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

amit · Post by **amit** » 21 Jul 2010 14:35

Dilbu wrote:
It does not take into account that the US will most definitely factor in the ground reality that within the next 10 years India will be or will be well on the way to being the third largest economy in the world and a country which in many way is similar to the US of A.
US is getting all the required coooperation and market access from India even now when 26/11s are going on. In fact they use these incidents to their advantage. Heck they can even turn on and off the terror tap against India when ever they want. And you want me to believe they will do a u-turn because our economy is going to be big in 10 years.

If they cannot see our POV now then I don't believe they will see it after 10 years. This is basically asking India to twiddle thumbs and wait no matter how many of its people get killed by TSP until US decides to side with us. Which is another way of asking to do GUBO. I am not sure that is going to happen.

Dilbu,

Let's take a look at the whole issue from a different angle. You're convinced that the US is out to screw us which ever way and how ever way it can and we are Guboing by giving them market access despite that.

Who knows maybe you have a point that I can't see.

Why don't you list a few simple steps, like for example the way Rajesh did, by which India would be able to take care of the perfidy being commited by both the US and Pakistan?

I'm willing to learn.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 21 Jul 2010 14:55

You're convinced that the US is out to screw us which ever way and how ever way it can and we are Guboing by giving them market access despite that.

Not at all. I am not saying US has any malicious design against India. Only that their objectives in the region are diagonally opposite to that of India's. India will be a stumbling block for US and vice versa as far as each other's regional objectives are concerned. TSP is able to magnify the threat it can pose by very astutely playing US against India. It is US that is preventing India from taking action against TSP. So my point was:

MMS's game plan as explained by Rajesh will not work because:
1) US does not have a long term plan in the region. It moves from one side to other depending on its short term tactical needs.

2) US do not care a flying phuck about TSP terror against India as long as their objectives, Af-Pak for example, are met.

3) India chopping off TSP's wings will be a blow to US since it will not find another gubo ***** like it in the region. India will not be able to replace TSP in that respect as far as US is concerned. US will side with its munna as long as jihadi threat against west can be contained.

4) TSP is not going to roll over and die if we keep waiting till kingdom come. Some one has to push it over the edge and 3.5 ain't gonna do that.

5) There is no cost for TSP to unleash terror on India. It is very cheap and is paying rewards. There is no response from India other than heavy duty dossiers flying back and forth.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 21 Jul 2010 15:04

So my suggestion for things that can be done:
1) Throw a spanner in US scheme of things in the region by another op-parakram or something which will threaten US with a pull out of TSPA from FATA. If we cannot make TSP pay then make its GUBO master pay for its crimes.

2) Shut down of talks with TSP until meaningful action on perpetrators of 26/11.

3) Take international pressure and stand firm, for a change, until the message goes out that India can act tough.

4) Proactive covert ops to kill the keedas in their home land.

In short negotiate from a position of advantage instead of our backs against the wall as always.

satyam · Post by **satyam** » 21 Jul 2010 15:12

^^^^^^

We can absolutely do that. Then India should be prepared for a gdp growth rate of 6% instead of 9 %

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Jul 2010 15:18

i would expect even our nice restrained babu's have asked unkil for some quid pro quo in exchange for the chai-biskoot, perhaps in an non-obvious arena?

amit · Post by **amit** » 21 Jul 2010 15:29

Lalmohan wrote:i would expect even our nice restrained babu's have asked unkil for some quid pro quo in exchange for the chai-biskoot, perhaps in an non-obvious arena?

Boss,

I think you've hit the nail on the head. There seems to be some amount of coordination going on which can't just be a coincidence. I'm not trying to speculate whether the quid pro quo is beneficial to India or not, but there is definitely something going on under the radar.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Jul 2010 15:39

well... nuke deal is one, i don't imagine that C130, C17 or M119(?) deals passing through ITAR etc., was easy for Unkil to pull off either

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 21 Jul 2010 15:42

I would even go one step ahead and say we should use all these things like biggest democracy and growing economy to actually our advantage for once. Right now these things are like liabilities to us because we are not taking action against injustices done against our country in the name of protecting our economy,democracy and secularism. These very same things are supposed to be pillars of strength for a nation. We have turned these into weights around our neck.

If we openly declare we won't be doing US's bidding in the region because of its support to TSP then what more pressure can it exert on us than the ones we are already suffering at the hands of TSP. If they fail to take notice of the advantages of siding with us then we should make them aware of the disadvantages of not being on our side. There is a saying in malayalam -take out the thorn in your flesh with another thorn.

amit · Post by **amit** » 21 Jul 2010 15:42

Dilbu wrote:So my suggestion for things that can be done:
1) Throw a spanner in US scheme of things in the region by another op-parakram or something which will threaten US with a pull out of TSPA from FATA. If we cannot make TSP pay then make its GUBO master pay for its crimes.

Operation Parakram was in response to specific provocation. How do you propose another Parakram without out a provocation. Are you implying it would be nice to have one?

2) Shut down of talks with TSP until meaningful action on perpetrators of 26/11.

Haven't you seen the umpteenth number of times it has been pointed out on this thread, this is precisely what TSPA wants so that it gets an excuse to stop its haemorrhaging in the Western front? In fact the Kabul Embassy bombing was done by the ISI who deliberately left its footprints so that another incident could develop and TSPA would get and excuse to rush its troops to the eastern border. Remember how terrorists who were fighting against TSPA had overnight become patriots when they offered a ceasefire and then go to the eastern front to fight India. The TSPA delayed redeployment of some units on the excuse that there was tension on the eastern border despite India making sure there was no troops build up.

3) Take international pressure and stand firm, for a change, until the message goes out that India can act tough.

This pre-supposes that India is not already standing up firmly to international pressure. Do you have data points to support that? Of course I'm assuming you don't equate the type swagger displayed by the jackass Qureshi with "standing up to international pressure".

4) Proactive covert ops to kill the keedas in their home land.

Now this is an interesting one. How do you know that India is not already doing covert ops? Remember killing someone like that Hafiz piglet is not really very productive because that would make him a martyr an someone else would take his place. However, if you could hit the arm that feeds the terror outfits then the messages goes across. But such things are not very publicized are they? Why do you have such a pessimistic view of India's capabilities. Is it something to do with the party in power?

In short negotiate from a position of advantage instead of our backs against the wall as always.

Now how do you define a position of strength? You have to more specific. Would a position of strength entail a war with Pakistan which the US and other powers force a cease fire on because of the nuclear factor? Or do you define a position of strength being a $2 trillion plus economy which can hurt the US economically if it is inimical to India's interests?

IMO, you don't get a position of strength by simply amassing your army on the border and by stop talking with Pakistan.

PS: Re Parakram, do know why the Cold Start doctrine was formulated after Operation Parakram?

partha · Post by **partha** » 21 Jul 2010 15:45

India Too Complacent About Pakistan Complicity in Mumbai Attacks

Scarcely a soul envisaged last week's "trust deficit" discussions between Pakistan and India producing any results worth a fig. Unfortunately, they failed to achieve even that. Outside of the obvious attempt to assuage U.S. leaders, the biggest riddle is why India would ever agree to meet with Pakistan to discuss issues of trust in the first place, when India now has definitive proof in hand that Pakistan's intelligence agency, army and navy were in league with the hateful Islamic jihadist group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks that led to the deaths of 173 people.

A bigger riddle is why U.S. head of state Hillary Clinton handed Pakistan a check for $500 million in development funds yesterday while Pakistan provides a safe haven for Taliban and al Qaeda leaders. Even more surreal is Mrs. Clinton giving Pakistan's leaders said aid and shortly after asserting in an interview that someone in the Pakistani establishment knows where Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar have taken sanctuary (by chance, is anyone else tearing their hair out?).

If anything, the precarious relationship between India and Pakistan deteriorated after the countries' two foreign ministers haggled in daylong sessions on July 15 - not over substance but over what issues they would discuss and when they would discuss them.

The day ended with an uncomfortably contentious press conference as India's cool-hand-Luke Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna deflected questions darted at him from a hostile Pakistani press corps. Mr. Krishna kept his dignity but while watching the video of the circus it at times looked like Krishna was secretly praying for anyone or anything to abort the proceedings as the madman to his left, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, defensively gyrated with eyes widening as he over enunciated every word while smacking his lips and jabbing his finger in the air emphatically several times - looking less the part of a senior diplomat at a press debriefing and more the part of an amateur thespian at Shakespeare in the park.

The tension was firmly established on the eve of the trust-a-thon when Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai was quoted in the Indian Express saying David Coleman Headley, the Chicago-based Pakistani-American who conspired with terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) to launch the Mumbai siege, disclosed that Pakistan's intelligence services controlled and coordinated the terrorist barrage from beginning to end.

It's no wonder that Mr. Qureshi seemed so awfully fidgety. Though Qureshi had plenty of time to come up with a decent response to this particular accusation, his pathetic rejoinder consisted of an ad hominem attack against Pillai, comparing him to the founder of LeT, Hafiz Saeed, who is basically the equivalent of Osama bin Laden to India.

Both the Indian and Pakistani press chastised Mr. Pillai's ill-timed public divulgence, though it doesn't diminish the veracity of his statement in any way. Nor does it detract from the confession that Headley gave to India's National Investigation Agency (NIA) during the course of a 34-hour interrogation from June 3 to June 9. Headley, who is still in FBI custody, informed Indian authorities that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was involved in planning the attacks, clearing weapons, funding the surveillance of targets in Mumbai and acquiring boats.

Yet, the world should have been spared from Mr. Qureshi's histrionics because India should have demanded no trust-building exercises would take place until this issue was completely resolved. During post-game diplomatic trash talking, Mr. Qureshi had the gall to accost India for not talking about what Pakistan wanted to talk about and he seemed genuinely irritated India dare try and stick to the pesky issue of the overwhelming evidence that Pakistan attacked them. But Qureshi's "cherry-picking" invective was the first untruth he told the media because India's foreign minister went above and beyond his technical mandate and offered to discuss all of the issues, including Kashmir, Jammu, Siachen and Sir Creek.

What Mr. Krishna was not willing to do was commit to a time-bound issue resolution roadmap, so Qureshi blasted Krishna afterwards for being "selective" during the discussions. He went so far as to insultingly suggest Krishna was not mentally prepared.
The second lie Mr. Qureshi told was a dense one - the type of fib that has zero upside and is so easily refuted it elucidates a certain underlying pathology, when he claimed Krishna was continually being interrupted with phone calls and getting orders from New Delhi. Qureshi then began to boast about his own diplomatic preparedness:

"I led Pakistan's team. I didn't need to make even a single phone call (to Pakistan leaders) during the daylong talks. If Krishna is principal for directing Indian foreign policy why were directions from Delhi being sent repeatedly?"
Mr. Krishna was also perplexed by the erratic Mr. Qureshi's accusation, saying: "I never used any telephone... It is an extraordinary statement to make that I got calls. I didn't talk to anyone." Pakistan's own former foreign minister Gauhar Ayub called Mr. Qureshi's deviant behavior childish and inappropriate. Days later, Qureshi backtracked and said he never said Krishna himself was on the phone. (How I wish I was there to ask a quick follow-up: "Mr. Qureshi sir... then how did Mr. Krishna receive the orders from New Delhi?")

During the press conference, considering Pakistan will not hand over the suspects of the Mumbai attacks (the reason why becoming clearer every minute) claiming Islamabad would bring them to justice, Mr. Krishna politely fished for an update and suggested that the biggest confidence-building measure would be the complete unraveling of the Mumbai conspiracy.

Qureshi's weak non-response was better left unsaid - a "let me get back to you on that one" would have sufficed. Instead, the Pakistani foreign minister flinched and declared there was little that could be done to speed things up and emphasized that "both India and Pakistan" had independent judiciaries and governments could not dictate to the courts. Mr. Krishna did not seem to appreciate the civics lesson.

According to insiders from India, Mr. Krishna probably appeared calmer than one would expect - although he is mild-mannered by nature - because he knew all of this was coming. Days before a senior diplomat gave Krishna a tip that the process was being driven by the Pakistani army or as CNN-IBN's Paarull Malhotra put it: "Rawalpindi was the puppeteer and Islamabad the puppet."

India must awaken to the reality that Pakistan's army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani smells blood and thinks he can knock India out of the box in Afghanistan and he certainly isn't going to wait for the trust talks to come to fruition. The U.S. desperately needs Pakistan - evidenced by the mad cash the U.S. has dished out - and Kayani knows this and is going to make sure Pakistan has a foothold in Kabul when the dust settles. It's a good wager the wise General isn't going to let a minor issue impede progress, including the fact that Pakistan's entire armed forces have been implicated in a terror plot.

If India continues down too diplomatic a road they are going to lose out in Kabul as the U.S. continues down the path of least resistance until it finds a feasible remedy. India has stated they would not participate in full blown official diplomatic discussions with Pakistan until the extremist groups in Pakistan are fully dismantled, which would entail the dismantling of the Pakistani state. Perhaps it's time for India to try and convince the U.S. a dismantling of this sort is the best remedy possible.

Michael Hughes writes similar articles as the Geopolitics Examiner and the Afghanistan Headlines Examiner for Examiner.com.

amit · Post by **amit** » 21 Jul 2010 15:45

Dilbu wrote:If we openly declare we won't be doing US's bidding in the region...

Dilbu,

Boss when you make sweeping statements like this please back them up with links, data points etc. Otherwise they become a bit tiresome. You have to show that a) we are doing US' bidding in the region and b) that by doing so we are actually harming India's own interests.

Unless you do that such statements only qualify as rhetoric.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 21 Jul 2010 15:47

Amit saar as I said I am a mango abdul. I may be wrong. Arguing on these things to death will result only in analysis paralysis. I respect your opinion. Lets agree to disagree.

amit · Post by **amit** » 21 Jul 2010 15:51

Dilbu wrote:Lets agree to disagree.

As you wish. But I'm surprised that you equated a discussion and exchange of viewpoints with an argument?

Doesn't the forum exist for people to share different POV and after an extensive discussion reach some sort of consensus?

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 21 Jul 2010 15:57

I mean it is just waste of time when both of us know each others POV already. What is the point of having pages after pages of explanations based on previous explanations? I understand what you are trying to say but disagree. I am sure you do the same. No point in wasting bandwidth.

If you want to prove each and every point I mentined above wrong please go ahead and do so. I was merely expressing my opinion and will not defend it with tooth and nail.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 21 Jul 2010 16:54

Hindu family of 7 killed in Balochistan.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 010_pg7_12

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 21 Jul 2010 16:58

Tip of the iceberg of the drug trade?
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 010_pg7_30

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 21 Jul 2010 17:34

Some tsp related tweets:
https://twitter.com/KanchanGupta

Yo!!!!! Now it's Amrika's turn! Gilani to US: "Give us credible and verifiable information on Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar."

In response to Hillary's Osama in Pakistan statement, Gilani: "US should give Pakistan 'credible and verifiable' information".

So now let the Americans try the dossier thing...

Nothing new here, IMHO. I vivdly recall pervert musharraf mouting off the same line on Jon Stewart's show no less "You tell me where he[OBL] is, I will catch him."
Nothing can or will come off it.
khan dossiers would be an interesting phenomenon though....their def contractors already have hajaar experience printing fancy brochures after all...

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 21 Jul 2010 17:55

US forces fighting 'clandestine' ground battles in Pak alongside local troops: Report

The U.S. troops are allowed to defend themselves and return fire if attacked. But the official emphasized the joint missions aren't supposed to be combat operations, and the Americans often participate in civilian garb, The Wall Street Journal reports.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20100721/8 ... groun.html

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jul 2010 18:05

G-7 Task Force asks Pakistan to check terror financing
India is part of the task force and that should cause major takleef.

A global task force, which tracks money laundering and terrorist financing across national borders, has advised India’s neighbours including Pakistan to improve legal measures to curb the criminalisation of its financial channels.

India is the latest member of the multi-national Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an inter-governmental organisation founded in 1989 by the G7 (Group of seven industrialised nations) to develop policies to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

“In June 2010, Pakistan made a high-level political commitment to work with the FATF and Asia Pacific Group (APG) to address its strategic Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating Financing of Terror (CFT) deficiencies.

“Pakistan has demonstrated progress in improving its AML and CFT regime, including enacting a permanent AML law.

However, the FATF has determined that certain strategic AML and CFT deficiencies remain,” the FATF said, in its recommendations to Pakistan.

Pakistan will work on implementing its action plan to address these deficiencies, including demonstrating adequate criminalisation of money laundering and terrorist financing, demonstrating adequate procedures to identify, freeze and confiscate terrorist assets, ensuring a fully operational and effectively functioning Financial Intelligence Unit.

The other measures that Pakistan need to work on, according to FATF, include “demonstrating effective regulation of money service providers, including an appropriate sanctions regime, and increasing the range of Money Laundering and Financing of Terror preventive measures for these services and improving and implementing effective controls for cross-border cash transactions.”

“The FATF encourages Pakistan to address its remaining deficiencies and continue the process of implementing its action plan,” the body recommended.

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 21 Jul 2010 18:08

SSridhar wrote:So, it is LeT that is the greatest threat to us at present. If that needs to be caged in, we need to talk to PA, not to political leadership. Quereshi & Gilani being the mouthpieces of the PA, are forcing us to do so. Hence, the recent clamour in India also for talks with the PA.

Sridhar Sir, This interests me. But the question is why does PA need to talk to us? What is it that we can do to bring PA to table? Right now, things look good for them... Salaries in account, land, business mafia, new toys, and possibility of 'strategic depth'. Further, no social responsibility, they can live with the current economy as long as salaries are paid and new toys are bought.

Thing is PA is a ruthless self feeding and self centered entity which is loyal to itself and no one else. If Gilani / Qureshi and others don't do their bidding, they could be easily chucked and replaced.

A few days ago, I had quite simply put that until unless we can:

1) Do something which makes dear Abduls understand the modus operandi of the PA mafia and how it exists for itself and not for him.

or

2) Convince PA that Pakistan is No longer a good business and may be they can move towards something else, nothing can happen.

Achieving either of the above 2 is near impossible if not impossible. So I am not even going to attempt to dream on how we could do that.

We here in India need to work on a perpetual containment mode. Keep the intensity low and contain these guys.... Keep focus on economy shikonomy... Pappy jhappy here and there and little battle shatlle here and there and bottle of whiskey for dinner...

If 71 couldn't get the point across to Abdul, nothing will....

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 21 Jul 2010 18:53

Here we go!!!

Our external affairs minister will NOT get into slug-fest with Mr Quereshi..... But India's home Secretary spoke out of turn when he spoke the truth...

I must say.... Bravo Mr Krishna... Bravo..... you are one heck of a man....

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jul 2010 19:01

Sri, I am not saying that India should talk to PA. I have never advocated that, not least now. See here for my views. All I am saying that PA wants it and this is probably also the thinking of some people in India. We may also hear one fine day that some back-channel talks have taken place with the PA & ISI.

Why does PA want to talk to GoI ? PA has always determined the India-specific policy and it started even in Jinnah's days. PA distrusts the country's politicians. In spite of a concerted effort with American support perhaps, Zardari could not bring PA under civilian control. The Americans, always having had a very close working relationship with the PA, have since then gone one step ahead and started openly associating the PA in its strategic dialogues. So, the PA might think that when the USA itself accords it such a space, why doesn't piddly India too ? After all, the PA's raison d'etre is India. Such a discussion will not only give it a 'high' but completely sideline the politicians and raise the image of the PA even higher. It can control the dialogue process very fine unless having to intervene in the last minute as it happened in the just concluded FM meet. It can get many opportunities to humiliate India. After all, it is still smarting for its 1971 debacle and it understands that every passing day evaporates even more its dream of avenging that defeat. It can even control the aftermath of the sure-to-happen terrorist attacks. May be the Corps Commanders imagine that they can make some money too. There could be many such calculations.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 21 Jul 2010 19:05

Sri wrote:Here we go!!!

Our external affairs minister will NOT get into slug-fest with Mr Quereshi..... But India's home Secretary spoke out of turn when he spoke the truth...

I must say.... Bravo Mr Krishna... Bravo..... you are one heck of a man....

Read the comments as well.

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 21 Jul 2010 19:19

SSridhar wrote:Sri, I am not saying that India should talk to PA. I have never advocated that, not least now. See here for my views. All I am saying that PA wants it and this is probably also the thinking of some people in India. We may also hear one fine day that some back-channel talks have taken place with the PA & ISI.

Why does PA want to talk to GoI ? PA has always determined the India-specific policy and it started even in Jinnah's days. PA distrusts the country's politicians. In spite of a concerted effort with American support perhaps, Zardari could not bring PA under civilian control. The Americans, always having had a very close working relationship with the PA, have since then gone one step ahead and started openly associating the PA in its strategic dialogues. So, the PA might think that when the USA itself accords it such a space, why doesn't piddly India too ? After all, the PA's raison d'etre is India. Such a discussion will not only give it a 'high' but completely sideline the politicians and raise the image of the PA even higher. It can control the dialogue process very fine unless having to intervene in the last minute as it happened in the just concluded FM meet. It can get many opportunities to humiliate India. After all, it is still smarting for its 1971 debacle and it understands that every passing day evaporates even more its dream of avenging that defeat. It can even control the aftermath of the sure-to-happen terrorist attacks. May be the Corps Commanders imagine that they can make some money too. There could be many such calculations.

Sridhar Sir, I took a quote from your post but I never meant that you suggested that we should talk to PA. But as you know we have heard many people saying that we SHOULD talk to PA.

Further, I am still not convinced that PA wants to come to table. As you said India is PA's raison d'etre. Agar ghoda ghans se dosti karega to khayega kya? I take it from your above post that under certain circumstances PA might want to APPEAR to be talking. That is NOT what I meat.

My question is what could be the circumstances under which PA would genuinely would wanna smoke the peace pipe?

Further, complicating things is that I believe PA is not a personality driven institution. It doesn't matter who is ISI chief, Corp commander or Chief of Staff, the policies in PA are somehow ingrained in it's Organisational structure. Therefore corrupting individuals I think is NOT the way either...

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 21 Jul 2010 19:26

Let’s Make Peace
http://www.newslinemagazine.com/2010/07 ... ake-peace/

Jihad is back on agenda - it is official
http://www.international.to/index.php?o ... &Itemid=79

I think India should hold talks with Pakistan. But it should be in terms of terrorism which Pakistan ISI sponsored in India, Afganistan related issues and bilateral issues.

India has to make sure that it is not only Pakistan has got nuclear bombs even India has got. Any giving up in terms of Kashmir can lead to a nuclear war. It is no more possible to have any more inches to be given to anyone. Kashmir cannot be solved in Pakistan terms unless India agrees. No one can pressurise India on this issue as it has become very sensitive not only for Kasmirites but also for many other people in India. Even if we have solved the problem of Kashmir Pakistan will continue to send Jihadis into India to destroy the country because they serve other masters.

India should hold talks with Pakistan and discuss at mutual respectable terms. At present Pakistan government talks like children who underwent training in radical madrassas. Next time any attack in any other places in India and links with Pakistan is found, I think we should not speaking we should bring ISI headquarters to ground zero which may have implications but there is no other options but to talk in terms of violence as Pakistan does it through many of their Jihadis.
They cannot come to mutual respect in a real sense of talks unless they feel hurt.

Unless India is a strong country to give fear both to China and Pakistan it is imposible to tackle this issue. India needs to strategically work in a way that its economic interests are protected and they have high sophisticated arms to protect themselves. Indian government should also have a Muslim contingent to fight Pakistan army.

India has largest Muslim population next to Indonesia.Not all Muslims are antinationals. There are a large number of Muslims in India who are not only nationalists but also are ready to fight for India against the jihadis in Pakistan. They need to be ideologically motivated and encouraged to fight Pakis.

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 21 Jul 2010 19:34

Dilbu wrote:
Sri wrote:Here we go!!!

Our external affairs minister will NOT get into slug-fest with Mr Quereshi..... But India's home Secretary spoke out of turn when he spoke the truth...

I must say.... Bravo Mr Krishna... Bravo..... you are one heck of a man....
Read the comments as well.

Thanks I missed reading them... Hope Krishna reads em...

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 21 Jul 2010 19:49

Krishna seems to be blaming Pillai for what seems to be a ill-prepared meet on his/his teams part.

Ironically, he seems unaware that this may buy him points with Congress high command & MMS,
that atmosphere creation, reduction of 'trust deficit' == 'accept Paki chump's one upmanship", etc.
but the average citizen is'nt buying his mangoes!

Does Indian need an External Affairs Minister?

(since they are only managing internal affairs)

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 21 Jul 2010 19:59

Pillai revelations causing some takleef to US:sources
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/discl ... rces-38688

Kudos to Pillai and whoever is behind him, the action they took made the best out of what they had at hand. WTF did the US think that we would collect and store the incriminating evidence/information so that we could use it against the real perpetrators when they get booked, we know that there is no chance in hell they are going to face any real judicial process either in pak or in India.
So they used it to throw some dirt on and diss the pak military and ISI. This has multiple effects on the current situation
> Throws a spanner in the works of the piss process
> turns domestic public opinion and keeps 26/11 in public memory
>Seriously damages the "credibility/reputation" of the pak military and ISI in the international press and public. Now before you say what "credibility/reputation"are you talking about, I just say it in short that they will go from "These guys are real bast*****, they aren't co-operating with us against the terrorists and the taliban (for their own devious motives i.e. "strategic depth", Kashmir etc.)" to "These are real sick bast****, they are the terrorists!"
And no one can question the information/ evidence (because some in the foreign and Indian media did (such as siddharth varadarajan who I guess we can put in both categories. ) for the dossiers sent before the Headley thing ) because it was obtained from a guy in US custody in the presence of US officials and they aren't denying any of it.

arun · Post by **arun** » 21 Jul 2010 20:09

X Posted.

Elements in Pak govt know where Osama is hiding’

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s terrorist sponsoring ways on display.

The above story by the News is based on Fox News interview of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the transcript is available here:

Clinton Says Pakistani Govt Knows bin Laden Whereabouts

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 21 Jul 2010 20:11

amit wrote:
Dilbu wrote:So my suggestion for things that can be done:
1) Throw a spanner in US scheme of things in the region by another op-parakram or something which will threaten US with a pull out of TSPA from FATA. If we cannot make TSP pay then make its GUBO master pay for its crimes.
Operation Parakram was in response to specific provocation. How do you propose another Parakram without out a provocation. Are you implying it would be nice to have one?

How is 26/11 and involvement of state actors is for a specific provocation? Given that Pakistan army, navy, and ISI was involved, 26/11 was an act of war against India.

Is that not enough provocation?

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 21 Jul 2010 20:21

abhishek_sharma wrote:Water Dispute Raises Tension Between India and Pakistanis

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/world ... shmir.html

The Pakis get practically 80% all water flowing out of J & K and they still want more?
Amazing, truely amazing! Paki sense of entitlement has no bounds!

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 21 Jul 2010 20:44

Dipanker wrote:Water Dispute Raises Tension Between India and Pakistanis

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/world ... shmir.html

The Pakis get practically 80% all water flowing out of J & K and they still want more?
Amazing, truely amazing! Paki sense of entitlement has no bounds!

It gets even worse. The Pentagon or state dept official at the "south asia" desk who fed this duckling to write this report has this to say:

Water experts concur, but say Pakistan does have a legitimate cause for concern.

In other words, its always equal equal when it comes to India & TSP. India may have all the legalities on its side, but when US's terroist assets cry fowl over any imaginary grievance they can cook up, its a "legitimate cause for concern". Recall, Uneven's observation that TSP is paranoid, but even the paranoid have enemies. Sure, even Hitler has "legitimate cause for concen" with regards to his enemies.

archan · Post by **archan** » 21 Jul 2010 20:45

Dipanker wrote: How is 26/11 and involvement of state actors is for a specific provocation? Given that Pakistan army, navy, and ISI was involved, 26/11 was an act of war against India.
Is that not enough provocation?

Action should have been taken then. I think they are talking about steps now. For Bharat the choice at the moment is full fledged war (and the economic costs that accompany) or try to minimize the terrorist damage for a few years until India gains a decisive economic leverage that the 3.5 sponsors have to stop doing what they are.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jul 2010 20:54

What is interesting is the US is revealing via Headley all kinds of things which in normal course of things are causes for war. Yet India doesn't do anything on her own but releases the info asking/demanding the TSP to act on that info. So its war by other means or compeling TSP to act on its own non-state actors and state actors nexus.
India has the upper hand in this as the Headley/Gilani revelations were under US watch. I expcet even more bad stuff to come out by and by.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Jul 2010 20:57

^^^ does that not support the let them stew in their own pakistaniyat theorem? (until they disintegrate)

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Jul 2010 20:59

@CRamS ^^^

You're right. Polgreen and Tavernise follow the NYT ==formula that we have seen from Crossette to Somini Sengupta. But here's the real question: Why is there no Op-Ed piece from Meera Shankar? There may be an anodyne rebuttal by the Press Secy at the Embassy in the Letters section but who reads that?

GoI leaves the field open to Pakis and to Pankaj Misra who routinely spits anti-India venom in the op ed pages.

As you know, the real reason for Paki objections to Kishenganga is that it might actually help the Valley.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jul 2010 21:05

Sri wrote:How to beg in front of Camera

Video is of Clinton's 'interaction with young Paki Journos"

Look how they ask beg in an interview... I have to give it to Hillary... She doesn't give an inch...

Begging includes:

1) Money
2) Water
3) Money
4) Mediation with India on Water
5) Money
6) Civil nuclear deal
7) Money
8 ) Mediation in Kashmir otherwise young kids will join Jaesh e Mohd
9) Money
10) Market Access
11) Money from EU
12) Money from Friends of Pakistan
13) Money from Coalition support fund

I have summarized the content of this 30 plus minute video into just 6 minutes
I have a reason for doing that - I am studying the numbers influence of the English speakers of Pakistan (RAPE), but here's the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev_4ZI_hSg8

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jul 2010 21:07

CRamS wrote: In other words, its always equal equal when it comes to India & TSP.

According to NYT.

But watch what Clinton has to say. If not the whole 30 minute video linked above - see my 6 minute condensation.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jul 2010 21:15

Pulikeshi wrote:Krishna seems to be blaming Pillai for what seems to be a ill-prepared meet on his/his teams part.

This is entirely possible. But see the takleef it will cause Pakistan if this is a wink-wink game where Pillai says something and Krishna says "oops"

Pakistan is looking for a way to call off any action and "Pillai your hawk is spoiling things" was their (very weak) excuse.

India is saying "OK we are getting rid of our hawks - only we the lovey dovey ones are left. What are YOU going to do with Hafiz Saeed? We are reining in our hawks - we want an equal equal from you"

India loses nothing by doing this other than some rona dhona on BRF - which will pass in he same way as "No access to Headley" rona dhona passed. It is a cheap - very cheap way of putting a counter ungli into Pakistan and making no progress while looking like we are still ready for talks.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Jul 2010 21:26

^ Well with that line of argument what is that stops from chooha Qureshi from being 'Chankian' ? All said and done at the end of the day it is clear that things haven't changed as far as Indo-Pak talks are concerned i.e. talks are initiated on Pakistan's terms i.e. lets forget about terrorism for time being or lets talk on water only to serve as a platform for internationalizing the J&K issue.

As far as I see from Pakistan's pov the IWT issue now figures even on US agenda so the rona-dhona from TSP side at least works, what has thumb twiddling and making ambiguous statements on our side yielded ? Right to be called 'Chanakian' ?