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

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Jul 2010 16:57

^^^ TSP's implicit nuclear blackmail on Unkil

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 26 Jul 2010 17:03

^ Is that why Unkil aided the escape of Taliban and Al-Qaeda from the city of Kunduz?

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 26 Jul 2010 17:04

Pakistan aids insurgency in Afghanistan, reports assert

Okay..first you did not stop the information leakage...then you condemn it...all this leak thing looks like an orchestrated drama by US..probably US wants to hint TSPA & ISI whats on their mind..pity on GOTUS that they had to bank on tactics like these instead of strong words in face despite billions of aid they gave to pakis....

This thing comes close after LSE's report from GB...these gora buggers do not have the face to whip a failed state's A$$....superpowers my foot.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 26 Jul 2010 17:21

^^^ Leak-veek drama reeks onlee. LOL. Nothing really new or surprising for phorum regulars, I reckon.

Unkil's reluctance to bring down the talibs was evident back in 2001 itself, in the midst of the heat of 9/11. It wasn;t just the kunduz airlift but also the adamant refusal to take down the forward positions of the talibs till a few months after the aerial 'shooting' began.

Once the talibs got bombed, then the NA marched in and butchered the cannon fodder still left behind. Hazara treatment, perhaps.

Anyway, would be fun to have a new obl tape released confirming the leaks' veracity, eh?

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 26 Jul 2010 17:33

The only way uncle can come to senses is when India actively helps TSP attain ICBM and Fusion device capability.

We are already under their gun we can bum they can bum us. PRC is already transferring the Fusion technology. We are pitted against two nuclear powers. Once they can reach uncle. The logical and inevitable would happen. That is TSP is global problem that needs attention

The reasoning is simple unkil thinks arming TSP to the teeth is no problem for India and also protects the sovereignty of TSP, so we will actually be helping unkil’s cause of arming tsp so he can rest assured in his rocking chair

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 26 Jul 2010 17:50

Hariji......yes, I agree that I didn't make any new revelation...many BRF oldies like you know whats drama and whats not....with such abundant intelligence reports..for unknown reasons they don't question pakis directly..its upto them what needs to be done..but it gets on my nerves when they Tell/Warn us to cut our ties with Iran and do more on kashmir...

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 26 Jul 2010 18:45

Re Mullen visit and his LeT mention in TSP, we can gauge the message he gave based on whether TSP "tests" a nucular mijjile soon.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 26 Jul 2010 19:00

Said to be sourced from US Govt archives,

pakistan: Partition and Military Succession

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/pakistan/pakistan.htm

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

Joint Indo-packi BS shows slowly making its way back to Indian television.
CHHOTE USTAAD – DO DESHON KI EK AWAAZ (with Sonu Niigaam and Rahat Fateh Ali Khan)
http://starplus.startv.in/gallery.aspx?sid=53&aid=789
little disappointing seeing Sonu Niigaam partaking in in this tamasha.

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Jul 2010 19:25

^ Its a show for kids. If our foreign minister can bad mouth our home secretary because of chooha querashi and we attribute it to chankianness I am sure we can come up with better excuses for Sonu Nigam.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 26 Jul 2010 20:15

It will be interesting to see if there are any pointers to Mumbai blasts in Wiki leaks

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 26 Jul 2010 20:17

Rangudu wrote:Re Mullen visit and his LeT mention in TSP, we can gauge the message he gave based on whether TSP "tests" a nucular mijjile soon.

One more time, even though nobody wants to answer my question

. Has the reference to LET been removed from the original version of KL bill? Recall, the very first version caused quite a bit of ass ache among TSP RAPE. Subsequently, they toned down and seem to even embrace KL bill, except they wanted more moolah. Now Mullen merely refers to LET, but doesn't attach any teeth, and even that is causing kujli to TSP. So just wondering, what is the current language in the KL wrt TSP going after various terrorist groups? (Of course, TSPA/ISI are the biggest terrorist groups, so its like asking thief'n'chief to go after his minions

).

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 26 Jul 2010 20:21

negi wrote:^ Its a show for kids. If our foreign minister can bad mouth our home secretary because of chooha querashi and we attribute it to chankianness I am sure we can come up with better excuses for Sonu Nigam.

To be fair, Sonu Nigam recited some sanskrit shlokas & hailed Mata Vaishno Devi in front of the Packee in the show last night. Now, BRFites can do what they do best, find hidden chankianness..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Jul 2010 20:21

CRamS wrote: One more time, even though nobody wants to answer my question . Has the reference to LET been removed from the original version of KL bill? Recall, the very first version caused quite a bit of ass ache among TSP RAPE. Subsequently, they toned down and seem to even embrace KL bill, except they wanted more moolah. Now Mullen merely refers to LET, but doesn't attach any teeth, and even that is causing kujli to TSP. So just wondering, what is the current language in the KL wrt TSP going after various terrorist groups? (Of course, TSPA/ISI are the biggest terrorist groups, so its like asking thief'n'chief to go after his minions ).

The word has not been removed. I checked when you asked the question. It means zilch.

The US will tolerate anything from the Paki army to keep nukes under lock and key. LeT are army loyalists

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Jul 2010 20:23

Chandragupta wrote: To be fair, Sonu Nigam recited some sanskrit shlokas & hailed Mata Vaishno Devi in front of the Packee in the show last night. Now, BRFites can do what they do best, find hidden chankianness..

Well knowing the usual mood the news will be interpreted as throwing the Gita in a pile of horse dung as a sign of capitulation.

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 26 Jul 2010 20:26

Maulana Manishankar Aiyar was in paki lands recently attached is the link to his diary for any rakshaks interested in following his journey

Abbottabad Diary

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 26 Jul 2010 20:34

Coming back to our famous topic of Talks with TSP - what will be the impact on talks and aman-ki-asha due to wikileaks? The wikileaks have direct quotes as "Pakistan paid Taliban to kill Indians in Afghanistan". The download of dump from wikileaks is very slow on 20MBPS line.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 26 Jul 2010 20:35

Venkarl wrote: This thing comes close after LSE's report from GB...these gora buggers do not have the face to whip a failed state's A$$....superpowers my foot.

There seems to be a method in the madness. The problem I see is one of finding an optimal solution given various competing constraints. Not to repeat whas has been discussed here many times over, US needs TSP to contain India, but cannot afford to give too much power to TSP lest the "bad terrorists" come after US and its lackeys. Likewise, TSP is willing to go after "bad terrorists" provided USA offers India's head on a silver platter. USA says not that much, but you can keep LET ("good terrorists") and we give you goodies so SDREs can't overrun you. So you get the drift. Not easy for these little well-paid ducks and ducklings writing for NYT or reporting on CNN/FOX to fully grasp the picture, and hence the confusion and lament that US is not winning. But the Pentagon and CIA bosses know better. They know for example, what a diabolically brilliant slaughter their rent-a-boys from GHQ in Rawilpindi pulled off on 26/11 boosting their ego and reducing SDREs to a bunch of whining pygmies. Lets wait for more wikileaks on this one.

Bottolom line. Lets not go overboard with criticism of US for their lack of success or whatever. Indeed they are a superpower. They are playing a dangerous game of keeping TSP on life support while achieving their ojectives. As M.J.Akbar said, when push comes to shove, US asks for Faisal Shehzaad types, and TSP will round up 6 in one hour, and askes USA, what else?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 Jul 2010 20:38

Ambar wrote:After reading the contents of the above document, i am baffled more than ever before about naivety of US administration. Surely the world's sole superpower is not dumb if it has evidence that ISI is actively funding attacks in Afghanistan,yet they go on pouring billions into the coffers of the same ISI,why? Whatever little foothold that US has established in Afghanistan,they could have done it without ISI's backing ..so why the posturing? What stops them from reducing the paki army into a rubble? What stops them from sniping out guys like Gul,Aslam Beg,col.Imam and others? Something just doesn't add up..

Ever wondered why that *&%& gul is regularly featured on Indian DDM channels??

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Jul 2010 20:47

Regarding CRamS's mention of big picture/detailed picture some pages ago - both are needed. While detailed picture guys may get lost in the forest, I see far too many big picture guys who draw big pictures that are utterly unrealistic. Any big picture has to be carefully verified against all the small details.

A common example is the "MMS giving away Kashmir" here. While the "big picture" is so painted, even cursory examination of just how MMS might accomplish this feat, beginning with what he has to bring to Parliament, returns the quick result that the big picture is absurd.

There are plenty of other examples possible of big pictures drawn here with no basis in reality.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 26 Jul 2010 20:58

A_Gupta wrote: A common example is the "MMS giving away Kashmir" here. While the "big picture" is so painted, even cursory examination of just how MMS might accomplish this feat, beginning with what he has to bring to Parliament, returns the quick result that the big picture is absurd.

Boss, the final nail on the coffin has not be struck, but the events point in that direction, albeit in slow motion with just enough legalities built in so MMS can claim he broke no law. I have not heard MMS say even once that Kashmir's soverignty is non negotiable. Plus, his parleys with terrorist Mush are on the record, and the core of that love letter with Mush is India TSP honeymoon in Srinagar. Isn't that sufficient to at least be concerned as to what he is up to?

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 26 Jul 2010 21:01

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/20 ... insurgents

Check some of the comments in the page ...

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 26 Jul 2010 21:05

CRS,

I'd not be too concerned about KL bill etc. Bottom line is that Congress cannot override the Executive branch. Previous aid bills to TSP had harsher conditions, requirements etc. but nothing came out of it. If push comes to shove, there is always a "National security waiver" clause in every such law, allowing the President to do what he pleases.

If Unkil were to ever compel or coerce TSP, it will be done off the record in one on one sessions by people like Mullen talking with Kayani. The only two prior occasions I recall were after 9/11 with Powell/Amritraj with Musharraf and Gen. Zinni with Musharraf during Kargil (although people focus more on Clinton/Nawaz).

It seems to me that some tough message was given by Mullen to Kayani this time because (a) Mullen chose to make a tough on-the-record briefing to TSP journalists and bigwigs, (b) There was no "TSPA is the greatest and bestest" type joint statement that usually accompanies Mullen/Petraeus/McChrystal meetings with Kayani and (c) The overtly aggressive US statements on the Haqqanis including from the usually wishy washy State Dept spokespeople

My take based on sources and media reports is that Mullen's trip was less aimed at LeT but more on the Haqqanis but that Unkil probably has intel that TSPA might use the pigLeTs to do another 26/11 to deflect the pressure to act on the Haqqanis. Mullen came to India likely to gauge the mood and based on the input he realized that he has to address LeT with Kayani. Most likely he told Kayani that Unkil is on to the plan etc.

A nucular mijjile test will confirm whether the message was hard or soft.

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 26 Jul 2010 21:06

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/ ... 7#38411097
Is Pakistan our enemy?

Duh... Does Sun rise in the east? Does Sun set in the west?

arun · Post by **arun** » 26 Jul 2010 21:20

Article in the Asia Times claims there has been a cover up of the malign role the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in fomenting terrorism in Afghanistan including by India.

The foregoing is apparently because the international community “is terrified of facing a failed state with nuclear weapons, and prefer a functioning but treacherous one”.

OTOH, in India’s case this is apparently because the Congress led UPA Government would rather have the Islamic Republic of Pakistan covertly fomenting terrorism and have an excuse for not directly confronting the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. India accordingly is reluctant to have the US act tough with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

:

July 27, 2010
Murder on the Khyber Pass express
By Spengler

The 92,000 American classified military documents released by WikiLeaks add to the evidence that Pakistan's intelligence service backs the Taliban, to the point of helping the Taliban plan assassinations of American and Afghan officials.

This raises the question: Who covered up a scandalous arrangement known to everyone with a casual acquaintance of the situation? The answer is the same as in Agatha Christie's 1934 mystery about murder on the Orient Express, that is, everybody: former United States president George W Bush and vice president Dick Cheney, current US President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, India, China and Iran. They are all terrified of facing a failed state with nuclear weapons, and prefer a functioning but treacherous one. ……………………

India does not want America to call Pakistan to account. In the worst case, Pakistan might choose to support the Taliban and other terrorist organizations - including Kashmiri irredentists - openly rather than covertly. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, of whom the Economist on July 25 wrote "the strength of his coalition depends largely on how weak he is as Prime Minister", does not want to confront Pakistan. If Pakistan's support for anti-Indian terrorism became undeniable, India would have to act, and action is the last thing the Congress party-led coalition in New Delhi wants to consider ………………..

Asia Times

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Jul 2010 21:30

^^^ This is another genius report from US based chatteratti that suggest India is pressing the US to keep TSP together and but for that it would all have been hunky dory. Read Balckwills' assessment as to how US has to be tough with India and tell the US is not going to fight India's war with TSP!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Jul 2010 21:39

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, of whom the Economist on July 25 wrote "the strength of his coalition depends largely on how weak he is as Prime Minister", does not want to confront Pakistan.
Asia Times

[/quote]

Weak as MMS may be what is the meaning of "confront Pakistan"? Do we unzip half a billion flies and wave things at Pakistan?

I would like to understand how Pakistan is to be confronted. Don't mistake me folks. I have as good an idea of what Pakistan is all about as anyone. I still would like to know what "confronting Pakistan" means.

Such articles sound good - but these are words that have been used on BRF years and years ago and know that those are just empty words. What confrontation?

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 26 Jul 2010 21:43

CRamS wrote:
A_Gupta wrote: A common example is the "MMS giving away Kashmir" here. While the "big picture" is so painted, even cursory examination of just how MMS might accomplish this feat, beginning with what he has to bring to Parliament, returns the quick result that the big picture is absurd.
Boss, the final nail on the coffin has not be struck, but the events point in that direction, albeit in slow motion with just enough legalities built in so MMS can claim he broke no law. I have not heard MMS say even once that Kashmir's soverignty is non negotiable. Plus, his parleys with terrorist Mush are on the record, and the core of that love letter with Mush is India TSP honeymoon in Srinagar. Isn't that sufficient to at least be concerned as to what he is up to?

Though I do not like the way MMS is dealing with TSP and other foreign policy issues, I would like to reiterate that MMS did make statements like "borders alterations are non-negotiable". However, he is dealing with negoitations like loose-borders etc. I do not remember MMS directly telling about border-less Kashmir.

Agreed that there is no clarity.

After an hour's download of wikileaks, the doc came with gibberish and not readable format.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 26 Jul 2010 21:44

ramana wrote:The report about the Polish intel assessment on the Indian Embassy attack in Kabul. Was it ever conveyed to India at all?

If not why is Indian press reporting as if it was public knowledge!

Didn't Praveen Swami say that India had all the intelligence including the car that was to be used and its registration number.
----------------------
Basically, the US is saying - we are broke, no more waar pleaazzee onlee peace.

MMS is thinking - I don't want to deal with defeating TSPA and having a massive war. What about the economy?

What do we do huh?

Initiate covert action ask the US to play ball and tell us every single commander involved in anti india attacks. Hit them with brutality, in TSP or abroad. But Yindu's command will probably be afraid of reprisals. They don't realise they have already been attacked and are under attack (CRPF camp attacks, plots to assasinate leaders, 2001 parliament attack etc). We are facing an insurgency in Kashmir. Time to get our acts together.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jul 2010 22:01

ramana wrote:^^^ This is another genius report from US based chatteratti that suggest India is pressing the US to keep TSP together and but for that it would all have been hunky dory. Read Balckwills' assessment as to how US has to be tough with India and tell the US is not going to fight India's war with TSP!

I thought Blackwill was simply making an effort to look equally tough with India, so as to seem neutral, which by itself is not very easy considering that he was US Ambassador to India and later on worked for a lobby firm Barbour Griffith & Rogers, of which India was a prime client during the nuclear negotiations.

He is basically telling the US to tell India, that US will not conquer Pakistan's backyard for India, a place where India never really ever showed much presence or influence. It was about denying Pakistan space in their backyard, and I doubt that India would be so naive to think, that this denial could have continued indefinitely.

Of course it is a weak attempt to hide, what India would get should US change their strategy and go for a de-facto partitioned Afghanistan, which of course also saves USA from the jaws of defeat in Afghanistan.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 26 Jul 2010 22:03

I have not heard MMS say even once that Kashmir's soverignty is non negotiable.

He has said on several occasions that borders will not be changed

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Jul 2010 22:10

Pak gained N-capabilities through international deception: US lawmakerWashington, Jul 24 (PTI):

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/835 ... rough.html
Pakistan has gained atomic capabilities through ‘’international deception’’ and ‘’clandestine procurement’’ networks, eminent US lawmaker have said, while warning that the continuation of 'secretive' Sino- Pak nuclear ties is setting a wrong precedence for others.
‘’In 1998, Pakistan conducted its first nuclear test, having developed its weapons far before then. Pakistan had gained that capacity through international deception in part whereby the true end-user of various equipment was obscured through clandestine procurement networks," Congressman Brad Sherman said at a Congressional hearing.

"We now see similar networks on behalf of other states that either are trying to develop nuclear weapons or have done so illegally. These proliferation techniques need countries to be the transshipment hub in the supply chain," said Sherman.

He made the remarks on Thursday while chairing a hearing on 'Transshipment and Diversion: Are US Trading Partners Doing Enough to Prevent the Spread of Dangerous technologies' by the Terrorism, Non-Proliferation and Trade Sub-Committee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

"Technology and equipment from companies in countries with high-tech manufacturing can then go to those hub countries and then on to the prohibited country," Sherman said.

He alleged that these hub countries have weak or non-existent export controls, ineffective customs and law enforcement officials and most importantly, little or no political will to do anything about this critical problem.

"In addition, large trade volumes at major transshipment ports can help camouflage the illicit shipment of diverted goods," he said.

The Congressman said the US experience with Pakistan's nuclear programme demonstrated that export control laws will be of little value unless the US can properly control the flow of global cargo at transshipment hubs.

Congressman Ed Royce said China's notorious record as a WMD -- weapons of mass destruction -- proliferator demands that it be given very close scrutiny.

"I'm a sceptic on China's commitment to export controls given its past behaviour and certainly given its nonchalance about non-proliferation in general," he said.

"Its planned sale just announced of two nuclear reactors to Pakistan and its multi-billion dollar investment in Iran's energy sector are additional cases in point in terms of the way China behaves in this regard and I think Beijing's pressure on the Obama administration to loosen export controls is concerning," said the Congressman, who is co-chair of the Congress India Caucus.

Royce alleged that it is China which provided those critical components to Pakistan's capability, originally A Q Khan's network and their ability to bring an atomic weapon online.

"China now appears determined to sell Pakistan two nuclear reactors and that's certainly against the norms of the nuclear suppliers group," he said and asked what the Administration's policy is on this?

Vann H Van Diepen, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Non-Proliferation: "Based on the facts that we're aware of, it would appear to us that that sale would not be able to occur consistent with NSG rules unless the NSG were to give it a specific exemption, which of course China does not currently have for that.

"So if they were to proceed with that sale without such an exemption, it would be contrary to NSG guidelines."

Diepen said the US can only block giving NSG exemption.
"But if China decides to go ahead without the exemption and violates the rules, the group per se can't block the sale but we can certainly make clear our opposition and try and take steps to persuade them to do otherwise," he said.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 26 Jul 2010 22:12

PMO denies PM took up with Krishna Pillai remark issue

The Prime Minister's Office on Monday denied reports that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had conveyed his unhappiness to External Affairs Minister S M Krishna over his criticism of Home Secretary G K Pillay for his statment made on the eve of Indo-Pak dialogue.

PMO spokesman said in a statement that media reports in this connection were "false and mischievious".

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Jul 2010 22:15

shravan wrote:PMO denies PM took up with Krishna Pillai remark issue

The Prime Minister's Office on Monday denied reports that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had conveyed his unhappiness to External Affairs Minister S M Krishna over his criticism of Home Secretary G K Pillay for his statment made on the eve of Indo-Pak dialogue.

PMO spokesman said in a statement that media reports in this connection were "false and mischievious".

How can media be "false and mischievious" with the PM and his words. Something is really wrong or the govt is being run under blackmail

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 Jul 2010 22:17

Gerard wrote:
I have not heard MMS say even once that Kashmir's soverignty is non negotiable.
He has said on several occasions that borders will not be changed

He wants to make the borders irrelevant, what ever that means.

Rather like a pregnant lady applying vanishing cream on her bulging belly desperately hoping to get rid of the problem!!

The pakis are creating all these problems because thet really want to deal with MMS directly, one on one.

They also know that there is very strong public opinion in India against any talks with the pakis. MMS is the only one the pakis have who will go against the Indian people for some imagined pappi jappi. ( and the elusive nobel )

Dan Mazer · Post by **Dan Mazer** » 26 Jul 2010 22:21

vic wrote:Alternate view:-

MMS goes throught the pretense of talking to Pakistan while simultaneously instructing that the talks be scuttled by some honest comments by Pillai. Krishna goes through the pretense of being hurt but everybody makes up and are happy.

This seems to be the obvious conclusion. If MMS/Krishna actually wanted the talks to be successful and they knew of a segment in their govt. who wanted to spoil the talks (they must have known about this segment if in fact it exists since even on this forum people knew about it). So they would have known that the Headley revelations would be dynamite in the hands of this segment. Why wouldn't they then have conspired with the US to delay the Headley revelations to after the talks? The US would only have been too happy to oblige.

Of course this doesn't mean such a split doesn't exist. But in this case at least it seems to me that a joint effort was made to scuttle the talks.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Jul 2010 22:22

^^^ poland has troops in afghanistan, have been in action - therefore their intel will be there. according to wiki leaks, one polish unit is under trial for possible war crimes, but the case is not moving fast. apparently and allegedly, one unit retaliated to an IED attack by mortaring a wedding party and killing several women and children... the unit was rapidly flown back and court martial proceedings opened but somehow not happening after a senior general intervened... all allegedly

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 26 Jul 2010 22:25

Dilbu wrote:Even polish intel is in the thick of action in af-pak

!

Just imagine what our intel knows!!

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 26 Jul 2010 22:27

shiv wrote:Weak as MMS may be what is the meaning of "confront Pakistan"? Do we unzip half a billion flies and wave things at Pakistan?

I would like to understand how Pakistan is to be confronted. Don't mistake me folks. I have as good an idea of what Pakistan is all about as anyone. I still would like to know what "confronting Pakistan" means.

Such articles sound good - but these are words that have been used on BRF years and years ago and know that those are just empty words. What confrontation?

Shiv, this is a perfect time to accuse you of not looking at the big picture

I'm reading stuff from the 1900-1920 period of Indian politics, and IMO, part of the failure of the "Hindu-Muslim" unity movements of that era is that everyone was looking at the big picture only. The minute anyone looked at the details, it turned out that Hindus and Muslims were talking of somewhat different things, and all hell would break loose.

IMO, BRF has thinkers on each scale of size, and so a good integrated view should be developable as a collaborative effort (which happens to some extent already). The small scale thinkers should realize that with all their effort, they will never be able to accumulate all the pixels of the picture. The big scale thinkers should realize that their broad strokes should be consonant with the many, many pixels that have been gathered.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 26 Jul 2010 22:34

shnkr wrote:
vic wrote:Alternate view:-

MMS goes throught the pretense of talking to Pakistan while simultaneously instructing that the talks be scuttled by some honest comments by Pillai. Krishna goes through the pretense of being hurt but everybody makes up and are happy.
This seems to be the obvious conclusion. If MMS/Krishna actually wanted the talks to be successful and they knew of a segment in their govt. who wanted to spoil the talks (they must have known about this segment if in fact it exists since even on this forum people knew about it). So they would have known that the Headley revelations would be dynamite in the hands of this segment. Why wouldn't they then have conspired with the US to delay the Headley revelations to after the talks? The US would only have been too happy to oblige.

Of course this doesn't mean such a split doesn't exist. But in this case at least it seems to me that a joint effort was made to scuttle the talks.

Qureshi might be laughing out loud hearing these talk.

Why is it that, we always have to consider, it is we who engineered the talk breakdown ? Becoz as it was described as the whole atmosphere changed after Kiyani's intervention. It was clarified by the Indians that, the DH & LeT matter was already shared with Pak so there is/will be nothing new if Pillai sharing it now or later. Of couse there is a catch. If there were conditions & agreement that these DH revelations should not be made public and revelation by Pillai angered Pakis which scuttled the talks then it is truly engineered by Pillai/indians.

This is another alternate view,fwiw.