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

[ManuT]

Follow up from Aspen 2012

SPIEGEL Interview with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
Ausgabe 22/2005

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spi ... 735-2.html

SPIEGEL: Will Sharon succeed or will he be stopped by religious extremists?

Musharraf: He is a bold man, a great soldier, a courageous leader, but he needs to put more effort into building confidence between the two sides.

SPIEGEL: And if this peace process is successful, will the attitude in the Muslim world towards Israel and the West change?

Musharraf: In the Muslim world, the perception is that the Americans and the West have been pro-Israel. The Muslim world views them with suspicion -- that they are biased towards Israel. But I hope that we can bring about a just peace -- one which the Muslim world sees as just. If the European Union were to get involved, if Germany were to get involved, I am sure the Muslim world would see it much more positively.

SPIEGEL: Europe is getting involved in the peace process in the Middle East and in Iran as well. Do you think Iran should be allowed to go nuclear?

Musharraf: We are against any proliferation. We are against any other country developing nuclear devices.

SPIEGEL: Pakistan justified its going nuclear with the imbalance of power in South Asia after India had gone nuclear. Iran is setting out to break the monopoly of Israel in the Middle East.

Musharraf: But Iran doesn't have a border with Israel. We have a big border with India which is a real threat for us.

SPIEGEL: The US is trying hard to protect the world from Iran going nuclear. Would you support a pre-emptive strike?

Musharraf: In the present environment it would be disastrous because it would agitate the Muslim world. Why keep opening new fronts? {So Mush is saying don't bomb Iran}

SPIEGEL: What would you suggest for keeping the Iranians from producing the bomb?

Musharraf: I can't say. They are very keen on building the bomb. {To prove that West is fair and even, let Iran have it too}

SPIEGEL: As Pakistan was.

Musharraf: Yes, we were keen. Nobody can accept a threat to its existence. Therefore we are very proud to have nuclear weapons. {Iran can't accept it either, as there is a threat to Iran of Israeli Air strikes}

SPIEGEL: Did Pakistan help Iran and North Korea to go nuclear?

Musharraf: An individual from Pakistan did. {It was a lone gunman.}

Then there was some back and forth betweeb Iran and TSP and the magazine issued a clarification

The editor in chief of DER SPIEGEL responds to statements made by the government of Pakistan regarding an interview with President Pervez Musharraf published in this week's issue and posted by SPIEGEL ONLINE

An interview conducted by DER SPIEGEL with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, published this weekend, sparked strong reactions from Iranian officials. Among the issues discussed in the interview was Iran's presumed desire to develop a nuclear bomb.

After a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry demanded a clarification from the president, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry stated that Musharraf had been misquoted by DER SPIEGEL.

With respect to the Musharraf interview, printed in the latest issue of DER SPIEGEL and posted online in both Germanand English, Editor in Chief Stefan Aust explained that DER SPIEGEL only publishes authorized conversations and interviews. The same holds true in this instance. And the text of the interview, which was authorized by President Musharraf's office, is as follows:

SPIEGEL: What would you suggest for keeping the Iranians from producing a bomb?

Musharraf: I can't say. They are very keen on building the bomb.

- The Editors

Fast forward to: G2 Magazine Created: November 17, 2008

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/m ... -7279.html

Musharraf Faced Charges of Complicity in Iran Nuclear Connection
By Gordon Thomas

Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf was forced to resign because he had been told he could face charges of complicity in agreeing to allow Pakistan to provide Iran with details of how to build nuclear bombs.

Musharraf had a direct phone link to President Bush in the Oval Office and had been regularly praised by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as “our most important ally in the region in the war on terrorism”.

He was also a close friend to Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan’s leading nuclear scientist and “father” of its nuclear bomb.
On February 4, 2004, Khan had sat in a television studio in Islamabad and made one of the most astonishing confessions in the long history of treachery.

“I am solely responsible for operating Pakistan’s international black market in nuclear weapons”, Khan intoned.
Before a stunned world could adjust to the revelation, President Musharraf, dressed in commander fatigues – he’d been an army general – took Khan’s place before the camera to announce that though he was “shocked by these relevations”, he would nevertheless pardon Khan whom he called “my hero” because of his “service to Pakistan”.

What the world did not know until this week was the full extent of the president’s own connection with Khan.
Until shortly before he resigned, Musharraf had clung to the hope that his role in allowing Khan to sell blueprints to Iran would remain a closely guarded secret.

But for months before he dramatically quit office, MI6 has been piecing together how Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which has overall responsibility for the country’s nuclear programme, have set up a number of companies whose activities have been carefully concealed from the United Nations nuclear inspection teams.

The companies, based on the outskirts of Tehran, are working on constructing components for the advanced P2 gas centrifuge, which can enrich uranium to weapons grade capability at three times the speed of conventional P1 centrifuges.

Only last month, as his political opponents closed in on the embattled Musharraf, Iranian nuclear scientists secretly visited the country’s research laboratories in Pakistan, which Khan had set up. Since Khan’s astonishing confession that he was the mastermind behind Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation, the Tehran ayatollahs have consistently denied his help had been crucial.

But earlier this year, MI6 and other European intelligence services established that Iran had resumed work on even more sophisticated enrichment technology – based on Khan’s original blueprints.

Khan’s activities have continued to gain Pakistan immense influence in the Muslim world.
An MI6 report states: “His influence is demonstrated by the huge sums of money lodged in Khan’s bank accounts. He remains one of the wealthiest men in Pakistan”.
One estimate places his fortune at US$40 million – a vast amount in a nation where the average monthly family income is less than US$100. MI6 believe his money is held in banks in Dubai and Switzerland.

While Khan is officially still under house arrest, despite Musharraf’s pardon, Western intelligence sources say the two men have remained in contact.

It has also been established by MI6 that Khan is in touch with one Iranian company working with his blueprints. Sited in the residential quarter of Amir Abad in west Tehran, the Kalaye Electric Company is developing the latest component of the P2 centrifuge. The company insists it is only producing wristwatches.

“Abdul Qadeer Khan may reveal more in the coming weeks in return for his freedom. In that cast the disgraced President Musharraf will come to regret his friendship with the scientist he lauded as our equaliser in the nuclear world”, said one MI6 analyst.
“The former president will then also have to explain how much he really knows about Khan’s connections with North Korea and China while fawning in the praise of the Bush Administration”.

Gordon Thomas is the author of a new edition of Gideon’s Spies: The Inside Story of Israel’s Legendary Secret Service, The Mossad, by JR Books of London and available on Amazon Books.

(C) G-2 Bulletin, Washington D.C., USA, and Gordon Thomas.

Lone gunman?

[ranjbe]

The Economist's take on the opening of the supply routes through Bakistan:

Islamabad had demanded an apology and new terms for its alliance with America. Pakistan’s armed forces even suggested that the border deaths had been “deliberate at some level”. But, after raising the stakes for itself, Pakistan managed to get surprisingly little out of the deal announced on July 3rd.

American officials had offered to say sorry back in February, and it is unclear what, if anything, changed in the subsequent months of talks. The apology itself sounds rather mealy-mouthed. America’s reluctance to apologise fully, in turn, is because of continued operations by Afghan insurgents, from Pakistani soil, who attack and kill NATO soldiers.

Pakistan dropped a plan for a transit tax (initially it sought $5,000 per lorry) on NATO supplies, which had in effect been given free passage since the Afghan war began in 2001. Now officials emphasise that what matters is not “financial gains” but “the issue of sovereignty”. Yet that leaves unclear just why Pakistan haggled for months about the money.

America will however release over $1 billion in reimbursements owed to Pakistan for the costs of military operations along the Afghan border, boosting the country’s anaemic budget. America is also likely to support a new IMF loan programme for Pakistan. However, a demand for an end to missile strikes by unmanned American “drone” aircraft in Pakistan’s tribal areas is unlikely to be met.

It is possible that Pakistan submitted to decisive pressure behind the scenes. Some American officials want to pronounce as terrorist groups the Haqqani network, a fearsome Afghan insurgent outfit, and Jamat-ud-Dawa, an India-focused Islamic extremist organisation. Both of these are comfortably based on Pakistani soil, which would make the country an official harbourer of terrorists.

The recent capture, in India, of an alleged militant who was apparently present in a Karachi “control room”, to help direct the devastating 2008 terrorist attack in the Indian city of Mumbai, may also have had an influence. Pakistan would much prefer to keep America as its ostensible ally, rather than a declared enemy.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2 ... 8488262|NA

[neeraj]

[ManuT]

ArunK ji

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. 

Whoa, looking at 1 thru 7 there are some myths involved. So please refer to your points.

1. Pakistan in WWII, in 1939? 1940? 1941? 1942? 1943? 1944? 1945? I don't think so.

2.

 It also turned the tables in Afghanistan and inflicted a mortal blow on the Soviets that resulted in their disintegration. 

Soviets collpased because of their paanch varshiya yoganaas and state planning of the economy not Afghanistan. Don't let the history fool you. 

3.

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

Don't know if "they" means US and West or US and TSP. Anyways, Yugoslavia collapsed because of Serbs and poor succession planning after Tito. Mujs were there in Bosnia for Jihad. Yugoslavia was not a Warsaw Pact country.

4.

They won the first Gulf War decisively. 

Again don't let the footage of treating parades fool you Sir. Pakis were left, where they belonged, in the rear in GW1. 

5. There were no Pakis on the American side in GW2, al Qaeda maybe.

6. Pakistan bana MuNNA at this poing Sir.

7. At this point the duplicious game of TSP is well known, dont know why you are excluding them from points 1 thru 6.

Regards

[anupmisra]

39-member contingent for London Olympics announced

...with their only realistic medal hopes lying in field hockey. Along with 18 hockey players, the contingent also includes two athletes, two swimmers and a shooter – on wild cards.

23 players and 16 officials

Besides the usual free loaders, there is a Security liaison officer, IT personnel and video-analyst among the 16 officials.

[shiv]

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.

No Neela. Too many people get needlessly upset if the US is called weak and spend too much time either defending the US's echandee or decrying India's weaknesses. Too much time is spent comparing the US and India and out of 6 billion people in the world, the only people interested in doing this are Indians with some connection to the US. That focus is wrong. Let me explain.

Everyone knows the US is powerful. Everyone knows that if the US wanted to fight Pakistan in a war, Pakistan would lose.

Too much time and brainpower is wasted on these forums applying the above example to India and saying "India is more powerful than Pakistan. If India fought with Pakistan, the latter would be defeated".

The conclusion that is drawn from this is "See. Indian leaders are cowardly/weak/incompetent" etc if we simply want to reach conclusions of that type it is easy to reach exactly the same conclusions about the US. Either both conclusions are wrong or both are right. If both are right it means both India an the US are cowardly and impotent. I have never failed to drive people crazy with this argument. Everyone wants me to accept that the US is strong but does not want to use power, but that India is strong but cowardly/incompetent. No one can pose an effective counter argument because the facts don't fit in with such a viewpoint.

The reasons are as follows:

The US will not use its enormous power on Pakistan because it is cheaper and less messy for US foreign policy to maintain a vassal state by bribery and balancing power. If the US loses Pakistan, the US loses a sunni ally against Iran and a sunni ally who will supply nukes to KSA so that the US need not use nukes directly if push comes to shove. Pakistan has _only_one_requirement, and that is to screw India. Pakistan's existence has centered around arming itself against an "India threat". Pakistan was a godsend for a country like the US that seeks allies in geopolitics. From 1958 the US has armed and funded Pakistan to do its work, and the only price the US has paid is some money and arms to Pakistan. But that has always kept Pakistan very powerful against India because a "few arms" to Pakistan from the US have always been very potent against a vastly less powerful and rich India (compared to the US)

On BRF we are always comparing US actions on Pakistan with Indian actions on Pakistan and asking "If the US can do this why not India?" . But very few people stop to ask what the US is doing. The US is arming and paying Pakistan to fight India. The US does that because it is easiest to buy Paki cooperation that way. if India needs to do what the US is doing, India needs to arm and pay Pakistan to fight India. India cannot do what the US is doing.

So can India fight Pakistan instead? Yes it can. But please look at why the US is not fighting Pakistan. The US is not fighting Pakistan because it is cheaper to arm Pakistan against India to win Paki love. The US gets Pakistani support more willingly whenever india fights Pakistan, or threatens to fight Pakistan. The US is less interested in India-Pak issues and more interested in keeping Pakistan cooperative. India that is flashing its arms at Pakistan is exactly what the US needs to win Paki cooperation. The US is not pro India or pro Pakistan. The US is pro US. India cannot be simply anti-US or anti Pakistan. It has to be pro India. India has to take the cheapest option that will screw both the US and Pakistan in this game. Undermining is the US game is part and parcel of India's survival strategy. Without undermining the US India cannot win this game - with the US and Pakistan as allies.

Unfortunately too many Indians are taken in by the democratic similarities and reasons for US and India to unite and remain blind to geopolitical realities. If you feel strong loyalty to both India and America your viewpoint will neither see India's side nor the American side. You have to totally detach your thoughts from loyalty to any one country to see what is advantageous or not. Problem is that unsavoury thoughts come in if you do that. It is clear that there is an India-US rivalry revolving around Pakistan that few people want to acknowledge. Once you know there is an India US rivalry you have to decide which side you are going to take and think what would be best for each side with no compromise. If you are full of love and good thoughts about both US and India, this will not work. If you take an American viewpoint, expect to be told where to get off by the Indian viewpoint.

[member_23651]

where is the plus one button when one needs, but the sad reality whenever US wants Pakistan to embrace him, US will not hesitate to let loose David Headley type dog in India.

As you rightly said we in India, want US to finish off the Pakistan the problem, but nobody understands the complete problem. And the problem is USA would never do that and neither let India do that.

[shiv]

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.

Indians who think they know America are still lecturing Indians about how to behave with America. Sorry sir. This is about Pakistan. It is not in the US's interest to antagonize Pakistan. US interest revolves around bending to Pakistani requests for funds and arms. It is not in India's interest to allow the US to have its way in Pakistan.

India has rivalry with the US and all this lobbying-shobbying business is not going to make one whit of a difference to India's core interests with regard to Pakistan. If Pakistan-US relations fail that is a great thing for India. Lobbying ain't gonna do that. But what we are seeing today is a failure of US-Pakistan relations. India may not be responsible for that, but it is a godsend for India; just like a Pakistan that hates India used to be a godsend for America to get Pakistan to do its job.

I think everyone who talks about the US and sings paeans to its power needs to know that even if they are right about America, there is a fundamental conflict of interest between India and America. Decide whom you want to speak for. Do not pretend to speak for India and post an American viewpoint. That is a mistake made by people who have a mixed allegiance to India and the US.

[shiv]

where is the plus one button when one needs, but the sad reality whenever US wants Pakistan to embrace him, US will not hesitate to let loose David Headley type dog in India.

As you rightly said we in India, want US to finish off the Pakistan the problem, but nobody understands the complete problem. And the problem is USA would never do that and neither let India do that.

A vast body of educated, employed, English speaking Indians (from various walks, including the defence forces) have too many core personal interests in India-US relations to acknowledge the fundamental fact that there is a US India rivalry and deep conflict of interest. Too many people believe that india and the US have the same future in mind. The US, as Indians from the US constantly lecture us on this forum for educated English speaking Indians, is pro-US. Unfortunately, India is pro-India. When it comes to Pakistan, "pro-India" and "pro-US" are diametrically opposite viewpoints.

The US wants Pakistan to survive. It wants the Pakistan army to survive and do its job. The Pakistan army and most Pakis only want to chew off India's ass.

Pakistan's survival is not an issue for India as long as Pakistan stops attacking india. The US uses Pakistani fear and antagonism of India to make the Pakistanis cooperate with them in what is clear anti-India behavior which US fans explain as "pro-US behavior". We all know that. It may be pro US. But it is anti India

India and the US are at loggerheads with regard to Pakistan. There is little commonality of interest. Both the GoI and the GOTUS know and acknowledge this and try to work around this in a mature way. It is obvious from India US parleys. Only BRF is full of confused people who demand admiration for the US and derision for India.

[pentaiah]

So after all we are indeed heading towards " writing on the wall" as predicted by Gen. Padmanabhan!

When it comes to India TSP affairs Unkil is part of the problem
as proved by Shiv

[RamaY]

Pentaiah garu,

The problem IS USA. The symptom is Pakistan.

The patient thinks this AIDS is a symbol of his manhood and past sexual appetite.

They all deserve each other.

[svinayak]

Even after 65 years they have to narrate the same rhetoric.
Looks like they not come out of their 1947 period. THey have kept Pakistan still 1947
and pandered to it and they want to keep it that way.
They find the border amusing and they mock at it

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... at-sunset/

July 3, 2012, 12:30 PM30 Comments
Peacocks at Sunset
By FRANK JACOBS

In early 1947, Lord Louis Mountbatten, the last British viceroy of India [9], set the deadline for independence for Aug. 15. On July 8, the British lawyer Sir Cyril Radcliffe arrived in Indian with a brief for a line on the map that would divide Hindu-majority lands from Muslim-majority ones in as equitable a manner as possible. Radcliffe was a brilliant legal mind, but he had no border-making experience, nor had he ever been to India — though such “impartiality” was judged to be an advantage by all parties involved.

With barely five weeks between start and finish, Radcliffe had to chair not one but two boundary commissions: one for Bengal in the east, another for the Punjab in the west [10]. Each Radcliffe Border Commission was composed of four judges, two from the Muslim League, two from the (secular, but mainly Hindu) Congress Party. The resulting deadlock left all the major decisions to Radcliffe himself. The goal of both commissions was to establish contiguous zones containing comfortable majorities of either side’s co-religionists — but Radcliffe was allowed to take vague “other factors” into account, including (but possibly not limited to) infrastructural and economic considerations.

Mountbatten instructed Radcliffe not to mind the military angle — the artificial borders would be indefensible anyway. Radcliffe followed existing subdivisions, generally but not precisely following the course of a few rivers, creating a very convoluted border indeed.

Understandably, Radcliffe’s final proposals met with howls of disapproval from both sides. Even before he had completed his work, mutual suspicion and rumors about the eventual course of the border led to deadly violence on the ground. To create perceptual distance between the independence of India and Pakistan and the accompanying riots — and especially to deflect blame for the latter from Britain — Mountbatten postponed publication of the Radcliffe Border Commissions’ findings to two days after Aug. 15.

For those two days, India and Pakistan were like conjoined twins. With long stretches of the border undefined on Independence Day, some towns raised both the Indian and Pakistani flags. Following the release of the border scheme, called the Radcliffe Award, violence escalated to horrendous levels. When all was over, pogroms and ethnic cleansing had left up to 1 million dead and forced 12 million to move one way or the other across the new border.

Disgusted and horrified, Radcliffe burned all his papers and refused the fee of 40,000 rupees for his work. He left on Independence Day and never returned.

[Rajdeep]

Pak Taliban vows to hit Nato trucks
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 683762.cms

After Pakistan's defence committee of the cabinet decided on Tuesday to reopen the supply lines, Taliban spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan said his group's fighters would attack Nato vehicles passing through the country. The TTP had made all arrangements for attacking Nato trucks and oil tankers in Pakistan, he said.

"They would see how our fighters attack them (Nato vehicles ) while passing through the country. We will not allow Pakistan's routes to be used for the supply of lethal arms that could later be used against the people of Afghanistan ,"Ehsan was quoted as saying by The News daily.
Ehsan said the Taliban were "were shocked to hear that Pakistan has opened the Nato supply lines" . He claimed the closure of the routes was "a drama staged by the Pakistani rulers to get maximum benefit from the United States. Pakistani rulers have no love (for) the country and the people" .

"They are US slaves and wanted to enslave the entire Pakistani nation. But we are here to create hurdles for Nato supplies passing through Pakistan," Ehsan said. The Taliban spokesman further said the time had come for religious and political parties to come forward and stop Nato supplies passing through Pakistan. Some religious and political parties had opposed the resumption of Nato supplies through Pakistan just to get public support , he claimed.

I say they dont have the guts

[rajanb]

^^^ And I say who cares if they blow up the trucks.

I f they don't it may also mean they have been paid off?

[ArunK]

India has rivalry with the US and all this lobbying-shobbying business is not going to make one whit of a difference to India's core interests with regard to Pakistan. If Pakistan-US relations fail that is a great thing for India. Lobbying ain't gonna do that. But what we are seeing today is a failure of US-Pakistan relations. India may not be responsible for that, but it is a godsend for India; just like a Pakistan that hates India used to be a godsend for America to get Pakistan to do its job.

I think everyone who talks about the US and sings paeans to its power needs to know that even if they are right about America, there is a fundamental conflict of interest between India and America. Decide whom you want to speak for. Do not pretend to speak for India and post an American viewpoint. That is a mistake made by people who have a mixed allegiance to India and the US.

First, you are entitled to your opinion about lobbying.

Second, I agree with you that there is a conflict of interest where between India and the US where Pakistan is concerned. However, there is a LOT more to the US-India relationship than Pakistan. The number of areas of cooperation and collaboration between India and the US has exploded in the past decade and is expected to grow even more in the coming decade. So, Pakistan issue should be put on the back burner and we should move forward.



You said

Decide whom you want to speak for. Do not pretend to speak for India and post an American viewpoint. That is a mistake made by people who have a mixed allegiance to India and the US.

Let me tell you, there are few million Indians living in America who want to see both India and the US prosper and will work very hard to find common ground. I am one of them. We are here to stay, You cannot wish us away.

For your information, I do speak for India because I consider myself an Indian. I have deep roots in India. I also have lived in the US for 25 years and this my adopted country and is also my children's homeland. So, I have loyalties to both countries. It is no mistake. I do not pretend. I really do speak for India AND present an American view point. There are times when I speak to Americans and present an Indian view point.

Thank you for your gratuitous advice, however, I will present whatever viewpoint I fancy. I don't need your permission or certificate.

[svinayak]

You said

Decide whom you want to speak for. Do not pretend to speak for India and post an American viewpoint. That is a mistake made by people who have a mixed allegiance to India and the US.

Let me tell you, there are few million Indians living in America who want to see both India and the US prosper and will work very hard to find common ground. I am one of them. We are here to stay, You cannot wish us away.

For your information, I do speak for India because I consider myself an Indian. I have deep roots in India. I also have lived in the US for 25 years and this my adopted country and is also my children's homeland. So, I have loyalties to both countries. It is no mistake. I do not pretend. I really do speak for India AND present an American view point. There are times when I speak to Americans and present an Indian view point.

Thank you for your gratuitous advice, however, I will present whatever viewpoint I fancy. I don't need your permission or certificate.

Actually this is important. We dont want another third country to come between India and US. Period.

So US media and US establishment should not mention Pakistan during India US discussion. This is high priority.
Even during Aspen discussion they have to bring India and Pak comparision even when it is a US interest discussion.

For Americans
Get India out of Pakistan discussion. Get Pakistan out of India discussion.

[Anujan]

Pakistan is expected to receive $2.5 billion during the current financial year from the United States under three different heads, particularly the Coalition Support Fund (CSF) following a thaw in tense relations between the two countries.

dawn.com/2012/07/05/us-expected-to-release-blocked-funds/

What was that jundal theory again?

[Gus]

Massa backing down from a 'no way in hell, no sir enuffs enuff' position to apologise to pak is passed off as "successful finessing". Symptoms of advanced MUTUitis.

[shiv]

Let me tell you, there are few million Indians living in America who want to see both India and the US prosper and will work very hard to find common ground. I am one of them. We are here to stay, You cannot wish us away.

For your information, I do speak for India because I consider myself an Indian. I have deep roots in India. I also have lived in the US for 25 years and this my adopted country and is also my children's homeland. So, I have loyalties to both countries. It is no mistake. I do not pretend. I really do speak for India AND present an American view point. There are times when I speak to Americans and present an Indian view point.

Thank you for your gratuitous advice, however, I will present whatever viewpoint I fancy. I don't need your permission or certificate.

Thank you for being honest. My viewpoint likewise is presented as is. I have no doubt that you have deep loyalty to India, but as I guessed it is your split/shared loyalty that makes you say things that are sometimes better for America than India. You are not the first person to do that, and you will not be the last. For that reason this will not be the last time that I will point it out when I see it happening.

You are quick off the mark to recognize gratuitous advice from me. I just wonder if your 25 years of experience in America will give you the humility to go back and ask if your own posts did not contain gratuitous advice to Indians. Just in case you don't I will post the relevant part:

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.

People who give such lectures are a dime a dozen, and some are close relatives of mine, whose lectures I have heard for decades. Oddly enough they all live in America. They belong to a genre of people who are basically saying "America, of which I know more than you, is superior. Accept it and adjust to it".

I can see exactly how Pakistanis "accept and adjust" to America and I have a good laugh and know exactly what to do about such advice.

[rajanb]

I can see exactly how Pakistanis "accept and adjust" to America and I have a good laugh and know exactly what to do about such advice.

I get graphic images in my mind. I'll leave it at that.

[Juggi G]

Must Watch

At Last America Finally Decides to Nuke pakistan

" Chak De Phatte "




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKwl6f4y ... tu.be&hd=1

[RajeshA]

Must Watch

At Last America Finally Decides to Nuke pakistan

Sigh! All those promises, and then they can't decide!

[Rangudu]

Anujan

The other day we were discussing the Malik Riaz phenomenon, after he made explosive allegations against TSP Chief Justice's son. I had said then that Riaz was a TSPA/ISI man and all of this would vanish if the Chief Justice were to stop bugging the army and focus on the PPP government only.

Now lookee here

Before Riaz made those allegations, TSP Supreme Court threatened to summon Kiyanahi to answer allegations about the Baloch genocide. Since that day, there has been ZERO progress in those cases as well as the pesky "missing persons" a.k.a more pious that the pious abdul cases.

Malik Riaz will now lose his memory as well as the incriminating videotapes of the Chief Justice's son.

If Musharraf was a pathetic, self-aggrandizing bully, Kiyanahi is a Shakuni-like character who likes to stay in the background but manipulate the system at will.

[Rangudu]

As expected, B.K.Moothrakumar sees a glorious victory for TSPA and Kiyanahi in this US non-apology

[SSridhar]

Towards Stable Relation - Edit in DT

The issue of transit fees has also been laid to rest. Pakistan had demanded $ 5,000 per truck; the two sides have now agreed to $ 1,000, with the US promising to compensate Pakistan in other ways.

There is disinformation from both the US and TSP. Some reports speak of a 'no-cost transportation', some of USD 500 and now USD 1000+. Or, is the above edit for internal consumption and for massaging H&D ?

[Lisa]

As expected, B.K.Moothrakumar sees a glorious victory for TSPA and Kiyanahi in this US non-apology

From the above, strange, pakistanis are 'massacred' but Indians are normally just 'killed'!

[ArunK]

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.

People who give such lectures are a dime a dozen, and some are close relatives of mine, whose lectures I have heard for decades. Oddly enough they all live in America. They belong to a genre of people who are basically saying "America, of which I know more than you, is superior. Accept it and adjust to it".

I can see exactly how Pakistanis "accept and adjust" to America and I have a good laugh and know exactly what to do about such advice.

Interesting. Let me point out and clarify that -- even though I am a poor writer, that "advice", was given to the Govt. of India and not any one individual. So there is a big difference. I consider giving gratuitous advice to the Govts of all countries on this planet my birth right.

I am sure you realize that Indians living in America are not a monolithic entity just as Indians living in India. So, please don't stereotype a whole group and dismiss them as you are doing right now. Please point out where I have called America *SUPERIOR* to India.

It also appears that this discussion got off the rails from the very beginning. After a very long time, I made a comment on what I thought led to the opening of the GLOCS. I did this in the Pakistan thread. There was no mention of India in my original post except pointing out that US was involved in persuading the Saudis to release Abu Jundal to India. You dragged every discussion after that to attributing non-existent "India bad - US good" motives to me and proceeded to trash my post. What is going on?

[RamaY]

Actually this is important. We dont want another third country to come between India and US. Period.

So US media and US establishment should not mention Pakistan during India US discussion. This is high priority.
Even during Aspen discussion they have to bring India and Pak comparision even when it is a US interest discussion.

For Americans
Get India out of Pakistan discussion. Get Pakistan out of India discussion.

I have a slightly different perspective on this. I too am a US citizen.

I do not think it is enough for USA to dehyphanate India and Pakistan. By supporting Pakistan, USA is indirectly hurting India. So just disconnecting India and Pakistan in discussions while doing whatever USA can to support and encourage Pakistani behavior is not acceptable. As a Indian-American, I always see the net benefits to this relationship. I do not consider an annual trade of $50B (with a profit margin of $7.5B) is no way equal to USA's $5B annual support + the loss of Indian lives.

As long as USA funds and supports the terrorist state of Pakistan, India cannot consider USA as a genuine friend. USA cannot use "national interests" excuse to dominate other nations and hurt my mother land India.

If my adopted country, USA, has some national interests that require it to support terrorism and terrorist nations like Pakistan, I would want USA to review and correct those national interests, because they are not in the interests of its citizenry like me.

Perhaps someone can explain what national interests of USA that are so important that USA need to support terrorism and TSP.

[RamaY]

Must Watch

At Last America Finally Decides to Nuke pakistan

Sigh! All those promises, and then they can't decide!

Not only that, this movie seems to be the epitome of WKKism. The leader wants to dis-obey the orders, then occupy an island, says he owns it now, then threatens to destroy his own country with nukes , if he is touched.

Live and let live - the nuke way

[RajeshA]

Must Watch

At Last America Finally Decides to Nuke pakistan

Sigh! All those promises, and then they can't decide!

Not only that, this movie seems to be the epitome of WKKism. The leader wants to dis-obey the orders, then occupy an island, says he owns it now, then threatens to destroy his own country with nukes , if he is touched.

Live and let live - the nuke way

Moral of the story is that there will always be an idiot in USA, who will save Pakistan.

[rajanb]

^^^^

Just one?

Am sure there are many.

[ManuT]

An example of Conflict of interest for Indo-US Relations


Navy gets two P3C Orion aircraft from US
By: Our Staff Reporter | February 22, 2012 | 2

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news- ... ft-from-us

KARACHI - The second batch of two modified P3C aircraft were inducted into Pakistan Navy fleet at Naval Aviation Base in Karachi on Tuesday.

The aircraft modified with latest avionics/sensors are part of the US assistance being provided to Pakistan Navy under FMF (Foreign Military Funding) programme.

Pakistan Navy is to receive a total of six such aircraft from US in batches of two each. The first batch was inducted into Pakistan Navy in 2010.

According to a statement, the aircraft has extended surveillance capability which will help Pakistan Navy maintain requisite vigil in Pakistan’s vital area of interest in North Arabian Sea. The area regarded as an important trade and energy corridor for the global economy, is home to intense maritime activity both legal and illegal and thus warrants continuous guard.

Speaking at the induction ceremony, chief guest Vice Admiral M Zakaullah welcomed the addition of P3C aircraft which will significantly add to the combat potential of Pakistan Navy fleet. The ceremony was attended by a large number of serving and retired Pakistan Navy personnel.

AFP adds: The Pakistan Navy took delivery of two state-of-the-art, US-made surveillance aircraft nine months after militants destroyed two similar planes in an attack on Mehran base, officials said. The attack killed 10 personnel just three weeks after Osama bin Laden was killed in the garrison town of Abbottabad.

It is not even dressed up as these F-16s will be used in the fight against terror, hunt for OBL.

[rajanb]

Awwww...... OBL has a powerful navy, right?
The timing is suspect. Nato trucks cross into Afghanistan and two orions appear?

They desrve each other. The duplicity towards India, from both.

Sorry for the rant.

[K Mehta]

Jilani sahib who was in India for talks recently was expelled earlier

Jilani started off his interaction in India with a meeting with the Hurriyat leadership. In 2003, when Jilani was posted in Delhi as the deputy high commissioner, he was declared persona non-grata and expelled on charges of funneling money to Kashmiri activists.

older article

Does this have anything to do with the recent feud in the hurriet? Message from the master? Which leaders from valley met this guy? any link?

^rajanb thats an old article cited by manuT

[shiv]

I am sure you realize that Indians living in America are not a monolithic entity just as Indians living in India. So, please don't stereotype a whole group and dismiss them as you are doing right now. Please point out where I have called America *SUPERIOR* to India.

No you did not say that and in retrospect I realise that I erred in misreading the following statement made by you, but it did get my goat and I will explain that.

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.

I misread the "was" as "is".

What really irritated me was the statement that the complaints of a far weaker nation about the supply of free arms to Pakistan from a superpower is dismissed as "bellyaching". I think the superior-inferior paradigm was well recognized back in those "bellyaching" days. To me that typifies the attitude of a genre of people who did not give a damn. It illustrates perfectly the attitude of a bully which is typically explained away by supporters of American action as the prerogative of a superpower acting in its own interest.

I accept that, but memories of such treatment do not die easily, and it typifies the behavior of a bully to become all friendly and warm the minute he discovers that the other guy has some clout. Your post describes exactly that behavior. When India was weak, complaints were bellyaching. But now that it is stronger the US is more amenable to listen. And it is easy to anticipate how the behavior might well change again as circumstances change. That means India's attitudes also should change. From begging to kicking. Not friendship. This is exactly the time to start calling out that bully, finding out all the weaknesses he exposes in front of nations like Pakistan and get him to fall in line. That is the sort of attitude America understands.

[shyamoo]

In the last 100 years, US has had the follow success failure rate:
1. WW1 --> success
2. WW2 --> success
3. Korea --> Tie
4. Grenada --> success ( I know, but it still counts )
5. Vietnam --> loss
6. GW1 --> success ( It was the world against 1 country )
7. GW2 --> tie ( I do not consider this a success )
8. Afghanistan --> loss

Despite it's enormous resources and power, the overall success rate of the US is mediocre. This doesn't include the various other disasters that US had created through CIA ityadi ( South America, Iran etc. ).

Every decision that US makes is more or less a tactical one than a strategic one. There is no patience to implement solutions that would be beneficial in the long term.

It's all about the Military Industrial Complex and the Oil Industry. These tactical solutions help these two. They have enormous clout in Washinton. Step back and take a look at who is actually benefiting from this chaos. During the cold war, the USSR was used to justify spending trillions of dollars in research/development/purchase of the latest and greatest weapons. As long as there is instability and US is involved, the MICs will be open for business.

Tax payer dollars are sent to TSP --> TSP buys American stuff --> Dollars go back to MIC.
or
US pays for MIC equipment with tax payer money --> donates to TSP.

Apply the above logic to lobbying.
Money is sent to TSP --> TSP spends on lobbying --> lobbyists help out the politicians who initially sent out the money.

Added bonus: Destabilize the whole region and supply arms to all parties if possible.

[abhishek_sharma]

>> In the last 100 years, US has had the follow success failure rate:
1. WW1 --> success
2. WW2 --> success

The success in WW1 and WW2 should not be attributed to US. It was a multi-country effort. US entered the WW1 pretty late. In the WW2 too, US entered very late. Look at the sacrifices made by different countries in WW2.

However, one can give them "credit" for nuking two cities. As far as I know, Germany had already surrendered by that time.

[SBajwa]

Sir ji!!
Let me just remind everybody that

1. Telephone was created by Alexandar Graham Bell in 1885 and he granted the Bell System (original name of telephone) to a company called AT&T., AT&T had a monopoly over phone for almost 100 years.

2. AT&T was broken up into 19 different companies due to monopoly and its patents were declared public, since then we have had Internet, Personal Computer, Cell Phone and hundreds other innovations coming out of the breakup of AT&T.

And this very internet over which we argue was created by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) which is part of Department of Defense of USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA

[shyamoo]

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.

People who give such lectures are a dime a dozen, and some are close relatives of mine, whose lectures I have heard for decades. Oddly enough they all live in America. They belong to a genre of people who are basically saying "America, of which I know more than you, is superior. Accept it and adjust to it".

I can see exactly how Pakistanis "accept and adjust" to America and I have a good laugh and know exactly what to do about such advice.

Shiv saar,
What is it that you don't agree with in ArunK's statement? When I read it, it comes across as making sense and do not see anything remotely false ( at least the part that was quoted ). Do you think he is being patronizing?

[ArunK]

What really irritated me was the statement that the complaints of a far weaker nation about the supply of free arms to Pakistan from a superpower is dismissed as "bellyaching". I think the superior-inferior paradigm was well recognized back in those "bellyaching" days. To me that typifies the attitude of a genre of people who did not give a damn. It illustrates perfectly the attitude of a bully which is typically explained away by supporters of American action as the prerogative of a superpower acting in its own interest.

I have no dispute with anything you say. Cold War era America was arrogant and insufferable. This is not just my opinion but there are tons of Americans who believe the same about their country.

But the fact remains, that however unfair it may seem, respect and consideration will not be given as charity, it has to be earned. The actions taken by successive Indian Governments since PVNR in 92 have ensured that India not only can stand on its own feet and pull its weight but is also in a position to contribute to solutions for difficult geo-political problems -- Inida's rebuilding work in Afghanistan and Indian Navy anti-pirate operations are good examples.

I accept that, but memories of such treatment do not die easily, and it typifies the behavior of a bully to become all friendly and warm the minute he discovers that the other guy has some clout. Your post describes exactly that behavior. When India was weak, complaints were bellyaching. But now that it is stronger the US is more amenable to listen. And it is easy to anticipate how the behavior might well change again as circumstances change. That means India's attitudes also should change. From begging to kicking. Not friendship. This is exactly the time to start calling out that bully, finding out all the weaknesses he exposes in front of nations like Pakistan and get him to fall in line. That is the sort of attitude America understands.

I fully understand where you are coming from. And again I have no dispute with what you say. Once you recognize that you are dealing with a Bully. Calling out the Bully is just one of the options you have at your disposal. You will use it if you decide that that option best servers your purpose. Blowing smoke up his ass -- flattery -- is also another option. Sometimes you could achieve more that way. You will notice that the US will not hesitate to use the second option when it suits its purpose. The US believes judicious use of carrots and sticks policy. Believe you me, that policy can be used against them too. So, for example, this MMRCA deal was a perfect example. The US rudely woke up to the fact that India would just not keel over and hand them the contract. That was the stick. The C-17 purchase was the carrot. The end result is Boeing and the Pentagon will think twice before they try to palm off crap to India like they did to all their vassal states in the past. The proper response is to always appear reasonable and friendly regardless of how you are feeling inside. What action you take depends upon what is in your best interests. There is no sense in telegraphing your punches.