proliferationists found a way to blame India for the Sino-Pakistan deal.
...
...
If, as the Chinese argue, they and Pakistan are respecting their international obligations and the new power plants will be under IAEA safeguards, where was the need for India to be put in the wringer of a tortuous, conditions-laden process by the US? Why did the US pressure others not to cooperate with India until the US cleared the way? We too could have obtained nuclear cooperation by simply agreeing to put internationally assisted reactors under IAEA safeguards.The US cannot have different standards for China/Pakistan and for us. Like China, the US, too, has supported over the years ‘strategic stability’ in South Asia. It has overlooked in the past Sino-Pakistan nuclear transfers as it needed Pakistan’s support for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan and was reluctant to impose sanctions on China. History is in danger of repeating itself at India’s expense again. India must convey suitably to the US that the newly established strategic relationship with it will develop a huge fissure if it sacrifices India’s interests to protect its Sino-Pakistan relationship.
...

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 20 Jul 2010 03:18

shiv wrote:
So please if you think Qureshi is a great guy who has done a lot for Pakistan, you are welcome to hold that view

I never suggested there was anything great about Qureishi, only that he might have had reason to be "very satisfied" if he received a private assurance from the Americans of No Objection to Pakistan pursuing a nuclear deal with China.

So far the NSG has not censured China and no visible pressure has been applied. To all appearances the Chinese are going ahead with their plan to build two reactors in Pakistan. NSG is and has always been under the control of the United States; they could stop this if they wanted. Why haven't they?

But it has nothing to do with "greatness". A beggar can ask for Rs. 100, but if he gets 8 annas he will be "very satisfied", like Qureishi. Neither the beggar nor Qureishi are "great" as a result.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 20 Jul 2010 05:17

putnanja wrote:DIFFERING STANDARDS- The US must not wink at a Sino-Pak nuclear deal by Kanwal Sibal

...

India must convey suitably to the US that the newly established strategic relationship with it will develop a huge fissure if it sacrifices India’s interests to protect its Sino-Pakistan relationship....

This could be another condition for India for even talking to TSP. Add this to list of tenders for defence purchases and nuke reactors.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Jul 2010 05:52

^ Boss if that is indeed true then Indian contingent is indeed too gullible (that is as polite as I can be

) for Sino-Pak deal will go through. I will be happy to eat my hat if I am wrong.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jul 2010 07:36

Tension With Pakistan on Display as Clinton Visits

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/world ... diplo.html

When the business executive pressed Mrs. Clinton about why United States had not offered Pakistan the kind of civilian nuclear energy pact it has with India, she reminded him of the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who sold nuclear secrets to Libya and North Korea.

“The problems with Mr. A. Q. Khan raise red flags with people around the world,” she said. “They cannot be overlooked or put under the carpet.” Pakistan, she said, was also resisting a treaty to curb the spread of nuclear fuel and had not explained its purchase of two reactors from China.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jul 2010 07:42

Hillary: enduring commitment to Pakistan
Rules out U.S. mediation on Kashmir

http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/20/stories ... 580100.htm

The issue, according to agency reports, also came up at the public interaction where Ms. Clinton had to field a question on why the U.S. was ready to provide nuclear technology to India but not to Pakistan.

Stating that Washington was beginning the intensive discussions that were necessary to evaluate Islamabad's request, she said there were some issues that need to be addressed at first, particularly Pakistan's objections to the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Pakistan is alone in raising objections and people are asking “why,” she said.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jul 2010 07:48

Hillary believes Osama is in Pakistan

http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/20/stories ... 221200.htm

As to whether the U.S. would allow Pakistan or Afghanistan to negotiate with the Haqqani network, she advocated extreme caution; stating that they should enter into negotiations with great care.

While she steered clear of getting caught in taking sides on the long-standing issues between India and Pakistan, Ms. Clinton did try to impress upon Islamabad the importance of water management when asked whether the U.S. would mediate between the two neighbours on the issue of water.

Stating that the Indus Water Treaty and the in-built mechanism for dispute resolution still held promise, she warned that Pakistan would have to face questions on water management when it seeks external arbitration.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jul 2010 07:54

From Siddharth Varadarajan

http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/20/stories ... 901100.htm

Since the public airing of this accusation came barely three weeks after Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram met his Pakistani counterpart, it is likely Mr. Pillai's boss was also taken by surprise. Just as he was last year, when the Home Secretary declared that Hyderabad would be the capital of Telangana. Government officials have since publicly circled their wagons around Mr. Pillai but privately there is considerable criticism being voiced within

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jul 2010 07:55

Brad Goodman wrote:I beg to differ on your analysis. here is what I feel is how Unkil thinks

1) First and foremost is short term solution to get out of Af Pak before the next election circus begins.

Brad Goodman - my personal view is that the US will not get out of Pakistan, even if it gets out of Afghanistan. Check Hillary's latest statements.

I sense something funny going on - I can't help putting it as one of my analogies. Imagine a boy who goes to a neighbor's house. Initially he goes to meet friend Anil, but gradually figures he actually needs to meet Anil's sister Anjali.

"I am here to meet Anil"
later
"I am here to meet ~~Anja~~ er Anil"
still later
"I am here to meet Anil and Anjali"
and then
""is Anjali home? And Anil?"
and so on

US attention is gradually shifting from Anil (Afghnainistan) to Anjali (Pakistan).

The US will "stay engaged" with Pakistan as promised.

naren · Post by **naren** » 20 Jul 2010 08:13

^^^ Has US ever stepped out of any country they set foot in ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jul 2010 08:21

Rudradev wrote: But it has nothing to do with "greatness". A beggar can ask for Rs. 100, but if he gets 8 annas he will be "very satisfied", like Qureishi. Neither the beggar nor Qureishi are "great" as a result.

The real objection was the needless side swipe at MMS when the above information would have been an adequate explanation. Why do so many Indians need to take a self flagellatory swipe at some Indian person or entity as an example that shows why another entity is better, or that the Indian entity is no better?

Aren't we the ones who have the most bitter complaints about equal equal? Is it any wonder that equal equal is so easy when most of us are unable to resist whacking something Indian in comparison to something else to show the latter as superior in relation to the former?

There is something deeply Indian about this - it occurs too often and from too many people to dismiss it as coincidence. It occurs everywhere - in the media, in the LCA thread, wherever I look. I really should not object if it is Indian. Maybe I am anti-Indian in objecting to what is clearly an Indian trait. But it is the hypocrisy that upsets me. We are quick off the mark in objecting to equalequal when someone else does it, but we are doing it all the time and choose not to describe it as equalequal when we do it.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jul 2010 08:23

Hillary’s iron fist in a velvet glove

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... nton-hh-05

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 20 Jul 2010 08:29

Greta (Fox news) had interview with Hilary Clinton in Pakistan..
said something like "I want those guys,..I assume somebody in this Pakistani government, from top to bottom, does know where Bin Laden is, and I'd like to know too,"

...there are quite a few stories about the interview, eg:
Hillary Clinton says Pakistan should give U.S. intel on Al Qaeda, Bin Laden

Ambar · Post by **Ambar** » 20 Jul 2010 08:37

naren wrote:^^^ Has US ever stepped out of any country they set foot in ?

I think there are plenty of examples where they did not setup a permanent military base : Vietnam,Lebanon,Grenada,Sierra Leone are some i can think of..

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 20 Jul 2010 08:38

abhishek_sharma wrote:From Siddharth Varadarajan

http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/20/stories ... 901100.htm

Since the public airing of this accusation came barely three weeks after Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram met his Pakistani counterpart, it is likely Mr. Pillai's boss was also taken by surprise. Just as he was last year, when the Home Secretary declared that Hyderabad would be the capital of Telangana. Government officials have since publicly circled their wagons around Mr. Pillai but privately there is considerable criticism being voiced within

Aman-Ki-ashavaadi with maoist-wife is actually upset about Pillai ji and he is writing an article against Pillai. By the way he may be upset actually about Pillai's blunt comments about maoists. probable wife's influence

Ambar · Post by **Ambar** » 20 Jul 2010 08:42

Amber G. wrote:Greta (Fox news) had interview with Hilary Clinton in Pakistan..
said something like "I want those guys,..I assume somebody in this Pakistani government, from top to bottom, does know where Bin Laden is, and I'd like to know too,"

...there are quite a few stories about the interview, eg:
Hillary Clinton says Pakistan should give U.S. intel on Al Qaeda, Bin Laden

She should visit Islamabad more often!

It is wonderful to watch the Pakis get their panties in a bunch after her every statement!

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 20 Jul 2010 08:59

...Government officials have since publicly circled their wagons around Mr. Pillai....

How many Indians will get this American phrase 'circling the wagon'? what does this even mean to an Indian (even those who can read and understand english). This guy is a pompous ass.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 20 Jul 2010 09:01

naren wrote:^^^ Has US ever stepped out of any country they set foot in ?

Lebanon? Vietnam? Somalia?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Jul 2010 09:05

Holbrooke wins the war ... against USAID

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... inst_usaid

Monday's announcement of $500 million of new aid programs in Pakistan marks a victory for Richard Holbrooke and others who want to move aid distribution away from the U.S. Agency for International Development and its contractors and place the money more directly into the hands of the Pakistani government and Pakistani organizations.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 20 Jul 2010 09:08

Gus wrote:...Government officials have since publicly circled their wagons around Mr. Pillai....

How many Indians will get this American phrase 'circling the wagon'? what does this even mean to an Indian (even those who can read and understand english). This guy is a pompous ass.

Regardless, he seems to have access at the highest levels. A lot of what he wrote has come true. Someone seems to be using him to sound out ideas in public before implementing it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2010 09:08

he he less or no monitoring where the funds disappear. it is a controlled payoff to the pakistani elites in exchange for 'co-operation' on goat.

sum · Post by **sum** » 20 Jul 2010 09:11

putnanja wrote: Regardless, he seems to have access at the highest levels. A lot of what he wrote has come true. Someone seems to be using him to sound out ideas in public before implementing it.

BRF theory is that SV is used as a sounding board by SSM ( our Hon NSA)... Hope that what he has written is not true ( else my wet dreams about GoI playing good cop bad cop type Chankian games will end

)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jul 2010 09:28

I believe that Qureshi has clear instructions from the army to be fawning with Clinton and nasty with India.

Why do I believe this?

I say this because:

1) Qureshi is fawning with Clinton and nasty with India
2) I believe Qureshi takes orders from the Paki army

Why do I believe that Qureshi's behavior is what the army wants? Why doesn't the Pakistan army just tell the US to bugger off? After all a lot of Pakis hate the US and the US is making all sorts of sharam sharam demands from the Paki army.

The question is what would the US do if the Paki army told the US to bugger off? Choose one option

1. The US would continue to arm the Pakistan armed forces and fund them and get the hell out of Pakistan
2. the US would punish the Pakistan army in various ways.

I am firmly of the belief that option 2 is the route that will be taken. Furthermore, the Pakistan army can afford to be arrogant with India only so long as the US is keeping it alive and healthy. The US will keep the Pakistan army healthy only so long as it cooperates.

Therefore it is important for the Paki army to be fawning with the US. If the US stops supporting the Paki army - arrogance with India could become a whole lot more costly. It's not that India would become more capable. But the US is sure to intervene in an India Pakistan war and provide intelligence inputs and perhaps even AWACS cover for Pakistan as long as the US seeks to protect the Paki army. But for that to occur, the Paki army must cooperate. And they do.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2010 10:25

We should think a little bit more on Mr Pillai's statement to Ind Exp editorial team that Hafiz Saeed was in India based on Kasab and others' statement. Intriguing tha INd Exp didn't follow up the revelation.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 20 Jul 2010 10:40

6 killed in separate incidents

KARACHI: Activists of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ), Sunni Tehreek (ST) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) among six were killed and another man injured in separate incidents on Monday.