All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
14 Jun, 2010
WASHINGTON: A senior White House official said on Sunday that involving Taliban militants in a future set-up in Afghanistan could be a part of the solution to the present conflict in that country.
.....
“This mission is about Al Qaeda, about putting pressure on Al Qaeda on both sides of the border, about not letting Afghanistan become a safe harbour, safe haven for Al Qaeda again,” he said.
“Ultimately this is about our security and that’s why we’re there.”
KLNMurthy wrote:perhaps we can also start to understand Narendra Modi, Nagpur-based RSS etc., as representing a non-Delhi alternative rather than the traditional "defenders of Hinduism" which doesn't really make much sense anyway. It seems then the Gujarat violence of '02 would be a part of this lot working out what to do about the Muslims. Violence or suppression is not sustainable in a democracy and inconsistent with a stable system. There would need to be a dialogue of which Muslims are a part. The Kalamite nationalist Muslim outlook is one element of a solution.
But sir, arent we in a place right now where we fear to tread? The place where there is no powerful enough opposition to 'Delhi'. BJP is almost in tatters (at least as far as national appeal goes). Narendra Modi (even BJP) will never get any support at all from media and BJP allies (even though he is the best CM of India ATM), same goes for RSS. I am pretty sure that Gujarat will remain Modi's bastion, but thats not exactly what we need. We want a nationalistic govt that holds views opposite to 'Delhi'.
The way media works, it will make sure that urban India doesnt accept Modi, and Congress has enough tricks to divide and take most of the rural votes. So is it really realistic to hope about a powerful opposition, especially Modi and RSS et al, emerging?
Its OT I believe. We should continue the discussion in future scenario thread I guess.
JeM etc. may have loose cannons but we have incontrovertible evidence to prove that the LeT is a wing of TSPA.
Absolutely. Thats why I believe the US brokered deal, with both TSPA and MMS allies (or clients) of US, is reconciliation between India and TSPA including LET, and that includes joint love making in Srinagar, not the complete elimination of LET as they insist to be the case with "Al Queda", Hamas, Hezbullah etc and others arrayed against the west & Israel
@Brad Goodman
As far as funds are concerned, dosent hafiz saeed have a so called 'charity program'. Money from this may not be enough for carrying out akshardham or parliament but good enough for small scale attacks in kashmir. A good number of these unstopped may help them in the long term.
However, logistics is going to be a problem and i agree with you on that. But with a massive network, which they reportedly possess they can be up on their feet and running in a short time. Have a look at this: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries ... _toiba.htm
A few selected points:
The LeT has been able to network with several Islamist extremist organizations across India, especially in J&K, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat.
The outfit collects donations from the Pakistani community in the Persian Gulf and United Kingdom, Islamic Non-Governmental Organisations, and Pakistani and Kashmiri businessmen
As far as weapons and ammunition training is concerned, they have enough years of experience with the isi and i dont think they will have a problem of training their own students.
The only problem here is where can they get enough weapons??? Are the illegal gun markets in pakistan enough to feed this monster???
Correct the Punjabi Islamist Terrorists (PITs) are the Irregular Army of TSPA. Loose cannons are euphemism when the operation requires palusible deniablity.
Recollect Maj Gen Cawthorne who organised the Paki ISI was earlier the Director General of Allied Military Intelligence in WWII in India and as such very familair with irregular warfare. The only difference is in WWII the allies raised irregualr armies in occupied territories where as TSPA raises them on own soil with own citizens.
shiv wrote:I have a few more thoughts flashing in my mind that I would like to express and hopefully I can put them down exactly as I feel them.
Long long ago a Pakistani came to BRF (possibly before Kargil) and stated that peace and reconciliation are desirable but that India must do something for Pakistanis to "save face and maintain echandee" (my words, not his). Most Packee watchers on here would have observed similar suggestions coming from other Packees in the media - that India needs to be a "big brother", be "magnanimous" etc. Such ideas are usually met with the contempt they deserve given the nature of the obnoxious obstreperous Pakbarian.
My recent interaction with Paki "liberals" makes me feel that there are a bunch of Paquis who are beginning to "smell the coffee" and asking whether or not their (abomi-)nation is headed up shit creek. While interacting with them I pointed out what everyone on BRF knows. I pointed out that what Pakistan has done is to hate India so much that they have landed in America's lap and are now being made to do the US's job. I also pointed out that this is not new - and that Pakis have enslaved themselves to the US right from the 60s. Pakliberals have not sussed this out yet. No point in talking about how confused they are. (If they are not confused they are insincere and doing taqiya). But the hatred of the US in Pakistan indicates that there is some rudimentary thought process among Pakbarians - call it gut feeling or butt feeling.
This puts Pakiland in an interesting situation. They are welcome to hate the US and hate India too. That will make them allies of the Talbunnnies and their pigpenpals. If the Paki mango Abdul votes (using his extra disposable sons and zakat) firmly in favor of Talibunnies, then the American plans will be toast, and an Islamic Talibaniac government will take over Pakistan. US aid is unlikely to be accepted or continued to a Talibaniac government.
Currently only two things are holding back a Talibaniac government in Pakistan. One is that part of the Paki army that is fighting for the Americans, and the second is what Paki liberals and dollar beggars keep on saying - i.e "Only 11.8874647393065497346 % of Pakis support Islamic parties. The rest of us are moderate"
If Pakistan is genuinely "moderate" and does not want a Talibaniac government, then hostility against India and the US are unsustainable (assuming some coordination and cooperation between India and the US). Pakistan will get crushed between India and the US.
Now just think. How can Pakistanis water down hatred of India among mango Abduls? All these years they have been howling "Kaaaashmeeeeeeeer!!!7000000000000 raping troops. Pregnant Muslim bellies being ripped open. Jeeehaaaaaaardddd!" How can they now suddenly turn around and tell Mango Abdul. All is well. No more need for war with India. Mango Abduul will say "Bugger off. Where the faq is Kashmir?"
This is what Pakis are anticipating when the say India must "give something to Pakistan as "big brother"". In order to pacify Abdul who is rabidly anti-India Paquis will be required to shiow some nominal victory so that they can say "India has relented. We have won. Now we can have peace"
I believe that both India and the US believe that a game can be played in this way - by "giving in" at least in words - "make borders irrelevant" etc. Two comments here
1) I hate it. i would rather see Taliban take over Pakistan
2) GoI does not seem to see it this way. They too seem to want the moderates of Pakstan (if any) to "win" and are willing to play a game.
Crams,
I didnt mean to imply that let is a loose cannon, please don't misunderstand me. Here i am looking at a case scenario in whichn isi will be completely unable to fund these mofos. Please have a look at the '6 clock post' on the previous page by RajeshA. I am concentrating on clock 5.
Clock 5: How long can the ISI in fact have something to offer the various Islamic outfits and the Taliban? When the ISI lose all control over the country for one reason or another, why should the LeJ, Sipah-e-Sahiba, LeT, JuD, HuJI, etc. need to heed ISI's agenda or control? (Frankenstein Monster)
Last edited by Vashishtha on 15 Jun 2010 21:24, edited 1 time in total.
Guys, lets eschew this equal equal: Except in the abstract, TSP hatred of USA and TSP hatred of India are different animals. TSP hatred of USA is borne out of frustration or lover's bug, namely, TSP with its TFTA traits doing USA's dirty job felt entitled to everything it demands from US including handing over India on a silver platter. When that didn't happen, anger and frustration set in. But deep down, TSP knows that USA is its ultimate benefactor, its elites, like India's, are enamoured everything white and western, even more so than Indian elites.
Hatred of India on the other hands is borne out of a complete sense of superiorty over SDREs including Islam over "cow worshippers". Read Jinnah's views on why Hindus and Muslims are different and cannot be bundled together. TSP hatred of India borne out of their conviction that like the Mughals did, with their TFTA traits, they are the rightful lords over these SDREs. And when they see SDREs get ahead, that sense of derision, contempt, and hatred goes up by leaps and bouds. Kind of like India playing say Bangladesh in cricket; India is expected to win hands down, India's sense of its superior abilities so ingrained, and when Bangladehs hands a defeat like they did in 2007 WC, you can imagine the frustration. TSP's continued contempt towards India is exacarbated because of what they are seeing today.
Bottom line: At the end of the day, as USA doles out goodies and shows a modicum of respect to TSP RAPE, hatred of USA will abate among the RAPEs. But India. TSP will rather go down in a mushroom cloud, taking India with it, than willingly acquiesce to Indian domination of the region and beyond in perpetuity.
And when they see SDREs get ahead, that sense of derision, contempt, and hatred goes up by leaps and bouds. Kind of like India playing say Bangladesh in cricket; India is expected to win hands down, India's sense of its superior abilities so ingrained, and when Bangladehs hands a defeat like they did in 2007 WC, you can imagine the frustration. TSP's continued contempt towards India is exacarbated because of what they are seeing today.
Their situation is their own fault and no one can help them except for themselves. An average abdul would rather browse deff and dumb or zion hamid's website rather than doing something useful for him or his community.
shiv wrote:
Who are the Taliban? They are all Muslim, many are Pakistani.
What do the Taliban want? They want kafir foreigners (the US) out. They want sharia.
Who are "moderate, non Taliban Paki abduls" They are Muslim. What do they want? They want sharia. The do not support America.
The US is paying the Paki army to fight the Taliban. Ironically "democracy" in Pakistan would probably get them exactly what the Taliban want - i.e US out and sharia in. So what the US is doing is making the Pakistan army work against public support. And as is clear to all on here - the Paki army is a very reluctant "partner"
Shivji,
While I agree that Taliban and the broader Pakistani community are united in the desire for 'sharia' (whatever that means), do you not think that the Talibani interpretation of sharia is far harsher than what Pakis are accustomed to? Currently 'sharia' to the Paki aam adbul means having to buy liquor illicitly rather than openly, going to the local mullah for arbitration on all matters both public and private, donations to 'the cause' in Kashmir/Palestine/other 'oppressed' Muslim lands, and the monthly 'massacre a minority' party (i.e. Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Ahmedis, Shias, Barelvis, Sufis, your neighbour with the hot wife). In other words Pakis currently enjoy a rather easy-going fundamentalism.
Contrast this with the crazy Talibani version, requiring no barbers, no music, no hira mandi, no bollywood DVDs, no pajamas below the ankle, daily public executions, etc. Seems to me that the aam abdul Paki will rapidly become disenchanted with Talibanistan when denied access to his illicit liquor and hira mandi. Is this not what happened in Swat when the Taliban took over and began to administer their version of 'justice'?
We all know Pakis are more than happy to cheer for Taliban rule in Afghanistan, so long as it does not include them, but they will probably change their tune when they get a real taste of what they have been supporting. That is not to say Talibanistan will not happen anyway - even in Afghanistan many, if not most Afghans were thoroughly disenchanted with the Taliban but were powerless to remove them, and the same may well happen to Pakiland... I just wanted to point out that while Paki abduls and Taliban appear united in desire for sharia now, that may not be the case for long if Taliban comes to power and continues to behave in its current insane fashion.
Whether that will finally cure the aam abdul of his desire for a society based on 7th century tribal Arabia or not... one can only hope.
Last edited by Kamboja on 15 Jun 2010 21:51, edited 1 time in total.
We all know Pakis are more than happy to cheer for Taliban rule in Afghanistan, so long as it does not include them, but they will probably change their tune when they get a real taste of what they have been supporting.
Pakis are the biggest bunch of hyppocrits on the planet.
abhijitm wrote:
My CT:
Indo-US nuke deal was deviced by pakistan because they want it too!
1971 was planned by ISI because they wanted to hate India eternally
Partition of India was my idea because I didnt want to born in pakistan
IB4TL
My CT: Slumdog Millionaire was concocted by western christian elites to do social engineering in India. Note how Dev Patel has an english accent. Very insidious.
Well I wrote a long winded reply to Shiv and other people's post. Then got reminded of a BRFstory (dont remember who wrote it, please come front) and wanted to remind all rakshaks of the story which succinctly summarizes the US-Pak-India-China saga. So a post in 2 parts: First is my thoughts. Second is the story.
Shiv,
I agree with some of what you say, but disagree with most. The concept of thinking about it in the framework of "Relative power" or "Absolute power" is flawed. The framework of thinking should be "Who is creating nuisance? How much nuisance am I willing to put up with? How much am I willing to spend to get rid of the nuisance? How much of what I have in plenty am I willing to give up to get rid of the nuisance? How much am I willing to slap the nice guy and take his stuff away to give to the guy who is creating the nuisance?"
India is in an uneviable position, because we have not created or threatened to create trouble and nuisance for US and/or Pakistan. The positive things we bring to the table: Market access, shared values, democracy ityadi, in real terms dont have any nuisance value. The moment we start being a paranoid bully/nuisance/whiny and generally someone who can create trouble at the slightest provocation, is the time we will start getting muscle internationaly. There is no other way of doing this. Either we invade and destroy Pakistan, or we become more of a nuisance than Pakistan or do a better GUBO than Pakistan.
In a famous study of WWII decisions on how commanders made decision on the field, it was shown that mostly people made "good enough" decisions quickly -- not the best decisions. Herbert simon applied this principle to economics and called it "satisficing". In optimization it is called "greedily picking the local optimum". (Imagine you are going to the market to buy brinjals. You buy it from the first guy you see who offers a "good enough" price -- you dont search to everybody in the market, analyze the quality, and pick the best price)
US is not a weak power, it is just making a series of locally optmal decisions that are "good enough". Taliban is a problem? Pay Pak army to fight them. Pak ISI is funding the talibs? Pay Mush to keep ISI in line. Mush is on the verge of losing power? Get BB to replace him. BB got murdered? Suck up to Kayani.
To look at India-Pak-US-China relationship, you have to think what US wants from Pak. Some modicum of cooperation to fight off the talibs. In return if Pak wants shiny toys to fight India, US is going to give them. Because:
1. US is not working a long term "strategery" for defeating radical Islam. The politically correct ones pretend there is no radical Islam. The rightwing/neocon guys would like to believe that it is in Iraq/Iran or wherever the oil is. The pragmatic ones realize it is festering in Pakistan, but would like to solve the immediate problem first - Somehow get out of Afghanistan. The three letter agencies spook types are fishing in troubled waters by using the canon fodder for their own purpose in Iran, China etc. Now I ask, where is the question of "Promoting democracy" or "rewarding good guys"? (I will come to this later)
2. What does India bring to the table? Nothing. When I say, nothing - it is nothing positive or negative. You either have to come greased up to the table or bring a gun to the table. India does neither. Yes there is a vast market in India -- but have we ever threatened to shut off access? (I still remember the incident many moons ago, when Chinese economy was smaller than India, when the Chinese thereatened to buy all their civilian aircraft from Airbus and not Boeing. Sent all sorts of people from the US scurrying to China to mollify them). Why havent we threatened excluding the US from MMRCA? from building Nuke reactors? From sourcing Civilian aircraft? Yes we are "a big democracy" and "shared values" etc. This reminds me of my friends gang while in Madrassa - There was one irrationally angry, semi depressed short tempered irritating guy in my group, and everyone would end up going to whatever restaurant he wanted to go. Nobody asked the preference of the nice guy who was okay with anything.
3. What does India want from the US and what are we willing to give up for that? Well a few things. Access to high tech dual use stuff. NSG exemption. UNSC seat. All without giving away too much. If our attitude is "okay we want all this, but wont give away too much" -- it is a good strategy in the long term. Bad strategy in the short term because the other guy is not too enthusiastic about giving what we want.
4. What does Pakistan bring to the table? Well they come greased up as well as bring a gun. The single minded obsession with India means that anything the US wants is for sale. Provided something is done against India. This coupled with the "satisficing" approch of the US means that it pays more and more for less and less and usually what they pay is either used against India or used to line RAPE pockets. On top of that Pakistan wants to do less and less. Islamists gaining power? Well just shrug sholder and say "they are too powerful. If you toss 10Billion$, maybe we will try". Then make some token arrests. 2 years later, the problem has worsened. Shrug shoulder again and say "well how about 10 Billion more and a few ships & planes?". US has money, and does not have either time or the stomach for body bags. What do you think they will do?
(a) Punish Pakistan by bombing
(b) Deny money to Pakistan by asking for accounting for the earlier 10 Billion
(c) Give 10 billion, ships & planes to the paragon of "Shared values & largest democracy" in the neighborhood
(d) Make a hue and cry, do some sabre rattling, give 10 billion more, a few ships and planes and say "This time give me money's worth"
Let us visit (d)
5. Why cant countries be pressurized? People who are willing to lead can be squeezed. They have too much at stake. Their own well being. The well being of the people they lead. People who are in it for making as much profits before bailing out cannot be squeezed. If the squeeze gets too much, they just take their money, call it a day and leave. This is what is happening in Pakistan. If I were a RAPE, I would make as much money as possible. When the pressure becomes too much, I will take my money and bail out.
So what is the conclusion?
(1) US
(1a) Is neither weak nor afraid of Pakistan
(1b) US wants to solve their most pressing problem with money & toys
(1c) Cares to hoots about long term, especially when characterized by vaccuous terms like "democracy, shared values" ityadi
(2) Pakistan
(2a) Is neither strong nor a total weakling.
(2b) They can really hurt people -- but if they do, they commit soosai
(2c) RAPEs are immune to pressure. If it gets too out of hand, they will take whatever they made so far and go home.
(2d) Like a crack addict, they want one thing only. Willing to give up anything for that
(3) India
(3a) is neither strong so as to comprehensively whack Pakistan without substantial damage to ourselves
(3b) Is neither a weakling enough to agree to GUBO to the US
A story inspired by a witty post written by some BRFite (who was it?) which summarizes the long post above: Skip that and read this.
So there is a father who has 3 sons.
The eldest makes a lot of money, he beats his wife and kids. The eldest is kind of popular because of the money -- people want to hang out drink and party with him, even though they really dont like him. The eldest frequently borrows the dad's car and other tools with the promise that one day he will give some of the money to dad. His intentions are unclear -- he seems to rashly drive the car to do his business, just so that he can save enough money to buy his own car. He hates the middle son because the middle son's good behavior makes him look bad & thinks that the middle son might become more popular if he ever became rich. So wants to gang up with the dad & and the youngest to keep him down. Also has an eye on dad's property.
The middle son is a mild mannered well liked guy. He loves his wife and kids. Doesnt make a lot of money -- barely enough to feed his wife and kids and live a comfortable life. Doesnt have money to throw on booze parties for friends. Friends like him but dont think they can have a fun night with him though, so dont hang out with him much. They come to him to appeal for charity causes and to persuade him to volunteer. Sometimes goes to dad to ask for his advice, contacts and recommendations during his job search, but that is because he realizes his wife and kids are his first responsibility. Wont compromise on their interests.
The youngest son is a paranoid suicidal bully. Frequently threatens to set the house on fire. Sometimes shows up at home covered in petrol and threatening to light himself up and kill the dad and the entire family. He is unemployed, if he is not given money, he starts peddling drugs to everyone and gets angry. If given money sometimes he calms down, sometimes he buys petrol to threaten everyone.
Questions:
A. Who does the father listen to and why?
B. How "powerful" are the father, the eldest son, the middle son and the youngest son in terms of muscles? Can you glean this piece of information from the story?
C. How "powerful" are the father, the eldest son, the middle son and the youngest son in your perception?
D. Who does the eldest son like/hate/want to work with and/or manipulate? What does he want ultimately and how will he go about getting it?
E. What are the prospects for the middle son?
F. Who are the ones who create nuisance for the middle son willingly, unwillingly with or without malicious intents?
G. What are the prospects for the youngest son?
H. Who will the dad lend money to expecting to keep the nuisance down?
I. Who will the dad lend money to expecting to make a lot of money in the future, provided he sucks up to him?
J. Is beating up the youngest, collaborating with the middle to secure his future the best long term strategy?
K. If you were dad, would you do (J) or would you use the eldest to placate the youngest. Give some money to the youngest and try to avoid the middle son while giving speeches about Buddha and Gandhi when he gets upset?
Hafiz Mohammad Saeed has every right to participate in a public rally because the Pakistani authorities, for whatever reason, have failed to prove his involvement in illegal activities. He heads the Jamaatud Dawa which is widely believed to be a front for the Lashkar-i-Taiba, a terrorist outfit that allegedly orchestrated the Mumbai attacks. But Mr Saeed enjoys a free hand in the absence of solid evidence, so much so that he and his supporters were part of a demonstration organised by religious parties in Lahore on Sunday. He railed against Israel, as did everyone else, but also suggested that suicide bombings were being deliberately staged in Pakistan to defame the cause of ‘jihad’. He claimed the country was under siege and more or less threatened an uprising, a revolution.
Anujan wrote:US is not a weak power, it is just making a series of locally optmal decisions that are "good enough". Taliban is a problem? Pay Pak army to fight them. Pak ISI is funding the talibs? Pay Mush to keep ISI in line. Mush is on the verge of losing power? Get BB to replace him. BB got murdered? Suck up to Kayani.
This type of decision making implies and ad-hocism and disconnect with neighbouring problem domains. This is not not the case with US decision making. While the decisions are still somewhat poor, and short-sighted, the cause for them is not how you portray the decision making.
Additonally, we in BRF consider decisions good or bad based on how it affects India perspective, not from massa perspective. Some desicions work quite well for them, even if they are disastrous for India. That does not make the decision poor decision.
I agree with you that LET has a massive charity program to collect money. No doubt about this. The assumption for our theories was delinking of ISI / TSPA from LET and in that case they will not be able to openly go around begging / extorting money from pakis. Also the hawala source from rich arabs will start to dry. This is if ISI become hostile. In case ISI just turns a blind eye they can still generate substantial money but the point is how much. Of course these organizations do not file tax papers so we do not know how much goes in and how much are their expenses but based on the LSE paper recently published they are paying PKR 10000/ month to every pig and 200000 when the pig is slaughtered. Add to this all the other expenses like logistics weapons guides medical expenses training recruiting etc. This does not include admin expenses or propoganda expenses. Every thing needs money if you can even choke 25% of current budget the whole house will come crumbling down. Islam as I had mentioned in previous post is like LSD it can make you high but only for a short amount of time after the drug is ejected from your body you need money to buy clothes to buy food and to run a family get sister married etc. Kasab is a case in point commmon foot soldiers are not in LET for their 72 raisins (yes that is there but not primary reason) they are only in the organization for money and respectiblity.
Is it really so bloody hard for GoI to send in a sniper to take this ******** out? If we don't have assets capable of whacking him, surely there are international (or even Pakistani) mercenaries who we could contract to do this?!
Is it that GoI doesn't have the means or the will or both?
ramana-ji
The answers are complex, I dont know. I do know that analogies if stretched become ridiculous, but this is fun so let us give it a try. There are many solutions to this problem
(1) The middle son decides one day that enough is enough and plans to thrash the youngest. But he is unsure if the youngest will kill one of his kids. He is unsure how much the father and the eldest will come to the help of the youngest son, and he ends up the one being thrashed or ends up losing both the kids because the youngest got angry. So he talks to dad first.
(2) The father and the middle son decide to cooperate & decide enough is enough and plan to thrash the youngest. But dad doesnt know if it will piss off the eldest. The middle son is scared about his kids so cant seem to make up his mind. So dad talks to the eldest
(3) The father, eldest son and youngest son one day decide enough is enough and plan to cooperate and thrash the youngest. Dad will initially 100% agree, because all his problems are solved. Most of the problems of the middle son is solved and he is free to become more popular & rich. Dad will agree even more because his future economic well being rests on two sons now. Eldest thinks about it, and disagrees 100% because the middle might become more popular & rich than him. The middle son even might end up getting dad's property and money to invest in his own business, reducing the money available to the eldest. Eldest disagrees even more, especially because the youngest is not creating too much problem for the eldest to begin with. Middle son is in two minds, because the youngest has threatened to kill his son if he gets thrashed, so only half agrees. Dad is now in two minds because the eldest disagrees vehemently and the middle son does not seem to make up his mind.
(4) Middle son is disappointed! He decides to wait till he is more popular and rich with his own hard work. Wants to go back to dad and the eldest with the same question of thrashing up the youngest.
(5) Middle son decides to wait till he is more popular and rich, then work out some sort of cooperation with the eldest. Wants to go back to dad with the eldest on his side with the same question of thrashing up the youngest.
(6) Middle son makes a secret agreement with dad by appealing to his guilt, asks for his help, promises to take care of him, tries to become more popular and rich, does not care about the youngest.
(7) Middle son, dad and the eldest decide to cooperate and reform the youngest through reward and punishment. The eldest though is running his own scheme to bribe the youngest and brainwash him against the middle son. The dad is running his own scheme to bribe the youngest to not burn down his house.
(8) Middle son decides to come home with two cans of petrol and a gun one day and threatens to burn down the house
There is Taliban and Pakiban. Taliban have a Pasthun link however tenous.
Pakiban (mostly Wahabised) are the sarkari terrorists sponsored by the TSPA.
Taliban can't takeover TSP due to their Pashtun ethnicity.
The Pakiban can merge with the jihadi faction of TSPA and take over. The time is not yet for that. It will happen when the jihadi faction of TSPA decides to grab the nukes.
LET and JeM are Deobandi terrorists sponsored by the TSPA. Most terrorists are sponsored by TSPA.
surinder wrote:Additonally, we in BRF consider decisions good or bad based on how it affects India perspective, not from massa perspective. Some desicions work quite well for them, even if they are disastrous for India. That does not make the decision poor decision.
Surinder-ji
That was the crux of my post. Unkil is at the table. Pakis come greased up ready for GUBO and with a can of petrol and matches threatening self immolation. Indians go with a copy of Bhagavad gita and "My experiments with truth". Who is the better person? Who will Unkil pay attention to? Whatever happens next, who will it benefit or not benefit?
JE Menon wrote:>>Is it really so bloody hard for GoI to send in a sniper to take this ******** out?
No
>>Is it that GoI doesn't have the means or the will or both?
Maybe it's a deliberate choice.
Menon-ji,
Upon reflection I realize it wouldn't achieve much to wipe out that filth anyway, since there's plenty more rabid cannon fodder to replace him. Ignore that flare of anger from me, sometimes the idiocy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan really gets to me...
Anujan,
Until and unless the middle son turns devious and starts playing politics, he'll never get things done. Of course getting all muscled up going to the gym and being able to knock anyone off with a slap might also work. But in that case, he also has to protect his wife and kids. So unless he plays politics and plays dad, elder brother, younger bro against each other, he will not be able to gain much in the end. Because other than dad, neither of the other two are going to look favourably upon him at the end of conflict resolution. Elder will look at him as a greater threat now that the youngest is out of the way.
To avoid this, he has to play the elder and youngest against each other and keep dad neutral at best.
Armed with a sword and pistol, authorities in Pakistan say a Colorado man aimed to do what governments have failed - to kill Osama bin Laden.Gary Brooks Faulkner, a 52-year-old construction worker, has been detained by Pakistani authorities while attempting to complete his quest to assassinate the Al Qaeda leader, a police officer said on Tuesday."We initially laughed when he told us that he wanted to kill Osama bin Laden," said Mumtaz Ahmad Khan, according to The Associated Press.
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan, which enjoys most favoured nation (MFN) status by India, remains unable to get its benefit because of the non-tariff barriers, which effectively block an increase in exports to its eastern neighbour, a senior official said.
Pakistan remains unable to get the advantage of MFN status given by India, Commerce Secretary Zafar Mehmood told The News. The non-tariff barriers effectively prevent a growth in Pakistani exports, he said.
Senior Pakistani officials say that although Pakistan has not given India the MFN status, the trade balance remains heavily tilted in New Delhi’s favour. Islamabad allows the import of only a limited number of items from India, but that its trade regime remains flexible compared with New Delhi.{TSP chutzpah at its finest}
In principle, trade balance should have been in favour of Pakistan after it has been awarded the MFN status, but the restrictive tariff regime and non-tariff barriers have offset the impact of the MFN status, the commerce secretary said.
Mehmood said India’s restrictive tariff regime remains a big issue. The removal of non-tariff barriers by New Delhi would help Pakistani entrepreneurs to perform better and increase their exports, he said.
Trade balance between the two countries remains in favour of India due to Pakistan’s liberalised tariff regime and zero non-tariff barriers.
When drawn his attention towards Aman Ki Asha initiative, launched by the Jang Group and the Times of India Group, Mehmood said it remains a positive effort.
“No doubt there is a huge potential of trade between India and Pakistan, but it all depends upon New Delhi’s commitment in removing the non-tariff barriers,” he said when his attention was drawn towards the recent recommendations furnished by the Planning Commission’s top panel of economists, led by Finance Minister Dr Hafeez Shaikh.
The panel said that there remains a potential of boosting Pakistan, India trade to $10 billion over the next few years, benefiting both the countries.
“This potential can only be exploited when a level-playing field is ensured by India by bringing its tariff regime at par with Pakistan and erasing non-tariff barriers,” Mehmood said.
As far as the MFN status to India is concerned, Zafar said that this remains the part of the composite dialogue.
Every year, Pakistan increases positive items list under which it imports items from India as per the demand of the local importers. The government ensures that the import list does, anyway, hurt the local industry, he added.
Increased trade between India and TSP is one of the sugggested WKK solutions to decrease tensions between the neighbors. To this end India has granted MFN status to TSP but TSP has not yet done so for India. TSPian Commerce Secretary Zafar Mehmood says that Pakistan remains unable to get the advantage of MFN status given by India. The non-tariff barriers effectively prevent a growth in Pakistani exports.
Can any gurus shed light on what non-tariff barriers does India impose on TSPian products?
BijuShet wrote:From The News :
Senior Pakistani officials say that although Pakistan has not given India the MFN status, the trade balance remains heavily tilted in New Delhi’s favour. Islamabad allows the import of only a limited number of items from India, but that its trade regime remains flexible compared with New Delhi.[/b] {TSP chutzpah at its finest}
You know, this reminds me of the Senthil Goundamani joke where senthil claims he is 7th pass but Gounds is SSLC fail and proceeds to ask if Pass is better of fail! Paquis are so full of pakistan!!
Even though the two countries have liberalized their import regimes, Pakistan continues to follow a positive list approach towards Indian imports. As a first, step Pakistan should dismantle the positive approach and trade with India on an MFN basis. However, within the context of this restricted bilateral trade, even though India applies non-tariff measures in a non-discriminatory manner across trading partners, Pakistan is affected more as the NTMS are applied by India happen to be in sectors that are of export interest to Pakistan.
The study also finds that due to a restrictive visa regime only selected traders have access to trade related information. Thus lack of transparency, market imperfections and information asymmetries on both sides raise transaction costs and restrict market access for several other aspiring traders.
Pakis are the biggest bunch of hyppocrits on the planet.
My CT: 
