Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 29th May 2012

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Jul 2012 12:34

Chinese trained Lashkar militants against India: Jundal
Zee News - ‎18 hours ago‎
According to sources, Jundal told the Special Cell of Delhi Police during interrogation that the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) has brought in an ace Chinese para-glider to northern Pakistan where he has been training militants in paragliding for the past two years...

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 04 Jul 2012 13:36

g.sarkar wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/world ... &ref=world
Clinton’s ‘Sorry’ to Pakistan Ends Barrier to NATO
"WASHINGTON — Pakistan told the United States that it would reopen NATO’s supply routes into neighboring Afghanistan after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she was sorry for the deaths of two dozen Pakistani soldiers in American airstrikes in November, officials from the two countries said Tuesday......
In the end, Pakistan agreed to keep the fee at the current rate, $250. In return, the administration will ask Congress to reimburse Pakistan about $1.2 billion for costs incurred by 150,000 Pakistani troops carrying out counterinsurgency operations along the border with Afghanistan, a senior American official said.....
Pakistani officials said they had misjudged NATO’s ability to adapt to the closing and use an alternative route through Central Asia. That rerouting carried a high price: Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said it was costing up to an extra $100 million a month.
Last weekend, Mrs. Clinton telephoned her congratulations to Pakistan’s new prime minister, Raja Pervez Ashraf. But it was Mrs. Clinton’s increasingly cordial relationship with the young Pakistani foreign minister, Ms. Khar, 34, that paid dividends in resolving the dispute, American officials said....."
Gautam
PS The comments are interesting.

USA=United States of Apology. I loved that comment

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Jul 2012 14:00

Did we see any public apology from USA for Salala?

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 04 Jul 2012 14:14

The Americans will pay a levy of $250 per container plus a transport fee, correct? Does anyone have an idea what sort of value the transport fee would be, ie. total cost of delivery for a container via pukistan.

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 04 Jul 2012 14:23

Public apology or not, the US hasn't come ahead to defend self! So for the time being, we can safely assume that an agreement has been reached. How stupid can this be, if they had to apologize, why not earlier, would have saved some money and a lot of face for them. Anyways, that is US's problem, we can just watch the show!

Btw, it seems a bomb has been found near a shopping mall in Mumbai, secretary level talks are on, and it starts with meeting with Hurrirat, and then this, something sinister is cooking?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2012 14:55

ArunK wrote: Trust me, when I tell you this that I have always realized the difference between what we want to or wish we could do vs what we can actually do. I also fully realize how the US got to where it is today and what its current situation is like.

Having said that, let me just say this -- while it gives us a lot of satisfaction to watch the US squirm and a whole lot of arrogant policy gurus get humiliated -- well deserved I might add -- one must not lose sight of the fact that the Mango Americans are fiercely patriotic. They will all stand *solidly* behind their armed forces. If this war becomes an existential struggle for the US army, expect them remove all stops and fight their way out.

Arun, your post comes 11 years late.

I have stated many times before on BRF that for the last 30 odd years, ever since my close family and friends and I parted ways as many emigrated to the US and I did not, I have been treated to lectures about what makes the US tick and why it will always prevail. 11 years after 9-11 explanations of that type get tiresome. Americans have more faith in their country than their country can actually deliver. That is described as fierce patriotism.

Failure to deliver after a lot of hype is a common thing in politics all over the world, but the difference in reactions to US failure compared with reactions to Indian failure to deliver tells me about how people are taught to view the US and how Indians are taught to view India.

The US will never control Pakistan, and if they ever declare it a terrorist state, I will laugh. Not out of mirth, but from the irony. Here you have a superpower with every resource in the world, and they are totally at the mercy of the same Pakistanis who have been tormenting India for decades. They are too scared to declare it a terrorist state and that fear is covered with all sorts of excuses - some of which you made on America's behalf. But what is even more ironic/funny is that declaring Pakistan a terrorist state will fail to have any effect on Pakistan. The US knows fully well how useless such a declaration would be in controlling Pakistan so they are bending over backwards to make it appear like it would be a bad thing and that they are "this close" to declaring Pakistan a terrorist state.

Frankly all this is timepass and my gloating is only to make a point that few American fans are willing to see. If the US could have controlled Pakistan they would not have waited 3 Presidential terms. Even WW2 did not last that long, nor did the American Civil war or the Korean war. Vietnam lasted longer though, and you know why. The USA was in denial for years, based on governmental misinformation of Americans that all was well.

Pakistan is the Taliban. Pakistan was Al Qaeda. The advantage to the US government of having fiercely patriotic Americans is that the latter are fiercely stupid and unable to see beyond their noses if the government tells them lies, or misinforms them. The US government does not want to fight or antagonize Pakistan. They want to mollycoddle and hold them because the US imagines it has more to lose than Pakistan if they don't. Fiercely patriotic Americans do not realize that Pakistan has the US by the balls and choose to believe that the US can somehow prevail.

America's future and its relations with Pakistan would not be India's problem if America had not constantly chosen to arm Pakistan and use Pakistan's fear of India to make Pakis do things for them. The reason the Americans fear the Taliban now is that suddenly, the Mussalmans of Pakistan have discovered self respect and feel they should not suck up to the US in exchange for bribes. That is a very good development for India because the US will no longer be able to pour in money and arms into Pakistan out of "US self interest".

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 04 Jul 2012 15:18

^^^Bravo hakim sahib. Having MUTUs for lunch again, I see....

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 04 Jul 2012 17:24

Anujan wrote:Today, in 1999 we captured tiger hill after kicking some paki Musharraf.

Correction: Today, in 1999 we recaptured tiger hill after kicking paki Musharraf.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 04 Jul 2012 18:12

Doc ji perhaps its time for us to play Pak card on unkil...we have no issues with mard e momin hitting unkil...

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 04 Jul 2012 19:05

Anujan wrote:Today, in 1999 we captured tiger hill after kicking some paki Musharraf.

thanks for reminding.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 04 Jul 2012 19:32

^ And still after 13 years, we are selling electricity , inviting actors and singers to Bollywood, indulging in Pappiya Jhapiya, going gaga over some misinformed statement on Siachin by Kiyani, selling their books, trying to somehow fit them in IPL, organize cricket series with this treacherous enemy.
How long before the elites in power stop feeling for the country and its martyrs ?
When was the last time Govt in Power talked about betrayel at Kargil or bring murderers of Lt. Kalia to book.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Jul 2012 19:34

Acharya wrote:Chinese trained Lashkar militants against India: Jundal
Zee News - ‎18 hours ago‎
According to sources, Jundal told the Special Cell of Delhi Police during interrogation that the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) has brought in an ace Chinese para-glider to northern Pakistan where he has been training militants in paragliding for the past two years...

If true, the Pakistani tactical brilliance is rubbing on the sweeter-than-the-sweetest-honey friend. How long will it be before that skill will be transferred to ETIM ?

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 04 Jul 2012 19:54

X post

Neela wrote:
shiv wrote: On BRF we laugh at Indians for throwing dossiers at Pakistan. But yet we have one person defending American actions today saying that America will apply great pressure on Pakistan but will not declare it a terrorist state because the threat is worse than the action. Isn't that really funny? When America does something weak and wimpy we have people talk as if it is fantastic. But India is declared the joke state for doing exactly the same impotent things. And Indians are saying this all the time. The younger generation has started where the older generation left off.
But Shiv-ji, America has more than one leverage over Pakistan. It can run the Paki economy to the ground and it can bomb it to the stone age. It HAS the options. And it has threatened to use them. It has not because it needs supply routes for its troops to Afghanistan.
Are you willing to state that Americans will continue to be weak and wimpy after 2014? Will there be more funds approved for TSP in US senate after this time?

Contrast that to India- What options have Indians cultivated? Cancel Aman-is-keeping-Asha? Or are you saying throwing dossiers takes more courage?
IN the news today, you have a Paki minister meeting Kashmiri separatist leaders BEFORE meeting his Indian counterpart - that IMO shows the disdain and contempt that comes from resolve. Will ANYONE in GoI meet Baloch leaders?

shiv wrote:
Neela wrote: But Shiv-ji, America has more than one leverage over Pakistan. It can run the Paki economy to the ground and it can bomb it to the stone age. It HAS the options.
<snip>
Contrast that to India- What options have Indians cultivated?
What the US has done is to act as if they have options when those options do not really exist. All this bombing-shombing stuff is hot air. After 11 years they are grinding their teeth in frustration but we have hordes of people imagining that they can win that way. They have already lost.

But that is a different topic that I will be happy to discuss in much grater detail on the original thread if you choose to cross post you opinion there. The only thing relevant to this thread is that Indians think Indian actions are weak whether they are or are not weak and they think US actions are strong when they are not.

Shiv-ji,

You are saying that the US cannot suffocate the Paki economy and it cannot take military action on it - both to win. I am not saying US can win and I never said US can win.
I am saying US has options and is not shy to use it.

Will you say the same after 2014 when Americans start to pull out? On what grounds will the POTUS go the senate and request approval of aid to TSP?

As for military actions, the US has gone into Pakistan - into Abbotabad. They are using drones day in a day out inside Paki territory. It has killed ore than 2000+ people in Pakistan.
It is an undeclared war onlee.
The Americans are not squeezing harder because TSP route cutoff is costing $100 million a month (Leon Pannetta).

So the threat of financial support and military has already been carried out by the US. They have shown the resolve. And once their liabilities decrease, they will exact revenge.

And like I said earlier, one no-name minister is showing India his finger and meeting separatist leaders before starting his official itinerary in India. We are scared to even say the word Balochistan inside Paki terrritory.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2012 19:59

Suppiah wrote:Doc ji perhaps its time for us to play Pak card on unkil...we have no issues with mard e momin hitting unkil...

One thing that is verboten on BRF is attributing any intelligence to Indians, especially if they are in policymaking. Pakis, Chinese and above all Americans are intelligent and patriotic. Not indians.

However if we switch off that mindset for a few seconds and briefly switch on our own brains instead, you can see how "being friendly" with Pakistan and promising them lots without actually giving anything removes the US's ability to use fear of India to make Pakis do their job.

The minute the India threat becomes acute it gives the Paki army an excuse to override all objections to cooperating with the US because of "overriding national security interests" and they get arms from the US in exchange for doing the US's job. The US has always been wiling to compromise its Indian relations in favor of keeping the Paki army happy. By talking and talking and talking the Pakistanis are unable to complain to the US about Indian threats and they are unable to tell their own people that India is attacking. They can lie to their people about the latter - but they can't lie to their soldiers who are sleeping peacefully on the India border but getting killed in the west by beards who chant "Allaho Mahomet" or whatever it is their war cry might be.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2012 20:15

Neelaji you write:

Neela wrote:As for military actions, the US has gone into Pakistan - into Abbotabad. They are using drones day in a day out inside Paki territory. It has killed ore than 2000+ people in Pakistan.
It is an undeclared war onlee.

Neela you have forgotten to mention the little matter of 20 billion US dollars paid to Pakistan

Now a few drones killing tribals while the Pakistan army jernails are perfectly safe, plus payment of 20 billion dollars to them sounds nothing like what you claimed the US can do earlier

Neela wrote: But Shiv-ji, America has more than one leverage over Pakistan. It can run the Paki economy to the ground and it can bomb it to the stone age. It HAS the options.

What good are options that are not used? Please pardon my use of a vulgar analogy, but I have often claimed that I have the capability and option to take Angelina Jolie any time. But why have I not done it? You see, it's not as if Pakistan has cooperated with the US. The US is incapable of using its power on Pakistan. That power is hot air. Please come and tell me after the US uses its power that I am wrong - but I have waited 11 years to see if it happens and I wonder exactly who is the naive person here. Me? or the people who think the US can use all that power?

Neela wrote:Will you say the same after 2014 when Americans start to pull out? On what grounds will the POTUS go the senate and request approval of aid to TSP?

An America that has to beg and bribe and use assistance to Pak against India as leverage when it really needs to use its power is never going to use that power after it withdraws.

Neela wrote:The Americans are not squeezing harder because TSP route cutoff is costing $100 million a month (Leon Pannetta).

So the threat of financial support and military has already been carried out by the US. They have shown the resolve. And once their liabilities decrease, they will exact revenge.

And like I said earlier, one no-name minister is showing India his finger and meeting separatist leaders before starting his official itinerary in India. We are scared to even say the word Balochistan inside Paki terrritory.

Sorry Neelaji. These are just feeble excuses for an America that cannot do what it is claimed to be capable of doing. American capability against Pakistan is a myth that is kept going by people with fond hopes.

arun · Post by **arun** » 04 Jul 2012 20:50

In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan yet another instance of the Mohammadden religion being used as a justification for committing a murderous act of intolerance.

Mob reinforces its credentials of being pure and pious Mohammaddens by burning a mentally unstable man alive for burning the text that Mohammaddenism considers holy:

Blasphemy: Mob burns man alive for burning Holy Quran

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 04 Jul 2012 21:11

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 04 Jul 2012 21:47

shiv wrote: What good are options that are not used? Please pardon my use of a vulgar analogy, but I have often claimed that I have the capability and option to take Angelina Jolie any time. But why have I not done it? You see, it's not as if Pakistan has cooperated with the US. The US is incapable of using its power on Pakistan. That power is hot air. Please come and tell me after the US uses its power that I am wrong - but I have waited 11 years to see if it happens and I wonder exactly who is the naive person here. Me? or the people who think the US can use all that power?

Quite true. All the power the US has , has not been used. But they are
(1) using some of the power.
(2) killed OBL who was the guest of Paki generals
(3) using intelligence to kill "terrorrists" inside Paki territory
(4) used drones from inside Paki territory to kill Pakis
(5) Has a strong media presence and makes the world believe that it is winning
(6) Has enough people in INdia and rest of the world believe it is strong and powerful

Compare that to what India has done?
- Send dossiers (lots of it)
- Caught one guy from Saudi , make him talk only for the Paki minister to give a mockery of a reply.

You originally said:

When Pakistanis have been killing Indians for 65 years - let alone the west we have Indians who have not taken the threat seriously. Up until the immediate post 9-11 action we had Indians who believed that the taliban/Paki terorism problem would be solved in an instant by America, there is a deep belief among Indians that chronic problems are Indian because others solve their problems quickly. People are now finding it difficult to digest the fact that the USA is failing exactly where India failed. they are trying to explain this by saying that the Taliban is a bigger problem than Pakistan.

On BRF we laugh at Indians for throwing dossiers at Pakistan. But yet we have one person defending American actions today saying that America will apply great pressure on Pakistan but will not declare it a terrorist state because the threat is worse than the action. Isn't that really funny? When America does something weak and wimpy we have people talk as if it is fantastic. But India is declared the joke state for doing exactly the same impotent things. And Indians are saying this all the time. The younger generation has started where the older generation left off.

You may well be right here. But it you who is trying to convince others that the US is weak. Every one else believes US is strong and powerful because of its actions. Why has India not managed to convince others that it is strong by manipulating the news that dossiers have been sent? What has India achieved to contain Paki terrorism? Pakistan and its generals continue to exist and continue to plot terror. India has only managed to embolden Pakis . And India has also not stopped US from equipping TSP with arms. So it is a no contest between US and India.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 04 Jul 2012 22:10

During and immediately after 911 John McCain was asked about TSP role and why not go after it
The answer was TS Pakistan was the only game in town

Also notice how s!.t scared unkil is of TSP nukes
and in turn NPA ayatollahs are let lose on India

and recall the bravado
"Either you are with us or with the terrorists"
of bush
TSP has indeed unkil by balls no matter how much spin is sold to the world

The day Saddam was found not to have WMD unkil summed up courage to go after him
The day gadhafi declared no nukes he was hounded like rabbit
Iran will speed up now that unkil surrendered to TSP
With out even a semblance of fight

Do a google John McCain shivering
And declaring TSP is nuke power and only game in town

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Jul 2012 22:11

shiv wrote:
But Shiv-ji, America has more than one leverage over Pakistan. It can run the Paki economy to the ground and it can bomb it to the stone age. It HAS the options.

What good are options that are not used?
The US is incapable of using its power on Pakistan. That power is hot air.

Sorry Neelaji. These are just feeble excuses for an America that cannot do what it is claimed to be capable of doing. American capability against Pakistan is a myth that is kept going by people with fond hopes.

The lobby group in Washington DC are as follows

1. Saudi lobby - KSA
2. Pakistan Lobby
3. PRC China lobby

US is tied to the Oil with the KSA lobby which is the most dominant. It also funds the Pak lobby.
This lobby group effort limits US options and Shiv ji is right that US cannot do anything against Pakistan and cannot declare Pakistan as a terrorist state even if US citizens are killed. US has limited options against Pakistan.

pentaiah wrote:During and immediately after 911 John McCain was asked about TSP role and why not go after it
The answer was TS Pakistan was the only game in town

Also notice how s!.t scared unkil is of TSP nukes
and in turn NPA ayatollahs are let lose on India to get scared of TSP

Pakistan is international migraine says Madeline Albright - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQhwDj5KWNU

But still US cannot do much against Pakistan. The KSA and Pak lobby have made sure that as a symbol of Islam Pak cannot be touched. This is done by bribing the most powerful country in the history of the world.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2012_pg7_6

Good ties with Pakistan in US interest: McCain

WASHINGTON: Emphas-ising Pakistan’s importance to US security interests in the region, Senator John McCain has said it is in the United States’ interest to have good relations with Pakistan. “Pakistan is vital to US national security interests for a broad variety of reasons, including the nuclear inventory that Pakistan has, including the fact that Pakistan’s role in the region is vital, not to mention relations with India,” the former Republican presidential candidate said at a Washington think-tank. McCain said America’s mistake in breaking military relations with Pakistan in the 1990s still continues to impact their bilateral ties. “One of the gravest mistakes in recent history was the so-called Pressler Amendment, which basically cut off our military-to-military relations, and we are paying, still paying a very heavy price for.” The seasoned lawmaker opposed the notion that Pakistan is a failed state. app

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 04 Jul 2012 22:16

All right, own up. Which one of you guys made this:

Two such cartoons can't be a coincidence

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 04 Jul 2012 22:18

^^ check the BENIS thread.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 04 Jul 2012 22:28

This guy reads these threads. I'm willing to bet my left testimonial on it

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 04 Jul 2012 22:41

the guy has gone to a lot of trouble to make the ayesha as alluring as possible (instead of using the jalebi-bai model)

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 04 Jul 2012 22:46

arun wrote:A miniscule minority in the US are seeing that the Dhimmi like Jaziya paying US action vis a vis the Islamic Republic of Pakistan regards the Salala incident is an abject surrender:

Secretary Clinton's apology to Pakistan is a slap in the face

Well-stated spot-on condemnation without going over the top. My worry is that this apology will further strengthen the "you can't change geography" gang in India who will point to US weakness as a reason to not keep India's options wrt TSP open.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Jul 2012 22:57

KLNMurthy wrote:
arun wrote:A miniscule minority in the US are seeing that the Dhimmi like Jaziya paying US action vis a vis the Islamic Republic of Pakistan regards the Salala incident is an abject surrender:

Secretary Clinton's apology to Pakistan is a slap in the face
Well-stated spot-on condemnation without going over the top. My worry is that this apology will further strengthen the "you can't change geography" gang in India who will point to US weakness as a reason to not keep India's options wrt TSP open.

Ask Shourya ji to comment on this

ArunK · Post by **ArunK** » 04 Jul 2012 23:00

Shiv,

Please note that I am looking at this -- or at least trying to -- purely from an American perspective. India is not in the picture. This is purely between Pakistan, US/NATO and Afghanistan. I have made no comments/assertions/critiques on how India has responded to terror compared to the Americans. So please don't drag the discussion there.

Having said that, let me comment on your post.

shiv wrote:Americans have more faith in their country than their country can actually deliver. That is described as fierce patriotism.

1. Agreed.

shiv wrote:Failure to deliver after a lot of hype is a common thing in politics all over the world, but the difference in reactions to US failure compared with reactions to Indian failure to deliver tells me about how people are taught to view the US and how Indians are taught to view India.

2. Agreed

shiv wrote:The US will never control Pakistan

3. Agreed again. Just like the US has NOT controlled Cuba, Iran and NoKo. They paid a very heavy price "sort" out Iraq, but have they really "sorted" out Iraq? Not really. That country is just smouldering and could break out in flames at any time. A regime change has been affected in Libya. As it has been done in the whole of the middle east. The US cannot claim any credit for that. This has been achieved completely by the will of the mango people in those countries. The most the US can claim credit for is giving them moral support and *some* military support. However, it remains to be seen if these new regimes will be better than the regimes they overthrew.

The US wants to see countries become Japan, SoKo, Germany and even Russia and all the assorted "stans" emerging from the break-up of Russia after dismantling. Yugoslavia and the pieces also qualify. That is what they would take as a success. The countries do not have to be US poodles, as long as they focus on their own development and remain neutral

I do not believe they have a successful template to follow in the Islamic world. Jihad and the Jihad mentality is a tough nut to crack. Their tactics are being developed as we speak via trial and error. What we have seen are a few successes -- Drones and drone warfare -- and a *LOT* of failures. That does not mean that they give up trying.

shiv wrote:they are totally at the mercy of the same Pakistanis who have been tormenting India for decades.

4. Agreed that they are at the mercy of Pakistanis. That due to the fact that Afghanistan is a landlocked country and the best exit route passes through Pakistan. And their *LONGstanding* enmity with Iran. Imagine what the situation would be like if they had the option of using Chabahar? They are also guilty of underestimating Pakistan's ability to deceive them and overestimating their own ability to manage the situation. From an American point of view, India being tormented is incidental. They should have paid more attention to the Indian experience. They understand that now.

shiv wrote:They are too scared to declare it a terrorist state and that fear is covered with all sorts of excuses - some of which you made on America's behalf. But what is even more ironic/funny is that declaring Pakistan a terrorist state will fail to have any effect on Pakistan. The US knows fully well how useless such a declaration would be in controlling Pakistan so they are bending over backwards to make it appear like it would be a bad thing and that they are "this close" to declaring Pakistan a terrorist state.

5. Fact remains that labeling Pakistan a Terrorist State results in a loss of leverage. It is also very counter productive. There is Iran, Cuba and NoKo to see as examples. You call it excuses -- fine. But "scared"? Well, it is yes and no. There is a price to pay based on their immediate situation. There is always a threat of a terrorist attack on US cities. In spite of all the heightened security, there are plenty of soft spots that can be exploited. Is that scary? Of course it is, but I don't believe that will stop the Americans from taking action. The question is will the action they take and the decisions they make *now* be proved right in 10 years remains to be seen.

shiv wrote:Frankly all this is timepass and my gloating is only to make a point that few American fans are willing to see. If the US could have controlled Pakistan they would not have waited 3 Presidential terms. Even WW2 did not last that long, nor did the American Civil war or the Korean war. Vietnam lasted longer though, and you know why. The USA was in denial for years, based on governmental misinformation of Americans that all was well.

6. We agreed that the US *CANNOT* control Pakistan. They can coerce and influence Pakistan to do their bidding by using a mix of carrots and sticks. No guarantee that will be successful *ALL* the time. That does not mean that they will also FAIL *ALL* the time. It appears that in the post 9-11 era they are more *WRONG* than *RIGHT* for allowing Pakistanis to take them on all sorts of rides. However, this game is not about to end today.

shiv wrote:Pakistan is the Taliban. Pakistan was Al Qaeda.

7. Agreed that Taliban is Pakistan. Al Qaeda merged into Pakistan after the US hounded them out of Afghanistan. They had no choice. Al-Q had a lot of contempt for Pakistan and Pakistanis in general. In fact, it took a *LOT* of belly aching from the Pakistanis to make them acknowledge Kashmir was a problem if I recall.

shiv wrote:The advantage to the US government of having fiercely patriotic Americans is that the latter are fiercely stupid and unable to see beyond their noses if the government tells them lies, or misinforms them.

8. This is where I disagree. The American people I am talking about believe in their country. I don't fault them for that. Have they been lied to by their government about foreign policy? Yes they have. Have they been ignorant of what is happening outside the US? Yes they have. Does that make them gullible? Yes. Does that make them ignorant? Yes. Does that make them *STUPID* -- absolutely NOT. You see stupidity is permanent. Being gullible and ignorant can be changed very fast. Trust me, that is happening.

shiv wrote:The US government does not want to fight or antagonize Pakistan. They want to mollycoddle and hold them because the US imagines it has more to lose than Pakistan if they don't. Fiercely patriotic Americans do not realize that Pakistan has the US by the balls and choose to believe that the US can somehow prevail.

9. Agreed that the Americans have lost the appetite to fight another war. They will try their best not to start one. But if you put their backs to the wall and expect them to surrender, that will not happen. They *will* come out fighting with all they have.

10. Do the Pakistanis have the US by the balls? Yes and no. Pakistanis control the land routes to and from Afghanistan. The Americans are pretty vulnerable on that point. Pakistan has nukes and are irrational and the Americans are weary of that -- as is the rest of this world(and that includes China). But the Americans also have a huge grip on Pakistan's balls as was amply demonstrated. They can squeeze Pakistan in several different ways, it is a question of who is stronger. I think the US has enough resources to coerce Pakistan to do its bidding.

shiv wrote:America's future and its relations with Pakistan would not be India's problem if America had not constantly chosen to arm Pakistan and use Pakistan's fear of India to make Pakis do things for them. The reason the Americans fear the Taliban now is that suddenly, the Mussalmans of Pakistan have discovered self respect and feel they should not suck up to the US in exchange for bribes. That is a very good development for India because the US will no longer be able to pour in money and arms into Pakistan out of "US self interest".

11. Have the Pakistanis suddenly discovered self respect? I am not so sure. We have already seen what a disaster the Taliban led republic in Afghanistan was prior to 9-11. It looks like that is where they want to go again.

12. Please acknowledge that India was not strong enough to influence Americans to not sell arms to Pakistan. All we could do was bellyache about it. Today, we are in a position to do a lot more because of our growing economy and overall development. We are slowly assuming a leadership role in the "comity" of nations.

Let me close by saying that our ability to influence the US -- and the rest of the world -- is not something that will happen overnight. It has to be earned. However, please note that it has grown by leaps and bounds in the past decade. We are heading in the right direction.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Jul 2012 23:23

This is where I disagree. The American people I am talking about believe in their country. I don't fault them for that. Have they been lied to by their government about foreign policy? Yes they have. Have they been ignorant of what is happening outside the US? Yes they have. Does that make them gullible? Yes. Does that make them ignorant? Yes. Does that make them *STUPID* -- absolutely NOT. You see stupidity is permanent. Being gullible and ignorant can be changed very fast. Trust me, that is happening.

So what? This is a very low bar. Only retarded people are expected to remain ignorant for decades.

ArunK · Post by **ArunK** » 04 Jul 2012 23:42

abhishek_sharma wrote:
This is where I disagree. The American people I am talking about believe in their country. I don't fault them for that. Have they been lied to by their government about foreign policy? Yes they have. Have they been ignorant of what is happening outside the US? Yes they have. Does that make them gullible? Yes. Does that make them ignorant? Yes. Does that make them *STUPID* -- absolutely NOT. You see stupidity is permanent. Being gullible and ignorant can be changed very fast. Trust me, that is happening.
So what? This is a very low bar. Only retarded people are expected to remain ignorant for decades.

I see. So, let us see, as a comparison, Have the Indian people been ignorant of what is happening outside India? Yes they have and the majority still are. So by your yardstick, does it make Indians retarded?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 04 Jul 2012 23:43

Those are masterpiece cartoons.. Guys, you know what to do... Spread it worldwide.

ArunK · Post by **ArunK** » 05 Jul 2012 00:05

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/03/world ... hpt=ias_c1

"We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military. We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again," Clinton's statement said. Clinton spoke with Pakistan's foreign minister by phone Tuesday morning, she said.

"The Foreign Minister and I were reminded that our troops -- Pakistani and American -- are in a fight against a common enemy. We are both sorry for losses suffered by both our countries in this fight against terrorists," Clinton said in the statement. "We have enhanced our counter-terrorism cooperation against terrorists that threaten Pakistan and the United States, with the goal of defeating Al-Qaida in the region."

"Pakistan will continue not to charge any transit fee in the larger interest of peace and security in Afghanistan and the region," Clinton said. "This is a tangible demonstration of Pakistan's support for a secure, peaceful, and prosperous Afghanistan and our shared objectives in the region."

I would say even for a country full of "Retarded" people like the US, this situation was successfully finessed.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 05 Jul 2012 00:09

Blasphemy: Mob burns man alive for burning Holy Quran | Tribune

BAHAWALPUR: An angry mob lynched a man accused of burning the Holy Quran in the Chanighot area of Bahawalpur, burning him to death after pouring petrol on him on Wednesday.

~~The police reached the spot to control the matter but the mob refused to hand over the accused and continued to torture him.~~ <-- Liar Paki reporter The mob actually attacked the police station and freed the man being interrogated. Pakistanis kill man accused of insulting Quran| AP

DSP Ahmadpur Rana Naveed Mumtaz, SHO Chanighot Ghulam Muhaudin Gujjar and seven constables were also injured by the mob.

The protesters also set a DSP jeep and three police mobiles on fire.

DPO Bahawalpur Ishaq Jahangir told The Express Tribune that it was “crystal clear” that the man who set the Holy Quran on fire was mentally unstable.

...

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Jul 2012 00:12

ArunK wrote: I see. So, let us see, as a comparison, Have the Indian people been ignorant of what is happening outside India? Yes they have and the majority still are. So by your yardstick, does it make Indians retarded?

No, Indian policies are not encouraging terrorism in other countries. Indian troops are not dying in other continents. Therefore, Indians are not obliged to know about what is happening in Iraq and Libya.

Now do you understand which country is retarded?

So when a certain commander-in-chief salutes those body bags at Denver airport, he should acknowledge that the policies of his country are partly responsible for those deaths. It would be great if "exceptional" and "indispensable" people of that country could increase their knowledge (*asap!!*) and choose leaders who don't support /encourage terrorism elsewhere. It is really "exceptional" that Americans haven't understood the realities of Af-Pak region in 30 years.

Laloo's policies didn't affect people in New York, but Reagan's policies certainly affected people in J&K. People in India suffer due to the ignorance in a "city on a hill".

Some would argue that Americans need not think about how their actions affect India. Fair enough. In that case, they should remember that their financial troubles and graves in Arlington cemetery are a direct consequence of their ignorance. Instead of blaming the world for their troubles, some introspection would be very useful. And please don't take *decades* for understanding obvious and trivial issues. You are "exceptional", remember?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Jul 2012 00:15

abhishek_sharma wrote:
ArunK wrote: I see. So, let us see, as a comparison, Have the Indian people been ignorant of what is happening outside India? Yes they have and the majority still are. So by your yardstick, does it make Indians retarded?
No, Indian policies are not encouraging terrorism in other countries. Indian troops are not dying in other continents. Therefore, Indians are not obliged to know about what is happening in Iraq and Libya.

Now do you understand which country is retarded?

India does not claim it is a superpower and it does not do propaganda of its policies.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 05 Jul 2012 00:49

NightWatch For the night of 3 July 2012

Some more steps in the US-Pa'i square dance (AKA US-Pa'i GUBO) in which TSPA is the caller...

Nightwatch wrote: Pakistan-US: Pakistan agreed to reopen its roads to NATO supply convoys in return for a statement of condolences by the US. What Secretary of State Clinton said to Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar is repeated verbatim below, as reported in Pakistan's Daily Times on 4 July.

"Foreign Minister Khar and I acknowledged the mistakes that resulted in the loss of Pakistani military lives….We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military. We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again."

Khar told Clinton the land routes were reopening, and that "Pakistan will continue not to charge any transit fee in the larger interest of peace and security in Afghanistan and the region," Clinton said.

The Pakistani Taliban announced that they will target NATO convoys. Pakistani trucking firms demanded improved security.

Comment: A statement of condolences, regret or sorrow over losses that does not include an admission of culpability is not an apology. Both top diplomats admitted mistakes were made, but neither admitted culpability. There is no apology and that means Pakistan blinked, sort of.

US officials and generals have expressed regret repeatedly over Pakistan's loss of soldiers' lives during the friendly fire incident last November. Money and politics have worked in favor of a breakthrough on this issue. The Pakistan Army apparently needs the $1.1 billion that the US has now promised to release as its part of the bargain. This is not new money for the US, but what had been budgeted already.

Pakistani politics facilitated compromise because the new prime minister, Raja Pervez Ashraf, is not associated with the previous tough policy position adopted by former Prime Minister Gilani. Ashraf acted immediately to reopen the supply routes, bypassing the National Assembly, which Gilani was unable to do because of the intensity of public sentiment right after the incident.

Sub-continent politics also favored a breakthrough. The action of Pakistani officials, observing the US arrangements to withdraw forces and equipment through central Asia and Russia, indicate they realized, a bit belatedly, that the US was freezing Pakistan out of the Afghanistan end game and empowering India, Russia and Central Asian states, all allies of the northern, non-Pashtun tribes in Afghanistan.

Today's agreement reinstates Pakistan as a consequential actor in the end game. At home and to the Islamic world, Pakistan is now a facilitator of the withdrawal of non-Muslim/NATO forces from a Muslim land and region that Pakistan treats as a part of its sphere of influence - the Pashtun southern provinces of Afghanistan.

It also offsets any increase in Indian influence in Afghanistan. US Defense Secretary Panetta's statement about encouraging a larger Indian role in Afghanistan might have been the pivotal event that spurred the Pakistanis to make a change in policy.

Pakistani concessions and benefits IOW, Pa'istani GUBO

The Pakistan Army and the new Prime Minister made concessions so as to get the money and restore Pakistani influence. They now have found satisfactory language that the National Assembly and Chief of Army Staff General Kayani had rejected earlier. They dropped the demand that US/NATO drone attacks cease. They also dropped the transit surcharges for NATO supply trucks. Nevertheless, they now are in a position to influence and even control the US and NATO withdrawal through Karachi. Pakistanis and Pakistani trucking firms now will enjoy the spill over benefits of an army in withdrawal, instead of the central Asians.

US concessions and benefits IOW, US GUBO

The United States now will release the $1.1 billion to Pakistan's armed forces. The money, from a US 'coalition support fund' designed to reimburse Pakistan for the cost of counter-insurgency operations, had been withheld due to tensions between the two countries over the closure of the supply routes. The US taxpayers will benefit from enormous savings because of the cost differential between the northern and southern logistics routes.

Finally, the US reduces its dependency on Russian good will and cooperation for the use of Russian railroads in withdrawing US forces.

A Pakistani commentary

Hasan Askari, a prominent and astute Pakistani analyst, provided context to the agreement, in an interview on 3 July before US and Pakistani officials announced the agreement.

In response to a question, Askari said, "You see, the "signals" now are that the routes will be reopened as the dialogue between Pakistan and the United States was on what should be the "text" of the apology, what would be the acceptable manner, and what would be the condition for movement of supplies…."

"And even otherwise it would be better for Pakistan that if it has to play any role in Afghanistan and has to 'neutralize' the role of India GUBO otherwise big bad India will screw you because , then it will have to work jointly with the international community. Pakistan's interest will be in jeopardy if it remains isolated."

"Look, whatever decision is made, it will be made with the consent of the military because the 'high security matters' or 'high foreign policy matters' of Pakistan are not settled unless the military is involved in it. Therefore if a decision is made that means that the military agrees on it. The civilian government cannot step forward without the consent of the military. The civilian government is facing the pressure of the Supreme Court on one hand and on the other it is facing the pressure of the Opposition and on top of that it cannot stand further pressure from the military."

Comment: The Pakistan Army's pride was the stumbling block because the incident showed that it was and remains unable to defend Pakistan's western frontier. The Army drove this change in policy. The civilian government did as it was instructed.

The Army is wielding power through the civilian government on national security policy. The agreement to reopen the supply routes appears to indicate that the elected civilian government has become the figurehead for the Army again on national security issues, after a five year hiatus.

ArunK · Post by **ArunK** » 05 Jul 2012 01:43

^^^
I am just going to make a few statements and bow out of this discussion.

1. Going back to WWII, the Americans entered the fight in *BOTH* Europe and *ASIA* and prevailed on both against the Nazis and the Japanese. They paid a very steep price for it. This was a *HOT* war. They won this one.

2. They took on the communists after that. First they drove a wedge between China and the Soviet union and then defeated the Soviets using their economic powers. This era involved plenty of proxy wars and the US was involved directly in some conflicts where it lost few -- Vietnam & had a bloody stalemate which continues to this date in Korea. It also turned the tables in Afghanistan and inflicted a mortal blow on the Soviets that resulted in their disintegration. They may have lost some battles but they *WON* the cold war.

3. They successfully saw to the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. They now have allies where there were sworn enemies.

4. They won the first Gulf War decisively.

5. They destroyed Saddam Husein's IRAQ the second time around. Not sure if this can be classified as a victory yet. It is a work in progress. It all depends upon how Iraq will develop in the coming years. But however you slice it, Americans have a lot of pull in Iraq today. Something that they did not have in since 1980s.

6. They took on Al-Qaeda and have destroyed large parts of it. They have not killed it completely. It is just a shadow of what it was 10 years ago. Today, they have developed tactics to deal with terrorists and go after them regardless of where they are hiding on this planet. They have the ability to monitor all sorts of electronic communication. An anti-American terrorist has to stay underground and communicate using human couriers. Not sustainable in the long run.

7. They have been embroiled in Afghanistan for the last decade. As of now, they have very little to show for their efforts. They are suffering from battle fatigue. They are vulnerable because of the supply route situation -- which they seem to have sorted out. They are on their way out. Again they have engineered a regime change in an Islamic terror infested hellhole. It remains to be seen if this regime change will stick and the Afghan people will stand up and take their destiny in their own hands and progress as a nation. As opposed to allowing Pakistan exploit its tribal fissures and push them back into the chaos they went through in the 80's and 90's.

Pakistan was a full fledged ally through all this -- except possibly #7. Even there, Pakistan has played a very important role for the past 10 years providing support -- as well as supporting the Haqqani network at the same time -- to the US/NATO troops to affect a regime change in Afghanistan and build at least a semblance of functioning state institutions there.

Based on all of the above, except possibly #7 for which the game is still not finished, the Americans have done well by their tax payers. They may have suffered some set backs by their arrogance and stupidity but they learned their lesson in the big picture they have achieved what they set out to achieve. It took them 50 years to destroy the Soviet Union but they did it.

It is only in the last 3 years that Pakistan and the US have been at loggerheads. Pakistan has suffered a lot of damage because of this. They have now caved. Let us see how this progresses.

In the meanwhile, India and the US have engaged on a completely different thread. The relationship has deepened based on their own merits. Pakistan has not been a factor in the development of this relationship.

It is true that the Americans have not cared about the effect some of their policies have had on India. As I was saying, India was not strong enough economically or technologically. Also, India's friendship with the Soviets and its support for Arab causes and its basic tendency to take anti-American positions in world fora did not help the matters much. India's image was horrible in the US during the late eighties. I used to get depressed at the kind of stuff that always appeared in the front pages of the NY times.

But those days are long gone. There is a sea change in the way India and Indians are perceived in the US as well as in the UK and Canada. All this has happened due to the changes that PVNR and subsequent governments have made in all spheres. We should continue on the same trajectory for at least another decade. At that time, we will have strength and resources to leader of the world and be capable of pursuing an independent policy based on our national interest most of time. Today, we are able to do that only some of the time.

To close, it may be fashionable to blame others for our situation. But if you look at it honestly, we Indians have only ourselves to blame as to how we are perceived or how our interests are not taken into account. Cursing out Americans will perhaps make you feel better but will not alter the facts on the ground. If you want to change the perception of India in the centers of power in the US, in addition to registering a solid economic growth, you have to make the PR effort to project a good image of India. That will require you to play the game of lobbying properly. India has always been inept with these kind of things. Good PR would have helped a lot for India during the tough times after the Nuclear tests. We should learn the art of good PR from Israel and the Jewish lobby. Pakistan has traditionally been much better than we have been at PR.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Jul 2012 01:56

ArunK wrote:
To close, it may be fashionable to blame others for our situation. But if you look at it honestly, we Indians have only ourselves to blame as to how we are perceived or how our interests are not taken into account. Cursing out Americans will perhaps make you feel better but will not alter the facts on the ground. If you want to change the perception of India in the centers of power in the US, you have to make the effort to project a good image of India. That will require you to play the game of lobbying properly. India has always been inept with these kind of things. We should learn from Pakistan and Israel.

Always be nice to Americans. Never argue with them.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Jul 2012 02:01

>> Pakistan was a full fledged ally through all this -- except possibly #7

Yes, look at points 1-6. You will see that Pakistan has been an "ally through all this". Wow. Do you even read what you write?

1. WW2 (?)
2. drive a wedge between China and Soviet Union (?)
3. Yugoslavia. (?)
4. First Gulf War (for providing a "backup team")
5. Iraq war (how many troops did Pakis contribute?)
6. War against Al-Qaeda

>>To close, it may be fashionable to blame others for our situation. But if you look at it honestly, we Indians have only ourselves to blame as to how we are perceived or how our interests are not taken into account.

And you should proffer this advice to Americans too. It is indeed fashionable for Americans to blame others.

I don't think India is asking anyone to take her interests into account. We are asking everyone to follow a *moral* policy. You may choose to ignore that appeal. In that case, the consequences of those actions might reach your "land of milk and honey". You will be tempted to start another "Operation Enduring Freedom". Try to reduce that pretentious self-righteousness. Call it "We are cleaning our own sh**."

ArunK · Post by **ArunK** » 05 Jul 2012 02:36

1. WW2 (?)[/quote]

Nope - Pakistan did not exist during WW-II. But people who served in the British Indian Army went on to become heads of state in Pakistan. Ayub Khan serverd with distinction on the Burma front. Yahya Khan served in North Africa, Middle East, and Mediterranean theatres of the war.

2. drive a wedge between China and Soviet Union (?)

Yep. Google Gary Powers. And Google Henry Kissingers secret trip to China.

3. Yugoslavia. (?)

Here is what wikipaedia says. -- Pakistan sent UN Peacekeeping forces to the former Yugoslavia during the Yugoslav wars. During the war, Pakistan supported Bosnia while providing technical and military support to Bosnia. Approximately 90,000 Pakistani people went to Bosnia during the Yugoslav wars, accounting for 20% of the volunteer military force.

Check google they also accepted a lot of refugees

5. Iraq war (how many troops did Pakis contribute?)
Pakistan helped out massively in Afghanistan which was happening at the same time.
6. War against Al-Qaeda
You may snigger all you want. But the joke is on you. 90% of Al-Q captured were captured during Mushy;s reign in Pakistan by Pakistanis.

I don't think India is asking anyone to take her interests into account.

Hmmm.

We are asking everyone to follow a *moral* policy. You may choose to ignore that appeal. In that case, the consequences of those actions might reach your "land of milk and honey". You will be to tempted to start another "Operation Enduring Freedom".

I see. "Moral policy" -- OK. Next you will be proposing a ministry of Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice just like the Taliban and Saudi Arabia.
Oh, don't look now, but what you say next looks like a direct threat to "Retarded" people. So let me get this straight, are you proposing an Indian equivalent of a Jihad on the US?

Try to reduce that pretentious self-righteousness. Call it "We are cleaning our own sh**."
Yep. Got it.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Jul 2012 02:50

ArunK wrote: Nope - Pakistan did not exist during WW-II. But people who served in the British Indian Army went on to become heads of st ate in Pakistan. Ayub Khan serverd with distinction on the Burma front. Yahya Khan served in North Africa, Middle East, and Mediterranean theatres of the war.

That is why Pakistan should get partial credit for victory in WW2? Kindly move your post to the trash thread.

Yep. Google Gary Powers. And Google Henry Kissingers secret trip to China.

The wedge between China and Soviet Union had nothing to do with Pakistan. It already existed. Many other countries offered their services for opening a channel to China. US chose Pakistan. Try to graduate beyond "google-ing".

Here is what wikipaedia says. -- Pakistan sent UN Peacekeeping forces to the former Yugoslavia during the Yugoslav wars. During the war, Pakistan supported Bosnia while providing technical and military support to Bosnia. Approximately 90,000 Pakistani people went to Bosnia during the Yugoslav wars, accounting for 20% of the volunteer military force.

Man, you are really special. Everyone knows that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh offer highest number of troops for UN peacekeeping. And as far as that "volunteer military force" is concerned, they are called "mujahideeen". Do you understand? Similar people divided the body of Daniel Pearl into 3-4 parts. samjhe?

Pakistan helped out massively in Afghanistan which was happening at the same time.

Getting Chankian now? And you know that US lost the grip on Afghanistan when Pakis were "helping out massively"?

You may snigger all you want. But the joke is on you. 90% of Al-Q captured were captured during Mushy;s reign in Pakistan by Pakistanis.

I am glad the joke is on me. You and Pakis deserve each other.

I see. "Moral policy" -- OK. Next you will be proposing a ministry of Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice just like the Taliban and Saudi Arabia.
Oh, don't look now, but what you say next looks like a direct threat to "Retarded" people. So let me get this straight, are you proposing an Indian equivalent of a Jihad on the US?

Sir...you should go back to the primary school and take a few courses in basic logic. I am asking that countries should not support terrorist group.

I am glad that you brought up Saudi Arabia. Maybe you should look in the mirror and explain why your country supports Saudi Arabia?

I can see that MUTU-ism has strong side-effects.