Bharat Rakshak

What the hell is the US doing in the Indian subcontinent?

Has the US stopped terrorism against India?

• No

Has the US given arms, aid, succour and support to the people who have sponsored terrorism in India?

• Yes. A resounding Yes.

Has the US brought peace and prosperity to Pakistan?

• No

Has the US brought peace to Afghanistan?

• No

The US needs to get the hell out of the Indian subcontinent. India and Pakistan will find that they can handle each other and live with each other minus US meddling. Afghanistan will find a place too.

shiv wrote:

abhijitm wrote:He/She can spell out his/her fury over GoI policies if he/she, an NRI, has voting rights. Do you disagree?

Actually anyone can criticise anyone else. But the utter hypocrisy of this is revealed when a person is quite comfortable spells out his "fury over GoI policies" but will not tolerate a word of criticism about US of A polices

I agree. A biased criticism should be avoided and countered. I was responding only in fear of that A_Gupta's statement should not be generalized.

shiv wrote:The US needs to get the hell out of the Indian subcontinent. India and Pakistan will find that they can handle each other and live with each other minus US meddling. Afghanistan will find a place too.

But Shiv who will convince pakistan that they can handle their relationship with India on their own? One of the reasons other powers are meddling in Indian Subcontinent is wh0re pakistan inviting them to do so. If not unkil then china. We only have option as whose meddling we can tolerate.

One area that has benefited has been the Kashmir valley. Before the invasion of Afghanistan, India was the only bulwark that stood between the Jihadi's and the world. The world did not understand this at the time despite several writers pointing this out. Chris Hitchens comes to mind. The Kashmir Valley became hell and India had trouble implementing its long term plan of fencing and shutting down the border. It was not unusual for the annual infiltration to number in the thousands. I remember a TV report with a sombre looking Indian general who estimated 8,000 Jihadi's had come over the passes that year alone.

Now one could say that without Amerika/Poodle there would be no Jihadi at all and there is a case for that but in real terms the Kashmir Valley has benefited from the Afghan invasion.

When Amerika leaves, India will again be the only direct target for the cannon fodder discounting the Afghan state. Unless we can get them to turn on the Pakjabi. Kashmir valley will again come under strain from invaders, though we are better prepared for them now and have a direct to fertilizer, no questions asked policy.

BTW China will not intervene in TSP other than selling shoddy arms for hard currency. It does not hand out hard cash. It is the hard cash the TSP state gets that keeps the problem festering. A destitute TSP will surrender in heartbeat.

Theo_Fidel wrote:BTW China will not intervene in TSP other than selling shoddy arms for hard currency. It does not hand out hard cash. It is the hard cash the TSP state gets that keeps the problem festering. A destitute TSP will surrender in heartbeat.

As china makes technological advances, quality of their arms will get better and better. We can afford to underestimate them for now but in long term I would be rather concerned about this.

shiv wrote: The US needs to get the hell out of the Indian subcontinent. India and Pakistan will find that they can handle each other and live with each other minus US meddling. Afghanistan will find a place too.

US needs to get the hell out of the Indian sub-continent, not only physically, but financially and diplomatically as well i.e. stop funding, arming and supporting the PA.

If that is not going to happen, then they may as well stay(physically) in sub-continent and reap the rewards of their actions.

US(or any global power) will not withdraw from sub-continent, even if they are not physically present. If they withdraw from sub-continent, then their global power equation will drastically come down. And their influence in other regions will also be challenged. So, a global power has no choice but to inculcate a proxy in sub-continent or directly occupy it. British directly occupied the sub-continent, while US has groomed the PA as their proxies.

I think US physically coming to sub-continent is the best thing that happened from Indian perspective because the US has experience firsthand the paki perfidy. Of course, US may have been aware of paki's behaviour. But the impact is different when one experiences it. Now, there are definitely questions being raised by people within US as to whether a partnership or alliance with pakis is advisable in the long-run. All these developments augur well for India, in long term.

On the other hand, if the US had not come physically to sub-continent, then they would have been happily doling out the dollars and weapons without any second thoughts. Because they wouldnt have been facing any consequences of their actions. By coming here physically, they are directly experiencing the consequences and that has made many people question the wisdom of blindly supporting the pakis.

Army and the birth of an insecure state — II —A R Siddiqi

Liaquat’s test of nerves and leadership came in 1951 when India deployed its forces all along the West Pakistani border in an offensive formation. Liaquat reacted promptly by ordering the army to deploy all along the border — eyeball-to-eyeball with the Indians.

Wow! eyeball to eyeball hain? Brigadier here missed one little fact that Indian movement was to respond pakistani raids in Kashmir and their constant chest thumping about war against India.

fake agriculture medicine
what the fk is this agriculture medicine?

The police on Tuesday arrested three persons allegedly involved in the sale of fake agriculture medicines and sealed the factory where they were being manufactured.

Theo_Fidel wrote:One area that has benefited has been the Kashmir valley.

That infiltration was virtually stopped by Indian efforts before 9-11. Fence + better border surveillance. Not because of the US. After 9-11, terrorism inside India took off as the Pakistan army was infused with US funds. I have graphs/stats to show all this.

No thanks to the US here.

abhijitm wrote: But Shiv who will convince pakistan that they can handle their relationship with India on their own? One of the reasons other powers are meddling in Indian Subcontinent is wh0re pakistan inviting them to do so. If not unkil then china. We only have option as whose meddling we can tolerate.

India has to do the convincing.

shiv wrote:

abhijitm wrote: But Shiv who will convince pakistan that they can handle their relationship with India on their own? One of the reasons other powers are meddling in Indian Subcontinent is wh0re pakistan inviting them to do so. If not unkil then china. We only have option as whose meddling we can tolerate.

India has to do the convincing.

tough job shiv, tough and dangerous. In no time we will be bargaining for convincing pakis.

johneeG wrote: I think US physically coming to sub-continent is the best thing that happened from Indian perspective because the US has experience firsthand the paki perfidy. Of course, US may have been aware of paki's behaviour. But the impact is different when one experiences it. Now, there are definitely questions being raised by people within US as to whether a partnership or alliance with pakis is advisable in the long-run. All these developments augur well for India, in long term.

On the other hand, if the US had not come physically to sub-continent, then they would have been happily doling out the dollars and weapons without any second thoughts. Because they wouldnt have been facing any consequences of their actions. By coming here physically, they are directly experiencing the consequences and that has made many people question the wisdom of blindly supporting the pakis.

Here is my theory - quoting a passage from my ebook page 143

Terrorism, with hundreds of thousands of jihadis entering from Pakistan required a robust response, and India met the threat by building a powerful counter-insurgency apparatus, and by starting to fence the India-Pakistan boundary where possible.

As the Indian strategy proved effective, jihadis started getting eliminated in increasing numbers, and the average life-span of a jihadi-terrorist entering India from Pakistan was reduced to weeks or months rather than years (130). One Indian army major is quoted in an interview as saying (131):

Once somebody picks up the gun then his family knows that it is only a matter of days before they hear that he has been killed in an encounter. We put the average lifespan of a terrorist at two-and-half years. Within this period we are bound to eliminate him.

This seems to have had a significant effect on the morale of Pakistan's army backed jihadi-terrorist apparatus, because the Pakistani government started protesting against the presence of large numbers of Indian counter-insurgency personnel within India, and diplomatic protests grew shriller as Indian security forces chalked up success after success.

In many areas, terrorists from Pakistan were unable to enter India at all or were able to infiltrate through in the smallest numbers. A backlog of violent, trained and indoctrinated terrorists built up in Pakistan, and gradually, these terrorists began to target other nations of the world.

Once again, the only country that tried to alert the world about the global terrorist threat emanating from Pakistan's jihad factory was India, but Indian information fell on deaf ears, until the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks on the US. That woke up the intelligence communities of the world with a jolt. Since then terrorist links leading back to Pakistan have been found in countries like Burma, Nepal, Chechnya, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mongolia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Russia, Turkey, Latvia, Australia, UK, Canada, Indonesia and the Philippines. (119,132).

abhijitm wrote: tough job shiv, tough and dangerous. In no time we will be bargaining for convincing pakis.

Abhijit the fear you express here is not of Pakistan, not of the USA but of India and Indian inability. A ripe subject for you know which thread. But we have to do it. The only way we can rise in this world is to push out the real competitors and the US is one of them.

shiv wrote:

abhijitm wrote: tough job shiv, tough and dangerous. In no time we will be bargaining for convincing pakis.

Abhijit the fear you express here is not of Pakistan, not of the USA but of India and Indian inability. A ripe subject for you know which thread. But we have to do it. The only way we can rise in this world is to push out the real competitors and the US is one of them.

There are two streams of thoughts here to deal with pakistan. One is to tactically engage (in other words, convince pakis), and another disengage and let them rot in hell. MMS is doing former and I am skeptical whether it will bear any fruit. For e.g. aid to flood/earthquake victims scored no brownie points, pakis don't reciprocate for our opening of trade. Key here is paki army. Unless they come to term with the reality we should disengage and let them rot.

Meanwhile, no more equal-equal. While GOI is clamping down, TSP appears to be bent on leaving us way behind at child exploitation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... H620120207

Millions pushed into child labour in Pakistan

Pakistan spends less than 2 percent of its gross domestic product on education, which translates into a lack of skills amongst the younger population, pushing them onto the street in search of work.

By comparison , just over 17 percent of 2011-12 state spending went to defence, though some experts put the figure at 26 percent.

Riddle of the day. Can someone decipher what this author wants to say?
IMF, economy blah blah blah

SSridhar wrote:

svenkat wrote:While there is much that is wrong in India,there is handwringing and whining,the essential tone is of confidence and hope.

I don't visit that forum. But, you are spot on about the hopelessness. My interaction with the Pakistanis convinced me even a dozen years back (before 9/11) that they had already lost all hopes.

This lost hope has to do with "Indian intransigence" over Kashmir and India's failure to oblige by losing Punjab.

abhijitm wrote:
tough job shiv, tough and dangerous. In no time we will be bargaining for convincing pakis.

Abhijit the fear you express here is not of Pakistan, not of the USA but of India and Indian inability. A ripe subject for you know which thread. But we have to do it. The only way we can rise in this world is to push out the real competitors and the US is one of them.
There are two streams of thoughts here to deal with pakistan. One is to tactically engage (in other words, convince pakis), and another disengage and let them rot in hell. MMS is doing former and I am skeptical whether it will bear any fruit. For e.g. aid to flood/earthquake victims scored no brownie points, pakis don't reciprocate for our opening of trade. Key here is paki army. Unless they come to term with the reality we should disengage and let them rot.

Unless one has discussed why Pakistan does not want to neogtiate with India we wont know the whole story.
During the period the Pak has been waiting for India to breakup and this is one of the long term goals of Jinnah when he asked for Pakistan. This long term wait is being aided by US by providing for Pakistan to survive and also work on social engineering inside India

Shiv saar, how do we talk to a country which defines itself in opposition to India? How do we talk to a suicide bomber (pukeland)?

shiv wrote:

abhijitm wrote: tough job shiv, tough and dangerous. In no time we will be bargaining for convincing pakis.

Abhijit the fear you express here is not of Pakistan, not of the USA but of India and Indian inability. A ripe subject for you know which thread. But we have to do it. The only way we can rise in this world is to push out the real competitors and the US is one of them.

Even Pawkkhii dont doubt the Indian will and abilty to kill and eliminate the Jehadi Junk. Few months ago, i ran into a Peshawari Pakjabi ( Claimed his father side is Rajout and mother side Moghul) whose younger brother was SSG. Per him, his brother spend almost 2 years in the valley and aged fast and opted out becuase he was afraid of IA catching him. His brother came to 2 conclusions, rather commit suicide than enjoying IA hospitality and there is no way Jehadi can win the battle. This old man started talking as in his own words he was afraid of Pushtuns fighting "dirty" with Pakjabis.

What is a Peshawari Pakjabi?

KLNMurthy wrote:="SSridhar"="svenkat"]While there is much that is wrong in India,there is handwringing and whining,the essential tone is of confidence and hope.

I don't visit that forum. But, you are spot on about the hopelessness. My interaction with the Pakistanis convinced me even a dozen years back (before 9/11) that they had already lost all hopes.[/quote]

IMHO, time to keep pressing and drill the the good real and important messege into their mind that they are not only (BNC) Bhookha , Nangas and Coward but also dont have the brain, thinking power and plain dumbos. The Temporary State of Pakistan must become the living symbol of Incestual Insanity and Inhuman Inanity in the whole wide world.

ramana wrote:What is a Peshawari Pakjabi?

Pakjabi from Peshawar. 2 of My Maternal uncles were from Peshawar. My guess was that his family was facing the Pushtun heat becuase of his brother and he wanted a sympathetic response . It was not hard to see the fear/worry /disappointment in his eyes. Moral is really down among them. My young son was with me and he asked what does he means by being Rajput. Poor man shyed away when i started explaing the history. His Boss called him away when he noticed the changes in my face expression.
IMHO,within 10 years , they will need real Punjabi soulder from this side to cry on .

Poaquander Lander

Is Pakistan primed for a class revolution?

A thought came to mind as I stepped out of a shoe store. I had just spent more money on a pair of shoes than a large portion of Pakistanis have to survive on for a month.ome of these people we know well. They cook for us, they drive us around, they clean our homes and take care of our every whim. These are the very same people who suffer the most from the skyrocketing inflation and the rise in food prices, but who also see the lifestyles of the people they serve improving.It’s a thought that’s been bugging me constantly since I returned to Pakistan. I’ve found it hard to come to terms with the extent of inflation in the country and the explosive gap between the rich and poor.Wealth is a main determinant of power in Pakistan, where entrenched corruption of one sort or another is a way of life and where the wealthiest either see the poverty around them as a nuisance or are simply oblivious to it.When Salman Taseer was tragically murdered by a member of his own security detail, a certain segment of the population championed Mumtaz Qadri as a torch bearer for those protecting Islam.But there exists an element to Taseer’s murder that few people would like to admit, but it’s nonetheless worth considering. In my experience of talking to some of these people, a good portion of them admitted, in albeit in hushed tones, that it was also the symbolism of a poor man killing a rich man that appealed to them.I wonder if that kind of class resentment resides in a much large portion of the masses. Rather, the question is how can it not?Those who don’t pay attention to history are destined to repeat it. The irony will be that if our country allows this go on — if ‘we’ let this go on — we’ll be culpable in our own demise, and we will have deserved it.

Pakistan needs Master Baitullah Mehsuds in every town who master baitullah to the same verse of Ghazwa e Behind for revolution to succeed. This superficial GHadi andar se RAPE Immy Pathan wont bring them no salvation. He is right in thinking that his beg and borrow for cancer hospital economics will also work wrt the Packee economy but what he isnt taking into account is that his biggest benefactors are going through perhaps what is their worst economic downturn post WW, with no money coming through Immy will have to depend on crumbs from his jooish wife. The real revolution will come from the frothing in the mouth, unwashed and unfed Abduls who will dismantle every symbol of kaffir civilisation before taking over the country and marching at full speed towards the light of 6th century Arabia. Survival of the fittest vermin roughly translates into survival of the purest. I can only wish more purity on the land of the pure

Jhhujar, Did that guy spell his name right with 'q' instead of 'g'. It sure reads like the latter is correct.

Shiv,

Take a look at what the charts say. No comment.

Theo_Fidel wrote:Shiv,

Take a look at what the charts say. No comment.

http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/wp ... lities.jpg

If you dig deeper you might find Shiv is right.

Theo_Fidel wrote:Shiv,

Take a look at what the charts say. No comment.

This is the very graph I had in mind in addition to others, but I do have some comments. You need to look at this graph in conjuction with terrorist attacks within India that took off and peaked in 2008.

Infiltrators are trying to come into Kashmir even today and it is completely erroneous to imagine that the US presence in Pakistan reduced that. In fact while the camps in Afghanistan were shut down - any men were moved to PoK. That's all. I am not sure why you seek to make a connection between US presence and reduced infiltration in Kashmir without mentioning a word about Indian defences including a completed fence. To me that sounds like a bias. It may not be a bias from your viewpoint - but its not going to wash off unless you can say how the US presence in Pakistan actually translated to reduced infiltration in Kashmir when you still have camps there and the attempts are still going on 1n 2012.

The fence and defences have just made it virtually impossible for Pakis to infiltrate and hence the action via the sea, Nepal and Bdesh in other parts of India. The border fence was completed in 2004. The Battlefield surveillance radar (BFRSR) was accepted for use against border infiltrators in 2002 and was gradually inducted in ever larger numbers and over a thousand are now in operation. Now look at the graph again. No credit to the US here

The fence reduced infiltration by 80%. America did not reduce infiltration.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/333839/huma ... lochistan/
US House Foreign Affairs sub-committee hearing on Baluchistan

Hasan dubbed the military’s role in the province as brutal, and an occupying one. He clarified that the HRW took no position on the issue of the independence of Balochistan. He argued that the US and UK had made enforced disappearances possible by allowing them during the war on terror, which has led to the military doing the same. Christine Fair added that Pakistan’s abuse of human rights have served the US’ interests.

In his testimony, analyst Ralph Peters called Pakistan a supporter of terrorism, and said that Pakistan had made the US complicit too by launching attacks against India such as the Mumbai attack.

casualty of Indian forces remained the same (more or less) while number of dead militants skyrocketed just before the US invasion of A'stan.

^^^^
what India has contributed is-
1) terrorists infiltration came down increasingly with each year due to better efforts from India through better security measures- defensive posture.
2) Due to the above efforts paradoxically the terrorists took on the less purer brethren inside pakahsnasthan resulting in increasing incidents within the cesspool. check ducking for cover


This is due to yindian efforts. Not USA. of course khan pupils can argue otherwise. I cannot stop them.

I guess we will find out when Amerika checks out of Kabuli Hilton....

abhijitm wrote:Army and the birth of an insecure state — II —A R Siddiqi

Liaquat’s test of nerves and leadership came in 1951 when India deployed its forces all along the West Pakistani border in an offensive formation. Liaquat reacted promptly by ordering the army to deploy all along the border — eyeball-to-eyeball with the Indians.

Wow! eyeball to eyeball hain? Brigadier here missed one little fact that Indian movement was to respond pakistani raids in Kashmir and their constant chest thumping about war against India.

The Brigadier was heading the ISPR for a long time and hence is lying 'in a good Muslim cause'.

pankajs wrote:Shiv saar, how do we talk to a country which defines itself in opposition to India? How do we talk to a suicide bomber (pukeland)?

Pankajs - this is a very difficult question to answer but I can only describe to you my own thought process. I do not demand that you agree with me. What I do is to try and set some standard biases aside like "I hate all Pakis" and "i hate Mani Shankar Aiyar". I go right back to his book and note that he wrote that "Pakistan is define themselves as being in opposition to India". In that very book he lists out reasons why this feeling needs to be changed because trade will be the only positive way forward for a billion on one side and hundreds of millions on the other side. He makes suggestions about how India could do that - but I will not go into detail because I hated it when I read it and it did not stick in my mind. Need to look at the book again.

But what did stick with me from that book and other accounts is what I have noted from numerous other accounts is that it is technically possible for Pakistanis to show friendship towards Indians based on numerous first person accounts. But that needs to be balanced against the "Hindu kutta" factor and the persecution of Indian diplomats and ill treatment of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan. There is clearly a spllt personality in operation where the Pakistani because of history, family memories of a charmed past in India make them welcome some things about India and Indians, while hating a basic core Indian identity of ownership of India and being non Muslim. These sentiments on an individual level would be called "jealousy" and "bigotry" but on a national scale they translate to war.

I think war has been discussed to death on BRF. Pakistan itself "evolved" from open military campaigns against India, to the support of dissident groups (Khalistan) to infiltration (war of a thousand cuts) to terrorism. Even Kargil was deneid as a military campaign and was never expanded by the Pakistan army. India for its part has become more and more ready for war, but has shied away from commencing open war for many reasons - often described on BRF as cowardice. But as long as I am not going to get killed in a war, anyone who does not fight war can be declared a coward by me. So "cowardice" is a biased conclusion that I can apply to US actions as well - but that will cause the usual culprits to get upset and derail what I want to say.

So India and Pakistan sit next to each other and find that there is no war, no peace. We know the internal factors in Pakistan that lead to this no war no peace situation. We know the internal factors in India too.

But are there any extraneous factors apart from India and Pakistan that contribute to the situation in some way? To cut a long story short the US has played the role of "balancer". It has promised and given Pakistan aid, but has never joined a war on Pakistan's side the way the US joined world war 2, the Korean war, the Vietnam war and the war in Kosovo. The US has given aid to many nations on earth. But US aid to Pakistan has primarily aimed at strengthening the military. The US has never advised or guided Pakistan away from a suicidal course of low literacy and a demographic bomb, but the US has cheerfully accepted the Pakistani army's belligerent aims. The point I am trying to make is that although Indians can say that the US aided Pakistan, the fact is that the aid was skewed in favor of an army/military dictatorship rather than making Pakistan into a developed country. It is another matter that the Pakistan army wanted exactly that with its Kabila mentality. But that inly means that the Paki army and USA were made for each other. Their aims dovetailed well and the US's aims were perfectly consonant with the Pakistan army's aims. If we blame the Paki army, why let the US off as an innocent bystander?

As for India, what the US gave it took away in the form of military aid to the Pakistan army, and India needed to fight two fronts while a third "internal front" was opened with terrorism and Reagan calling them freedom fighters.

What does this mean?

1. Pakistan was set up on the basis of aggravating fundamental Hindu-Muslim divisions in British India
2. Those divisions were encouraged to stay alive by selectively aiding the Pakistani army to oppose India and nonchalantly describing Hindu India as a bigoted nation that threatens Muslim Pakistan
3. There is a clear contradiction between India's reputation wrt to Muslims versus reality. Why does Pakistan need military aid to fight India while the actual bigotry is in Pakistan, with the elimination of religious minorities? But yet, this is exactly what the US has achieved.

The US involvement in the region is detrimental to security in the subcontinent. India can and must reduce Pakistani paranoia. Indians are not afraid of Muslims or trying to eliminate them. We have as many as Pakistan does and Sunnis, Shias and Ahmedis live in peace in India India is affected by the actions of the Sunni Wahhbandi Pakistan army supported by the USA.

These facts need to be seen by Pakistan and Pakistan needs to gradually sideline its own army. The US will resist that but it is going to have to be told to get off somewhere. India can actually support Pakistan provided the aims of the Pakistani army are changed to get the US out and bring in internal security in Pakistan and stop attacking India. India can defend itself against Pakistan. the US role has been to encourage Pakistan to fight various enemies - both US enemies and their own. The Pakistan army has been stupid and needs to be reined in. The US will not do that, but the people of Pakistan can. if possible we need to reach out to those Pakistanis who want their own army to come under control and stop fighting others wars in exchange for aid to fight India.

As long as the Pakistan army vs India standoff occurs - only the US gains by collaborating with the Paki army. Remove that collaboration and India and Pakistan can actually move forward and try and set aside the animosity that was provoked by the British in their great game, starting with the (soon reversed) division of Bengal and later the partition of India and the use of Sunni Muslim army of Pakistan to support the great powers in their wars, I hope at least the few intellectuals of Pakistan can be made to understand this. India needs to have peace with Pakistan and have land access to Afghanistan and Iran.

Baloch have seen little development from their gas resources. Rep. Rohrabacher

Baloch are denied proper education. Rep. Rohrabacher

Pakistan is making the developments to attract Punjabis into Balochistan. Rep. Rohrabacher

Pakistan is using brutal force including extra-judicial killings. Rep. Rohrabacher

Iran has also ruthlessly treated Baloch in Iran. Rep. Rohrabacher

We are going to learn from this hearing. Rep. Rohrabache

It is congress' job to make sure we're getting the return for all the US investments in Pakistan Rep.

Pakistan is bisected by Indus River East of Indus river, and West of indus river, West is an occupied territory RalphPeters

Pakistani government is neither our friend nor the friend of Baloch. Ralph Peter

People of Balochistan have been going through torture for many years, world refused to look at them leave alone Pakistan TKumar

Pakistani intelligence agencies and Army is like a terror machine to the people of Balochistan TKumar

NO US weapon should be used in Balochistan. Mr. T Kumar

Balochistan was divided into 3 parts by the British into british india and Afghanistan HosseinBor

4000 thousand Balochs disappear in Balochistan from 2001 .hussain borr

In Balochistan there are many perpetrators but highest amongst them is Pakisatni military AliDayan

An Independent Baluchistan would pretty much solve our supply route problem.

Pakistan has made us complicit in terrorism RalphPeters

We've been manipulated for a long time by Pakistan

'Such an issue must be addressed on bi-partisan basis. We should deal it as American. Ralph Peters

'If plebiscite held tomorrow, it would leave Pakistan.' Ralph Peters

'Maintaing borders, drawn by colonial powers, by sending US forces is not consistent with US values & interests.' Rohrabacher

Balochs are secular and they are against Pakistan Taliban alliance..M.Hussain Bor

House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Baluchistan, Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Chairman - Hearing Webcast

There are numerous reports of LeT cadres actually fighting in Afghanistan, because Pakjabis can no longer rely on Pashtuns. So to the extent that the US presence has provided the jihadis with a diversion, it is useful. IMHO the fencing, radars etc have played the more significant role.

Pakistani military and Islamist leaders have for long tomtommed the claim that they will fly the green crescent moon flag in Delhi. From 1954 to 2012 that Pakistan army has been given aid by the USA and has never been discouraged from its aims using the specious argument that 'It is not the US's business" to do that. It is odd that it has been the business of the USA to give military aid to the Pakistani army but not the US's business to dictate what the army does with that aid. We are stupid in not being able to see what is actually happening. Up until 2001, the islamist allies of the Pakistan army were US allies too. Reagan praised them. The Islamist militia allies of the Pakistan army became US enemies in 2001. But the Pakistan army remained a "most favored non NATO ally". Amazing how white man realises that a bit of praise will have the slavish kaalu Pakis eating out of his hands.

The tool of great power games in the subcontinent has always been the "martial races" of the northwest of India - the Gunga Dins, the martial Pakistani Muslims who were stupid enough to be taken in by praise like
1. You are a martial race. You helped us win world war 2
2. Islamic fighters are naturally democratic and anti-communist
3. You helped hold back communism

This praise along with dollar payments and US visas to the officer cadre made sure that the Pakistani army was eating out of US hands. But Pakistan has not developed. It is now a mass of underdeveloped, iliterate people and the US is now beginning to talk of a split of Pakistan.

If the US splits Pakistan and creates Baluchistan, India will never have access to Iran overland or via the sea. India's future should aim for peaceful subcontinent in which we have overland access to iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia. In exchange we can allow Pakis access to see what their ancestors did and where they came from in India. And we can buy their agri produce.

The Pakistan army and Pakjab needs to be brought under control. Pakjab is the real US colony in Pakistan. As a growing power we need to do a China and understand who our adversaries are at a global level. The US's role in the subcontinent needs to be diluted and removed as long as it seeks to destabilize.

Pranav wrote:There are numerous reports of LeT cadres actually fighting in Afghanistan, because Pakjabis can no longer rely on Pashtuns. So to the extent that the US presence has provided the jihadis with a diversion, it is useful. IMHO the fencing, radars etc have played the more significant role.

different take on it.
check this out- western targets after 9/11
111 deaths and 391 injured.
included in it are some churches which are as pakistani as any can be as western targets.

Jihadis want to go to fight the souper power superior armed forces instead of weaker targets - does not sound right .
They luv certain death with a glint in their eyes and meet ayeshas in jannat. when there are easier targets inside pakhanasthan.

is this a myth.

Hum Tum Se Judda Ho Ke, Mar mar jayenge Ro Ro Ke

Kaanta with Nato and Isaf resume

ISLAMABAD, Feb 8: A meeting of senior military officials of Pakistan, Afghanistan and coalition forces based in Afghanistan held on Wednesday for discussing border security and coordination marked the formal resumption of military contacts with the US and Nato after months of estrangement in the aftermath of Nov 26 strikes on Pakistani border posts.“Representatives of Isaf, ANA and Pakistan Army met at Border Coordination Centre (BCC) in Torkham today under tripartite engagement format to discuss and improve various coordination measures on Pak-Afghan border,” a militaryofficial said.The officers at the Torkham meeting discussed tactical level coordination and the problems they routinely confront in different areas,” the official explained.
The meeting has taken place amid signs of a thaw in Pakistan-US relations. US Centcom Commander Gen James Mattis is expected to meet Army Chief Gen Kayani some time later this month for discussing investigations into border attacks.The date for Gen Mattis’ visit is likely to be announced once the parliament completes its review of relations with Washington.The Parliamentary Commission on National Security that had been tasked with formulating recommendations for redefining terms of engagement with the US has completed its job. But, a joint session of parliament is yet to be convened for ratifying the recommendations.
The tripartite meeting happened hours after a drone attack in North Waziristan left 10 people dead.