Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by shiv »

Muppalla wrote:
Very blunt and I am surprised that he came out and gave such a detailed interview.
Hey I know this man. Brajesh Mishra is a familiar name - like Richard Armitage - a blast from the past.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ic814 ... ve/479352/
Posted: Sunday , Jun 21, 2009 at 0406 hrs New Delhi:

Defending the handling of the IC-814 hijack case in 1999 by the then NDA Government, former National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra has said the only opportunity the Government missed was in preventing the aircraft from taking off from the Amritsar airport.
In an interview with Editor-in-Chief of The Indian Express Shekhar Gupta for NDTV 24x7’s Walk The Talk programme, the second part of which was telecast today, Mishra categorically denied that any ransom was paid to the hijackers and said he was absolutely sure that any other Government would also have decided to release the three terrorists in exchange for the hostage passengers.
Also from Mishraji, but OT for this thread
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 941081.cms
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Gerard »

shiv wrote:These are the very methods used by colonialists and later the US. And by Pakistan as per your statement. Jihad is the red herring here.
The British learned divide and rule (divide et impera) from the Romans
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by shiv »

vera_k wrote:I would not use as strong a word as "punishing" Pakistan. What India needs is the ability to carry out targetted strikes on the non-state actors in Pakistan while simultaneously deterring retaliatory strikes from the Pakistani state on India.
You are allowed to say this. Ask what our reaction on here would be if Manmohan Singh said

"We cannot punish all of Pakistan"
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by shiv »

Gerard wrote:
shiv wrote:These are the very methods used by colonialists and later the US. And by Pakistan as per your statement. Jihad is the red herring here.
The British learned divide and rule (divide et impera) from the Romans
Indeed. And if we put on our thinking caps, we could ask
1) Could India use this
2) Who needs to be divided from whom?
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Kanson »

Gerard wrote:
shiv wrote:These are the very methods used by colonialists and later the US. And by Pakistan as per your statement. Jihad is the red herring here.
The British learned divide and rule (divide et impera) from the Romans
Sir, it is the Normans which gave the English a practical lesson of divide and rule which they applied everywhere including India. The sameway how British treated India, Normans did to English.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Kanson »

Indeed. And if we put on our thinking caps, we could ask
1) Could India use this
2) Who needs to be divided from whom?
Isnt the Indian(Politicians) already using it ? :)

Ofcourse we had Bangladesh, maybe if we show our ingenunity little more there could be more desh like Sindudesh...
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4454
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by vera_k »

shiv wrote:You are allowed to say this. Ask what our reaction on here would be if Manmohan Singh said

"We cannot punish all of Pakistan"
Wouldn't the reaction depend on the type of action being proposed? But maybe Manmohan Singh is being Chankyian to allow rage to build up until it boils over so all of Pakistan is punished :idea: Col Prohat vs. Maj Gen Gool would be a good matchup.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by abhishek_sharma »

India will kill talks if Pakistan grandstands

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/Articl ... 013&mode=1
Vivek_A
BRFite
Posts: 593
Joined: 17 Nov 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Vivek_A »

Brajesh Mishra is a hawk?

more like a peacock...
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by JwalaMukhi »

shiv wrote: So India must not align with the US and India must fight and punish Pakistan. The US on its part is supporting the very entity that is totally anti-India and most dangerous to India - the Paki army and the Paki army in turn maintains and funds the jihadi groups. And the US is still splitting hairs about which jihadis can survive.
Under the circumstances would it not be right to say that fighting Pakistan is a bogey? A red herring. By fighting Pakistan - India is fighting a US stooge and the US gains as India expends itself. However we also say that by not fighting Pakistan we are kowtowing to the US. A classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don't for India.
Hey I know this man. Brajesh Mishra is a familiar name - like Richard Armitage - a blast from the past.
Shivji, while agreeing to well made arguments, the problem may be more of simple apathy and avarice, which would lead to incompetency.

It may be a classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don't for not India, but for Indian establishment aka power structure. Because Brajesh Mishra when he was within the establishment was singing a different tune, versus when he is out of the establishment. This could illustrate accurately the severity of the gap between Indians and the establishment in India. The ones in the establishment would like to continue the status quo as to not threaten the cozyiness accorded by the establishment.
But for the denizen becoming a victim, he would rather go down while fighting, then just getting squashed like a fly.
Basic apathy and avarice of the establishment is couched and spun in sophisticated manner as fear and helplessness about the situation to the denizen.
While the establishment is content with apathy and struggling to explain away, the press is on overdrive with antipathy towards the plight of citizens.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by shiv »

JwalaMukhi wrote: It may be a classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don't for not India, but for Indian establishment aka power structure. Because Brajesh Mishra when he was within the establishment was singing a different tune, versus when he is out of the establishment. This could illustrate accurately the severity of the gap between Indians and the establishment in India.
What you are saying here is that India has an "establishment" that is separate from the Indian people. In effect, the Indian people have no say in the views of the establishment.

Two questions arise from this

1) in what way does India differ from Pakistan which also has an establishment that is not answerable to the people

2) Isn't it India's democratic set up that is a failure, as much as that in Pakistan in allowing a ruling elite out of touch with the people's will?

In fact what you are saying is exactly what the Pakistanis are saying about India.
Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7115
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Muppalla »

abhishek_sharma wrote:What the capture of Mullah Baradar says about Pakistan's intentions

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2 ... intentions
More recently, Pakistani intelligence officers have helped Afghan Taliban commanders outwit their American adversaries, even as ISI benefited from American material support. Indeed, Mullah Baradar was previously captured by Afghan forces in November 2001 -- then released after ISI intervention, according to the New York Times.

What has changed the Pakistani military leadership's calculus to the point that ISI has now helped capture the Afghan Taliban's No. 2 leader? The optimist's answer is, in a word, the Pakistani Taliban. Pakistan sponsored the Taliban when it was a vehicle for Pakistani influence in Afghanistan's Pashtun heartland. But the spillover from the Taliban's resurgence next door helped create a monster in the form of the Pakistani Taliban, whose suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks increasingly have targeted the institutions of the Pakistani state and its supreme defender: the Pakistani armed forces.

In this reading, the encouragement provided to the Pakistani Taliban by the successes of the Afghan Taliban has changed Pakistani military leaders' calculations about the strategic advantage they gain from their Afghan alliance. The Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan has emboldened a Pakistani Taliban that wants to weaken and overthrow the Pakistani state and the privileged position of the Pakistani armed forces within it. This logic, and intensified American pressure on Pakistan's military high command, has led it to cooperate with the Americans against the Afghan Taliban leadership in a hitherto unprecedented way.
As per the CBS radio report today, there are certain suspicions that this fellow may not be allowed to be interoggated by US independently. He has too many skeletons in his cupboard that ISI angle with Taliban will be open in the market if this fellow goes to US control.
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Airavat »

shiv wrote:
Airavat wrote: Funding different groups and families, encouraging tribes to fight each other, has been the traditional Pakistani strategy to keep the Pashtuns down.
These are the very methods used by colonialists and later the US. And by Pakistan as per your statement. Jihad is the red herring here.
Promoting jihad and encouraging tribal/family fights is a Pakistani specialty. Before that the Mughals also followed the same methods: Aurangzeb in the 1671-74 Pashtun uprising used the metaphor "breaking two bones by knocking them together." And the Pakis consider themselves to be inheritors of the mughals.

The British did modernize the Pashtuns, and if a tribal state had been formed in 1947 instead of Pakistan, it would have been better for the Pashtuns. Jihad and tribalism, introduced by the Pakis, would not have become the international menace it is today.
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by JwalaMukhi »

shiv wrote: What you are saying here is that India has an "establishment" that is separate from the Indian people. In effect, the Indian people have no say in the views of the establishment.
While Indians have had say and consider that establishment as part of them; the reciprocity from the establishment is not seen. The apathy shown towards the situations by the establishment has painfully conveyed the separateness.
Two questions arise from this

1) in what way does India differ from Pakistan
2) Isn't it India's democratic set up that is a failure, as much as that in Pakistan in allowing a ruling elite out of touch with the people's will?
On a lighter vein, isn't what Aman ki Tamasha is all about. To consider pakistan as part of India and reduce the difference between Indians and pakis, the end goal. If you can't beat them, join them.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4263
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Rudradev »

Making this debate about Brajesh Mishra (who hasn't been in government for 6 years) is only to be expected from those truly desperate to distract us from yet another sellout being perpetrated by the Maino-Manmohan cabal.

As far as subverting our national interest to America's priorities: India may have been an inexpensive country during the NDA regime, but there's no doubt we're a Free country now!

So it's time for 1.1 billion crash test dummies to... what was the phrase? "Fasten our seatbelts". And each of us hope that our loved ones won't be bearing the burden of the Maino-Manmohan cabal's "proof of concept"... tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after that...

However,
India will kill talks if Pakistan grandstands

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/Articl ... 013&mode=1
Looks like the Maino-Manmohan cabal is strapping on its skis for a possible quick downhill run, should there be more attacks before the foreign secretaries' meeting. There are some things even more compelling, after all, than Manmohan Singh's irrepressible desire to thank the British, please the Americans, make peace with the Pakistanis and give Muslims the first right to India's resources.

Ironically, only the religious commitment of the cabal to ensuring Rahul Baba's ascension may stand between India and total disaster. For now.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Sanku »

shiv wrote: I believe we need to start looking at realistic options for India given that
Shiv ji; lot of piskological rhetoric and pushing of buttons. (trying to shift the fire on forumites and other Indians life choices which are completely unrelated to the matter at hand for one :lol: )

The Pakistani issue is not about the US -- I repeat NOT about the US.

The US did not ask the Paki's to rape main and kill using Jehadi's in 47 (unless you can pull out some new declassified picture)

The US did not ask Paki's to stage direct action day.

The US did not pull Pakistani oats out of fire in Tashkent.

The US used Pakistan for their ends when Pakistanis showed themselves amenable for it and capable -- meanwhile India stood back and ALLOWED it to happen, the direct action day, the ceasefire in 47 the disaster at Tashkent etc were Indian failures.

We failed ourselves by not being strong enough -- we forget "veer boghya vasundhara"

We dont need to take on the US, we just need to show them that they are backing the wrong horse in their games, defeating Pakistan is enough and can be done to let US get a reality check.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Satya_anveshi »

I read that "seat belts" piece again and thinking what made the dilli billis go apeshite.

What is one single act of terror that will guarantee another parkalam?

Pune - you can have 100s of them, dilli won't move.
I dare say few mumbais too won't make them move
attack on military installations - it's daily business - no soup
attack on scientific establishment - that too was done in bangalore - again..no luck
May be a big one on scientific establishment - don't know, big question mark, definitely no certainty

The only type of attack that will certainly lead to mobilization is an attack on parliament. Bingo, their collective ashes were on fire. that will be true alibi from pak perspective and a definite reason to get some folks get off the $hitpot.

so, I think the next target is dilli and attack on H&D internationally.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by CRamS »

While I am not agreeing 100% or disagreeing 100% with Brijesh Mishra; but lets get some perspective on his comments. Soon after 26/11 he was all over on TV, castigating UPA govt, and even daring Abhiskek Singvi to inaction and see if they will ge re-lected. What happened, MMS supplied tons of dossiers, TSP made a chutiya out of India, and yet MMS came back with a resounding verdict. So Mishra may well be exaggarating India's inabilities to take on TSP. But after reading his views pretty much declaring our impotence, I am feeling despondent despite the win at Eden Gardens :-). But on balance, RudraJi is right on the money. What a shame that a country 1/7th our size and cesspool of Jihadi pigs is giving us such nightmares.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by abhishek_sharma »

In Pakistan Raid, Taliban Chief Was an Extra Prize

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/world ... intel.html
When Pakistani security officers raided a house outside Karachi in late January, they had no idea that they had just made their most important capture in years.

American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications saying militants with a possible link to the Afghan Taliban’s top military commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, were meeting. Tipped off by the Americans, Pakistani counterterrorist officers took several men into custody, meeting no resistance.

Only after a careful process of identification did Pakistani and American officials realize they had captured Mullah Baradar himself, the man who had long overseen the Taliban insurgency against American, NATO and Afghan troops in Afghanistan.

New details of the raid indicate that the arrest of the No. 2 Taliban leader was not necessarily the result of a new determination by Pakistan to go after the Taliban, or a bid to improve its strategic position in the region.

Rather, it may be something more prosaic: “a lucky accident,” as one American official called it.

...


Jostling over the prize began as soon as Mullah Baradar was identified. Officials with the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s military spy agency, limited American access to Mullah Baradar, not permitting direct questioning by Central Intelligence Agency officers until about two weeks after the raid, according to American officials who discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity.

The Pakistanis are an independent partner, and sometimes they show it,” said one American official briefed on the matter. “We don’t always love what they do, but if it weren’t for them, Mullah Baradar and a lot of other terrorists would still be walking around killing people.”

Bruce Riedel, an expert on Afghanistan at the Brookings Institution, who advised the Obama administration on Afghan policy early last year, said the tensions surrounding Mullah Baradar were inevitable. “The Pakistanis have a delicate problem with Baradar,” Mr. Riedel said. “If I were in their shoes, I’d be worried that he might reveal something embarrassing about relations between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani government or Inter-Services Intelligence.”

...


Mullah Baradar is talking a little, though he is viewed as a formidable, hard-line opponent whose interrogation will be a long-term effort, according to American and Pakistani officials.

Despite the tensions, interviews with Pakistani military and intelligence officials suggested that the Taliban leader’s capture could alter Pakistan’s calculus about the volatile region.

Taking him off the battlefield, and exploiting the information he might provide, could deal a blow to the Taliban’s military capacity. In the long run, in any discussions of the future governance of Afghanistan, Mullah Baradar could become a bargaining chip and, conceivably, a negotiator.

...


“I believe the Pakistanis have finally concluded that the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan Taliban were cooperating against them in Waziristan and elsewhere,” Mr. Riedel said, referring to links among various militant groups in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

An Obama administration official sounded a more cautious note about the recent arrests. “All this is not necessarily related to a rational decision at the top of the Pakistani military to see things our way,” the official said. “I don’t see any big shift yet.”

...

Alex Strick van Linschoten, a Dutch researcher who has lived for several years in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan, said Taliban representatives reacted with fury to Mullah Baradar’s arrest and were unlikely to be amenable to political approaches any time soon.

...
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60255
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by ramana »

CS, In 193 SB Chavan, the MHA at that time said its not TSP but its backers that prevent India from retaliating. The same is true even now.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4263
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Rudradev »

shiv wrote:
Gerard wrote:
The British learned divide and rule (divide et impera) from the Romans
Indeed. And if we put on our thinking caps, we could ask
1) Could India use this
2) Who needs to be divided from whom?
The Americans who want to support Pakistan at all costs need to be divided from the Americans who are realistic enough to perceive a greater benefit from ditching Pakistan in favor of India.

We cannot gain anything by dividing Pakistanis from Pakistanis, because the only Pakistanis who have any say in what Pakistan does is the Pakistan Army... who will never, ever cease hostility with India regardless of what inducements may be offered. If there is any Pakistani constituency that wants to end hostility with India, the Pakistan Army and its million proxies will quash them as soon as they speak up. Aman ki Asha is doomed to fail as any sort of divisive exercise here.

We may be able to gain something by dividing Pakhtun groups (including segments of what are known as the Taliban), and encouraging those who want to take revenge on Pakistan. Given the perceived betrayal of the Pakistanis arresting Mullah Baradar this is a good time to pursue that angle. But neither Aman ki Asha, nor doing whatever America asks, will gain us any traction with the anti-Pakistan Pakhtun groups.

As for dividing the Americans (and yes, given the indecisive nature of the Obama administration it is certainly possible)... we need to understand that this cannot be achieved merely by doing whatever America asks. If we do whatever America asks then the faction of Americans who want to support Pakistan at any cost will continue to support Pakistan; and the faction who may have been induced to ditch Pakistan has no incentive to ditch Pakistan, because we are doing everything that is asked of us anyway.

If we want to divide the Americans we need to have levers. We need to behave in ways that they may find at least indirectly threatening to their interests... then, we have a lever in offering to change our behaviour to suit their interests, always incrementally, and always in exchange for something.

We also need to make Pakistan less useful to America by influencing Pakistan to behave in ways directly threatening to US interests.

The best outcome is where India is not cooperating with the US very much, and Pakistan is not cooperating with the US at all.

If India is cooperating and Pakistan is cooperating, the US will back Pakistan as they always have.

If India is cooperating and Pakistan is not cooperating, as we have seen, the US will take India's cooperation for granted and try to bribe Pakistan (with weapons, money etc.) to cooperate.

If India is not cooperating and Pakistan is cooperating, it becomes a sticky, untenable situation for Pakistan because many in Pakistan hate the US and do not want to cooperate with it. Musharraf had to beg his people (including the elite ruling class and TSPA top brass) to go along with his plan to cooperate with America after 9/11, by arguing that if Pakistan didn't cooperate India would. However, if India is not cooperating this argument will not hold. In effect, we end up creating divisions within Pakistan more effectively than through any Aman ki Asha!

But if India is not cooperating and Pakistan is not cooperating, the constituency of Americans who would consider "ditching Pakistan" gains more of a voice than those who want to support Pakistan at any cost. This is because the US is faced with an intractable situation... no one cooperating... and they have to step back and assess things realistically rather than revert to formulae.

Right now we are cooperating with the US to a ridiculous extent... one that can be calculated in Indian lives being lost to Pakistani terrorism as we refuse to impose any sort of cost on Pakistan for supporting terrorism.

Which is no answer at all.
Last edited by Rudradev on 19 Feb 2010 11:02, edited 2 times in total.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10205
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by sum »

The only type of attack that will certainly lead to mobilization is an attack on parliament. Bingo, their collective ashes were on fire. that will be true alibi from pak perspective and a definite reason to get some folks get off the $hitpot.
I refuse to believe that our present govt will go "ApeShit" even if Parliament is hit.

Maybe the only hope is a attack on 10 Janpath ( though we might might lose a few SPG guys and nothing more)
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4454
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by vera_k »

Obama warning forced Pak to go after Afghan Taliban
A blunt warning sent by US President Barack Obama in November 2009, prompted Pakistan to go after the Afghan Taliban leadership, and is being cited as the turning point in the strategic relationship between the two countries.

According to the Washington Post, Obama's letter was hand-delivered by US National Security Adviser James L Jones. Obama offered Pakistan military and economic aid and also offered to help ease tensions with India
Original Washington Post article
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Philip »

Satya's post about the phony asrrest is intriguing.It is a mere ploy to confuse world opinion that Pak is "on board",a tacttic used when the accused in the 26/11 outrage were similarly "arrsted".
Pakistan’s actions however, are driven by vastly more complex motives. Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist and expert in Taliban matters said about Baradar, “His whereabouts, I think, were extremely well-known to the Pakistanis for a long time.” His opinion is supported by many others like Abdullah Abdullah, former Afghan presidential candidate, who said, “When I was foreign minister (2002-2006) we would provide our Pakistani counterparts with the names of Taliban leadership and details of their activities. But the Pakistanis would joke that these were common names, and they needed even more specifics from us. Of course it was a deception.”
That Obama is also going to gift to Pak more military and financial aid should be a red flag to the GOI which is merrily going along wanting to sign deals buying US military eqpt. which will benefit US manufacturers who are closing down these very production lines for the weaponry India is being seduced into buying (C-17s,F-18SHs,F-16s).
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by shiv »

Rudradev wrote:
Right now we are cooperating with the US to a ridiculous extent... one that can be calculated in Indian lives being lost to Pakistani terrorism as we refuse to impose any sort of cost on Pakistan for supporting terrorism.

Which is no answer at all.
Interesting post. But you state that India's attitude to the US and the way India responds or does not respond to the US is a key factor in dealing with Pakistan.
This is what I have been trying to say, with some differences. The US is in it and is a key player and the US's involvement in Pakistan demands a certain type of behavior from India. You have your views on what that behavior required by India might be and others (including myself) may have other views. But the fact of the US forcing a modification of Indian behavior and causing debate among Indians (such as this one) about exactly what is India's best bet is an unavoidable and unpleasant reality.

Let me phrase my view slightly differently. No matter how we treat Pakistan, our handling of US involvement is the key game-changing aspect. Neither Aman ki Asha nor war with Pakistan will change the fact that the US will force events in the direction which suits US needs. And this in fact is borne out by history. Neither wars, nor talks, nor dying Indians has changed the way in which the US uses and arms the Pakistani army.

The US in short holds the key.

Now how do we wrest that key from the US without dealing with the US or being able to modify how the US sees the issue? The TSP thread is inextricably linked to the Indo-US thread.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10205
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by sum »

According to the Washington Post, Obama's letter was hand-delivered by US National Security Adviser James L Jones. Obama offered Pakistan military and economic aid and also offered to help ease tensions with India
Uh,oh....Bad times ahead.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by harbans »

"Pakistan has accomplished two objectives," remarked Lt Col Tony Shaffer, who served as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan in 2003, and is now at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies in Washington.

"They've shown us in the West they're willing to co-operate and they've taken out someone they didn't control."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/8521823.stm

Confirming what we suspected on day 1 of the arrest. Expect more of the Barader faithful and independent group to come under arrest in exchange for Paki dominating talks on Afghanistan. Paki's just don't get it, that Afghanistan has a right to it's independence. Airavat ji's views seem perfectly in synch when he says that it was the Paki's that have sustained Jihad in Afghanistan much before the 80's. Paki's never wanted Afghanistan to be independent and the resultant Soviet invasion in Afghanistan had much to do with Paki's jihadizing the region and CAR states that time a part of the USSR.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Sanku »

shiv wrote: Now how do we wrest that key from the US without dealing with the US or being able to modify how the US sees the issue? The TSP thread is inextricably linked to the Indo-US thread.
I do not know if any amongst Indians do not think that US (as the new leader of the anglo-saxon ummah) is inextricably linked to Pakistan.

In the same way as we have Indo-Pak hyphenation for US, we have US-Pak hyphenation from Indian perspective.

However if you notice the overlap in both cases is Pak, since it exists, it will be used, if there is no Pak there is no hyphenation.

That is the root cause and way forward -- the problem in Palassey was not that Brits were around, it was Mir Jaffer.

Indian issue have always been due to "civil wars" or "brothers fighting", Indo-Pak issue is a unfinished Civil war, which lets others meddle.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by shiv »

Sanku wrote:
Indian issue have always been due to "civil wars" or "brothers fighting", Indo-Pak issue is a unfinished Civil war, which lets others meddle.
If my aunt had a d*** she would have been my uncle.

If there were no "others" they would not meddle.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25374
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by SSridhar »

Anti-Pakistan sentiment is a cause for concern on visiting India: Pak Hockey Management
Most of the other competing teams of the World Cup in New Delhi are having second thoughts about featuring in the 12-nation spectacle because of an Al-Qaeda warning but for Pakistan it is what a top hockey official described as the prevailing “anti-Pakistan” sentiment in India that is a big cause for concern.

Pakistan Hockey Federation (PHF) is awaiting the outcome of a security briefing in New Delhi on Friday (today) before sending its team to the other side of the border for the World Cup to be held from February 28 to March 13.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Sanku »

shiv wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Indian issue have always been due to "civil wars" or "brothers fighting", Indo-Pak issue is a unfinished Civil war, which lets others meddle.
If my aunt had a d*** she would have been my uncle.

If there were no "others" they would not meddle.
Oh but if you cant handle your next door neighbor yourself well in time, crying about the fact that he is inviting guests from afar in his home is pointless.

Solve the closer problem, that will be easier than ascribing all sorts of extraneous issues if then else and getting into analysis paralysis.

Hit Pakistan hard and keep them unsettled to an extent that they are not in a position to be useful to anyone, its as simple as that.

Nothing more nothing less -- we need a Kargil, Parakram, etc etc type things every once in a while (till we are in position to solve the problem for ever)

Anyway whats you solution, if any?
RamaP
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 08 Dec 2009 13:54

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by RamaP »

The problem is that applying subtle chanakian styled political strategies won't satisfy the blood thirst of TSP. Imagine if USA had decided to "engage" Imperial Japan during world war 2 by starting people to people contacts while simultaneously continuing low intensity conflicts in Pacific, Japan probably would have continued its "martial" behavior for a very long time in the future. It took two atomic explosions and some very intense battles on several fronts to make Japan realize the costs of war as well as peace. Even after the war, Uncle ensured a pacifist constitution for Japan in order to ensure their nice behavior in the future. TSP,especially TSPA, is in a similar quest for gruesome bloodbath against India. The occasional (or frequent) IED mubaraks in India pleases TSPA, at least temporarily. Unless, the costs for such violence is imposed upon TSPA decisively, all the collective chanakian strategies and occasional day dreams about beautiful lanes of Lahore will bring zilch results.

Overall, we cannot go on such adventures unless our own house is set in order. Primarily, it can be deduced that the lack of leadership is hurting this country the most. All the fitting replies, that needs to be given to our adversaries ,has to be decided first by our policymakers. The importance of good leaders can be judged from a single nation : Russia. When the drink loving Yeltsin was the president of Russia, the nation was in dire straits. From massive corruption to internal rebellion in Chechnya, Russia was losing battle on many fronts. However, things have changed a lot since the arrival of Putin.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14772
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Aditya_V »

Satya_anveshi -> In your analysis you have left out 3 main instituions that all terrorists attacks have avoided in India in the last 25 years. They have even attacked the Parliment. The 3 are

1) Media Outlets
2) Bollywood interests, threaters, dramas etc
3) Left leaning intitutions and NGO's or political parties having a favourable view of thier activities.

This because the moment they attack people who control Mass media in India, TSP knows thier arse will be on fire because the only core constituency which they have in India will be badly damaged
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by amit »

Hit Pakistan hard and keep them unsettled to an extent that they are not in a position to be useful to anyone, its as simple as that.
This is an admirable suggestion and if it can be implemented would solve most of our terror problems.

However, no Indian government seems to have figured out how to "hit Pakistan hard and keep them unsettled" while keeping things under the threshold of a full fledged war.

I guess our political class just don't understand things which are so simple. Maybe that's the reason every PM gets bitten by the bug to talk to the Pakis.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Pranav »

Sanku wrote: Hit Pakistan hard and keep them unsettled to an extent that they are not in a position to be useful to anyone, its as simple as that.
That won't work. Will quickly lead to a nuke ==, and provide lots of opportunities for outsiders to get involved.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by amit »

RamaP wrote:The problem is that applying subtle chanakian styled political strategies won't satisfy the blood thirst of TSP. Imagine if USA had decided to "engage" Imperial Japan during world war 2 by starting people to people contacts while simultaneously continuing low intensity conflicts in Pacific, Japan probably would have continued its "martial" behavior for a very long time in the future. It took two atomic explosions and some very intense battles on several fronts to make Japan realize the costs of war as well as peace. Even after the war, Uncle ensured a pacifist constitution for Japan in order to ensure their nice behavior in the future. TSP,especially TSPA, is in a similar quest for gruesome bloodbath against India. The occasional (or frequent) IED mubaraks in India pleases TSPA, at least temporarily. Unless, the costs for such violence is imposed upon TSPA decisively, all the collective chanakian strategies and occasional day dreams about beautiful lanes of Lahore will bring zilch results.

Overall, we cannot go on such adventures unless our own house is set in order. Primarily, it can be deduced that the lack of leadership is hurting this country the most. All the fitting replies, that needs to be given to our adversaries ,has to be decided first by our policymakers. The importance of good leaders can be judged from a single nation : Russia. When the drink loving Yeltsin was the president of Russia, the nation was in dire straits. From massive corruption to internal rebellion in Chechnya, Russia was losing battle on many fronts. However, things have changed a lot since the arrival of Putin.
RamaP,

While I agree with you that civilised (I would go easy on the use of Chanakian) political discourse is wasted on Pakistan which only understands the language of a street thug, I don't think your example of the US and Japan is apt.

US was very reluctant to get involved in the World War as it was busy making a lot of money by selling arms to the desperate Allies. It took a stupid decision by the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour to get the US into the war. Once in it, the US was ruthless, undoubtedly. But if you look at it the Pakis have always goaded India into wars and even though India is reluctant to fight - that is start a conflict - once one is underway, each time it has given the Pakis a whalloping, the last one resulting in half the country splitting.

I think what would work is a huge level of covert activities within Pakistan. Anecdotal evidence is that Benazir agreed to stop funding the Khalistanis because of precisely this reason. Thanks to Shri Inder Kumar Gujral we lost that capability and if I remember correctly many of our operatives inside Pakistan lost their lives because of this stupid big brother bug that bit Gujral.

I don't know if we've managed to rebuild this capability - such things would never be in public domain. But common sense seems to say that with so many US and Nato operatives inside Pakiland, it would result in less space for our own operatives to work. I guess in that way we are stymied.

So what's the best course of action? I really don't know and to be frank I'm yet to come across a plan/proposal on these threads that looks as if can work and is doable. We are hearing a lot of we need to be tough, we need to beat the crap out of them etc but we're a little short on the details.

However, having said that, I don't think talking to the buggers is a solution either unless it's to keep them (and the US) engaged while something else is being done. We - at least I - really don't know what are the imperatives which made the UPA Govt suddenly decide on talks, do we? I'm discounting all the conspiracy theories for the time being, to me they are entertaining reads but apart from that they have little value.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote:
Hit Pakistan hard and keep them unsettled to an extent that they are not in a position to be useful to anyone, its as simple as that.
This is an admirable suggestion and if it can be implemented would solve most of our terror problems.

However, no Indian government seems to have figured out how to "hit Pakistan hard and keep them unsettled" while keeping things under the threshold of a full fledged war.

I guess our political class just don't understand things which are so simple. Maybe that's the reason every PM gets bitten by the bug to talk to the Pakis.
Let me see?

Did LBS ask IA to go easy on Pak? Nopes

Did IG hit the Pakis? Check

Did RG make the Pakis shiver their chaddis? Check

Did ABV let them know what olive green looks like? Ya

Guess who is missing from the list? PVNR and MMS?

About Shri PVNR we know that he was handed a mess, with Yelstin in Moscow, Soviet Union down the tube, A burning Valley post the Rubiya sellout a barely pacified Punjab, a nearly bankrupt GoI etc etc

And what does Shri MMS have to say in his defence? He got a economy put back on the rails, a post Parakram pacified valley, no Naxalism, no major Internal security issues etc etc.

Pliss be telling "every PM did the same thing" somewhere else thank you very much.
Last edited by Sanku on 19 Feb 2010 16:35, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Sanku »

Pranav wrote:
Sanku wrote: Hit Pakistan hard and keep them unsettled to an extent that they are not in a position to be useful to anyone, its as simple as that.
That won't work. Will quickly lead to a nuke ==, and provide lots of opportunities for outsiders to get involved.
No it will not. Rest assured if TSPA could do better than the sneaky terror route they would. They are doing the terror routine because they are too scared to try something else.

They will do more only if we do nothing; like right now, making them bolder.

The neighborhood stray needs kicking at regular interval.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14772
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Post by Aditya_V »

Sanku-> Please tell me how hitting Pakistan will help when a sizeable portion of our Mass Media is proPakistan. They would definately leak any plans of attack beforehand and in any attack by India would paint the Indian Armed forces as the villian. In such a situation unless we care take of the mass media in the country all action against Pakistan is a lose lose scenario.
Locked