Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 2011

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Dec 2011 14:08

Surya wrote:No enemies - no friends - sankuji (exception of the turds from the west)

in the best traditions of chankian

I can criticize him on JSF while accepting his findings on Arjun

Sir-ji, true but, "Jo Lahore mein G***** who NY mein bhee G*****"

sum · Post by **sum** » 02 Dec 2011 14:08

^^ PAW....

Hilarious.

If the Ghazi PAF F-16 pilot even attempts to board the plane when Unkil is in action in TSP-land, doubt it he would be able to even start it. Might have to resort to SDRE scooter starting ( tilting to one side) to even get the plane started, IMO.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 02 Dec 2011 14:21

partha wrote: Even if they want to use their F16s, they won't be able to use them because of the IFF right?

You need "balls" to think of attacking NATO. Pakistanis have none. Period

member_20617 · Post by **member_20617** » 02 Dec 2011 14:33

shiv wrote:
Raja Bose wrote:We need a BRF acronym/term for the Paki white flag flying over the Paki Army post pest-e-shaheedized by NATO AC-130s. It is after all the Ultimate Towel.
That was a white towel wasn't it? Not a flag as such. Someone archive that picture.

Shiv
I read this joke somewhere - may be on BR

''How do you recognize a Paki flag in a war?
It's white!''

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 02 Dec 2011 14:43

OOO boy!!! Gen Kiyani wants to hit back at NATO... this will be very very interesting.

Also shows how nervous Gen Sahab is. He is issuing this order in press. Look at his choice of words... " there should be no ambiguity"... "no clearance needed from any level". This is more to keep the Ghazi force happy... but I bet he will soon regret he said that...

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 02 Dec 2011 14:47

Al-keeda holding American hostage - In Pakbaric animalistan...hope this reaches all small town American newspapers..is the Al-Q HQ same as ISI HQ?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 6212647605

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 02 Dec 2011 14:58

From the video releases, BRFites like rohitvats and other have identified that the attacked posts were good enough for 10 people. Now, we have 28 porkis dead near the posts. What were 28+ porkis doing there at that time? No video of dead and the attack scene? Dead included senior military officials, What I think is it could be an infiltration bid to do some hit job in guise of Taliban. After the attack, James Jones warns porkis of any terrorist attack in India. The question is why would he warn after the attack? He or some other US official had many occasions to warn porkis in the past as they were/are at it(harming India) 24/7, 365 days? My gut feeling is, 28+ ppl manning and roaming near small posts was an infiltration bid to do a hit job in Afghanistan in the guise of Taliban and the target was an Indian asset. See, India too remained silent on the attack incident, I mean pin drop silent . The attack was preplanned and I think the intel has reached the right people in right time.

And the news articles that came after the attack like boycott bonn, WH request, Paki's nod to attack is all hubris and media war IMO.

I could be wrong but this is what I feel.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Dec 2011 15:22

SSridhar wrote:
Kamran Shafi says that the rest of the world should distinguish between the Deep State and the population. He asks others, therefore, not to say that Pakistan should be condemned for terrorism. It is only the Deep State. This is disingenuous to the core. Along similar lines, we should say NATO AC-130s & apaches did not attack Pakistan but the Deep State only. What cr@p ?

Kamoron Shafi contradicts himself. First he says "Don't say Pakistan did this or did that. Say the deep state did all his because the rest of the Pakis in shitland are religion of peacniks". Then he complains that people are saying contradicting things about what happened in the NATO attack and demands that everyone should speak with one voice. But tell me, if the country itself has more than one voice - a "deep state" and the others, and he demands that people should recognise that, how can he in the very next breath ask that only one story be released about what transpired at the border.

That guy to his right was an utter bore. And to the extreme left - the guy called Eli something was also saying some funny stuff. He was saying that the US's Pakistan policy was to deal with some factions of the deep state and not with other factions of the deep state and not with other Packees WTF? Everyone is agreed that Pakistan is not in one piece. Why is everyone trying to act as if it is.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Dec 2011 15:25

Prem wrote:Another Tiger Niazi ,Abb ki Baar maar ke dekh ad infinitum
Troops free to hit back in future: Kayani
ISLAMABAD: Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani upped the ante in the standoff with the United States by telling his troops on Thursday that aggressors would not be able to evade a crushing retaliation in future. Where he vowed to respond to any future ‘aggression’ by United States and Nato troops based in Afghanistan with ‘full force’ regardless of its consequences, he also permitted the troops to respond to any attack without waiting for directions from the command.“Be assured that we will not let the aggressor walk away easily,” the army chief said in a message for the troops and added that he had “clearly directed that any act of aggression will be responded with full force, regardless of the cost and consequences”.The message, text of which was shared with Dawn by a source and confirmed by an ISPR official, was specially drafted to deal with the gloom in the ranks after Saturday’s Nato air strikes on border posts.Paying tributes to the 24 soldiers who were killed in the incident, Gen Kayani said he was proud of his men who responded with all resources at their disposal, including artillery. “We all salute the courage displayed by brave officers and men of 7 AK Regiment.”He believed that the attack could have been retaliated effectively had the communications network not broken down. “Timely decision could not be taken due to breakdown of communication with the affected posts and therefore lack of clarity of situation at various levels, including corps HQ and GHQ.”Gen Kayani further clarified that the troops could respond on their own, when attacked, without waiting for orders from the command. “I have full trust in your capabilities and resolve,” he stressed.The morale-boosting message, however, pointed to a rethink in the military command about the role of ldiers posted on the border with Afghanistan, where they have been assigned to fight militants instead of dealing with border security.The troops are, therefore, given weapons relevant to the task they are expected to perform. But, the latest attack has forced a rethink of the strategy with the focus shifting from fighting militants to ensuring security of the border

Bullshit.

Pakis fired first. Where was the question of "retaliation"? Kiyanahi has to say all this. I betcha morale of the shitistani army is in the drain.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 02 Dec 2011 15:26

Hit back?? Then get wiped out completely

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 02 Dec 2011 15:28

This is to compare and contrast the toughness of Al Qaida vs PakArmy... instigating the latter, therefore, to harden their positions or to not resile from positions already taken... That's the reason for the timing no doubt.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Dec 2011 15:29

Don't underestimate the viciousness the of the Paki in uniform.Zia had the eyes of a snake,Gen.Mush-a-rat,th face and whiskers of a bandicoot and Gen.Kill-any,the eye of the vulture.He is apatient bird,waiting and watching.He will extract revenge against the US/NATO if given enough time.It would be far better for the US to disgrace and depose him.Senior US veterans of the Afghan War have said that there is simply no way that the terrorists under the ISI could operate without the Vulture's knowledge.He was earlier the ISI chief.Therefore,it is easy for the US/West to denounce him,impose personal sanctions against him,restrict his international travel,foist charges againt him for trial at the Hague on charges of terrorism,inhuman rights,etc.,etc.

The time has come and not too soon,to "lop off the heads" of the reptilian monsters that rule Pak.The shadowy figures of military and ex-military men and babus,steepd in hatred of India and the democratic west,haveto go if Pak is to be saved...that is IF the US/West want Pak saved.Surelyy they can see now that Pak is a lost cause? Can anyone guarantee that even if Pak is return to civilian rule,the inroads that religious extremism has made has permeated and nauseated every institution? It will take an entire new generation of Pakis,who learn not in madrasas,but in schools in a nation free of every vice that has corrupted and poisoned its society today.The absurdity of Pak is visible in its fashion concious diplomats,even a foreign minister,who flaunt their designer handbags that cost as much as it would to feed a whole village for a year,while millions of its people are still refugees from two years of diastrous floods ,as its military rulers instead of allevaiting the suffefering of ordinary Pakis,ramp up the production of nuclear weapons to be used against whom?

Past time to pull the plug on Pak.It can be done effortlesly without the use of force too,by simply cutting off all military and economic aid.Pak will then simply imlplode.The mere threat of this course of action will immediately usher in a new colour of uniform of the Paki high command,like the red stripe that distinguished German generals in WW2,the paki general staff will have "streaks" not stripes of various shades of brown down their trousers!

sum · Post by **sum** » 02 Dec 2011 15:31

A report of C.Fair's public oral r**e of TSP:

Pak meets criteria to be called state that sponsors terror

One thing you've got to hand it to noted South Asia expert Professor C Christine Fair -- at whatever forum or seminar she appears there's never a dull moment.

She's provocative, salty, magnanimous with her use of four-letter obscenities and easily lapses into Urdu with perhaps her nose-stud giving her an air of authenticity.

Thus, her appearance at the American Enterprise Institute forum on Military Reform in Pakistan, was no different from the non-stop entertainment she has provided at several recent such forums. But although she may make other fastidious South Asians squirm, there's no discounting her because there's no one who's done the kind of extensive field research into the terrorist groups in Pakistan and delved into the Inter Services Intelligence as she has.

After all, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Robert Blake, wanted her to be his deputy assistant secretary in his bureau and it was Fair who declined. Fair, instead, opted for an academic career as an assistant professor at Georgetown University and more-so, realising that she would be in a straitjacket and totally uncharacteristic as a diplomat, the job ultimately went to Alyssa Ayres.

"Our approach is cerebral anally inverted," she said. "I think why the old man Jalaludin Haqqani is not designated is because there is still this bizarre fantasy of negotiating with him. This bizarre fantasy of negotiating with Haqqani is really to placate Pakistan."

When someone reminded her if she could have said the same thing at Rand Corporation -- regarded as the Pentagon's own think tank -- where Fair was its senior political scientist, she shot back, "I am not at Rand anymore," and went into a giggly fit, adding, "You can't say that at Rand -- their PR person would tackle me."

Fair said, "No one has any illusions here what Pakistan wants. Its Jurassic goons have various positions of control of Afghanistan -- at the federal as well as the provincial levels."

She argued that Haqqani does not "deliver anything politically. His vote capture is not terribly impressive. I don't see what having Haqqani at the table brings other than some fanciful notion that Pakistan will be less sanguinary in its efforts to reconstruct Afghanistan. The only thing that we should be doing with the Haqqani network is trying to exercise military therapy."

"Pakistan likes to say that it is the condom we use to screw Afghanistan, as much as it is the condom China uses to screw India," she said.

But Fair argued, "China never supported Pakistan in any war (with India) -- not in 1965, 1971, not in 1999. It didn't bale it out in the 2009 fiscal crisis, during Kargil."

She said that Beijing, "pretty much took the line as United States in India," and added, "China has a lot of issues with Pakistan in terms of its own Islamist militants."

Fair said, "We should consider putting Pakistan on a list of states that support terrorism. Again, if I go back and look at the criterion that merits being designated as such, then Pakistan certainly fits all those criteria."

She asserted that the kind of security assistance that US gives Pakistan should be devoid of all of strategic partnership. "They don't want a strategic partnership -- what they want is a transactional relationship. We have failed to get what we paid for," Fair said.

Fair said that the kind of US assistance that should be provided to Pakistan "should be like other countries -- police training, counter-insurgency training. There is no reason to be giving them strategic assets."
Fair argued that "Pakistan has really one strategy, which is, to hide under the nuclear umbrella. It continues to proliferate for two reasons. One, to seem increasingly irrational, and so it's basically the instability paradox trade-off to basically intimidate India, to ensure that India cannot ever be confident of having escalation doctrines."

"It's also to keep us (the US) in Pakistan," she said. "The fact that it is proliferating tactical nuclear weapons should really raise some obvious questions."

However, Fair argued that she did not believe that "Pakistan is an irrational possessor of nuclear weapons. Pakistan fully understands that should it do something provocative," and there's a nuclear conflict, "India will survive, Pakistan simply won't."

Fair asserted that Pakistan has not really been punished for their support of terrorism under the nuclear umbrella.

Fair suggested that "if in fact, there is another Mumbai-like attack; the United States should not be in there constraining India. India and Pakistan should simply deal with it completely, bilaterally, without US pressure."

"And if it does come to an escalation," she added, "that's Pakistan's problem, because there will come a time when India is not going to be in a position to where it is today -- right now it is difficult to argue that a decisive war is possible over the duration which a war is likely to lead to."

Fair estimated that "India really needs a three-week war for its advantage right now to become effective."

She reiterated her position that if there is an India-Pakistan conflict, Washington should stay out of it, because otherwise, "we actually reward Pakistan by pulling the Indians off of them."

"We need to re-consider that policy," on prevailing on New Delhi to exercise restraint, she said

sum · Post by **sum** » 02 Dec 2011 15:34

Another clown prince rises, this time in TSP:
Gilani endorses Bilawal Bhutto as future PM candidate

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has endorsed ruling PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari as a future Prime Ministerial candidate.

"It is up to the party... our Chairman should be the Prime Minister and I am with him," he said on the programme 'Prime Minister Online' on state-run PTV late last night.

He was responding to a question on whether he would be the PPP's prime ministerial candidate in the next election scheduled for 2013 in the presence of Bilawal, who has formally entered politics.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Dec 2011 16:06

shiv wrote:That guy to his right was an utter bore. And to the extreme left - the guy called Eli something was also saying some funny stuff. He was saying that the US's Pakistan policy was to deal with some factions of the deep state and not with other factions of the deep state and not with other Packees WTF? Everyone is agreed that Pakistan is not in one piece. Why is everyone trying to act as if it is.

That guy on Kamran's right (Tom Donnolley, I think) could not articulate at all. In any case, he said that after Ms. Fair had spoken he was a mere footnote. Of course, Ms. Fair simply dominated the show and everybody was overawed by her, I thought.

member_20617 · Post by **member_20617** » 02 Dec 2011 16:31

When Osama was killed by US, Pakis took ‘’their’’ revenge by firing at a US helicopter, killing navy seals who took part in Osama Operation.

I am sure that Pakis would take the revenge for its 28 dead soldiers by attacking US again. I hope that US retaliates severely and occupy Pakistan. US went into Afghanistan to kill or capture Osama and his terrorists when Osama was actually hiding in Pakistan for several years – courtesy of ISI. It is about time US realises that all terrorists are trained and sheltered by Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan is the terrorist state!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Dec 2011 16:45

Shankaraa wrote:I hope that US retaliates severely and occupy Pakistan.

Shankaraa, the US will *not* occupy Pakistan. It will not even attack it in the way it attacked Bosnia, for example, unless Pakistan does something very stupid. While waiting for Pakistani Generals to go the whole hog towards stupidity, which is bound to happen if things go this way, the US can do other things to squeeze Pakistan. Cut off spare parts to American-supplied war-making equipment, use the options of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, squeeze Pakistan in multilateral financial fora, declare Pakistan as a terrorist state which will kick off a whole lot of sanctions etc. Remember that TSP came almost twice to being declared so ? I hope it will be third time lucky ! The Generals, if they can't see the writing on the wall by that time, are guaranteed to move rapidly towards exhibiting their stupidity in all its glory. Things will become rather interesting at that time.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Dec 2011 16:53

ISI still working on 'Project Karachi' to attack India

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 02 Dec 2011 17:14

Cross-posting from Pak arms sales thread
Three Photus
Past

Present

Future

Pakistan demographics

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Dec 2011 17:55

What happens on Dec. 12 if the US does not vacate the Shamsi airbase ? Would the TSPA try to forcibly occupy the airbase ?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 02 Dec 2011 18:04

sum wrote:A report of C.Fair's public oral r**e of TSP:

Pak meets criteria to be called state that sponsors terror

Fair asserted that Pakistan has not really been punished for their support of terrorism under the nuclear umbrella.

US aided and abetted TSP in its acquisition of nukes and anti-India terrorist machine. In an ideal world, US should be paying a price as well. But then again inter-state machinations don't work on the basis of morality and right & wrong; only brute power. So US has absolute power over the world's rule-making institutions, not a leaf moves without US approval, US is the judge, jury, and executioner, and so no chance of US paying a dime for its wrongs doings, while history to date has shown that not only has TSP not paid a prices for its terror against India, its reaping rewards.

Fair suggested that "if in fact, there is another Mumbai-like attack; the United States should not be in there constraining India. India and Pakistan should simply deal with it completely, bilaterally, without US pressure."

This part I agree, although not her prescription below.

"And if it does come to an escalation," she added, "that's Pakistan's problem, because there will come a time when India is not going to be in a position to where it is today -- right now it is difficult to argue that a decisive war is possible over the duration which a war is likely to lead to."

Fair estimated that "India really needs a three-week war for its advantage right now to become effective."

She reiterated her position that if there is an India-Pakistan conflict, Washington should stay out of it, because otherwise, "we actually reward Pakistan by pulling the Indians off of them."

"We need to re-consider that policy," on prevailing on New Delhi to exercise restraint, she said

Wrong. India's so called "victory" in any war with TSP will be phyrric at best. For TSP, its a no loose situation. Short of my fantasy below, I would welcome US involvement even if its humiliating to India, because only US can restrain TSP from going nuke within days if not minutes of full-scale war breaking out. Don't mock my pessimism guys, but I am not really sure how credible India's second strike capability is with all the cut backs etc under MMSJi (and even under VajpayeeJi because after 5 patakis, nothing much was done except dialouge with "my friend Strobe").

Rather, I know I am dreaming, my prescription would be for India & US to bury the hatchet and jointly tackle TSP. I can't imagine why India's and US's interests can't be aligned when it comes to obliterating TSP's terrorist machine and put an end to its nuke blackmail. I would think its a no brainer. But the reality is that I don't know what price US will demand from India for this. India's break up into a lose federation serving as a cheap source of labor and large consumer base for US?

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 02 Dec 2011 18:08

Last night, Gola was on tv again asking for money for the PA Terrorists swatted by USAF. This guy just can't stop asking for money whatever the situation.

partha · Post by **partha** » 02 Dec 2011 18:09

^^
Link please.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 02 Dec 2011 18:13

SSridhar wrote:What happens on Dec. 12 if the US does not vacate the Shamsi airbase ? Would the TSPA try to forcibly occupy the airbase ?

From what I have been reading Shamsi has been rented to the UAE. And the UAE sublet it to Unkil. Reading between the lines, the Pakis also get money for it from the US. Which makes their claims of sovirginity very specious.

The deals done by Mouseharraf are coming back to haunt them. The double dealing with the US as well as the deals with Taliban. Both running concurrently and in opposition to each other.

Leaving that aside, if the US does refuse, it will be a military flash point. Which the US would like to avoid because it is rather weak reason to reach that flash point.

I do not see it reaching a "big bang" situ with the Pakis. But slow (and this is my favourite) turning of the screws.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Dec 2011 18:14

DT's Editor mouthing the same lies as Kamran Shafi (in that panel discussion with Ms. C. Fair)

“Pakistan is a very divided, complex, multi-layered country, so when you say Pakistan be careful; let’s distinguish between the policy of the army and the policy of the rest of Pakistani society,” he said.

Another misleading conclusion that Kamran Shafi spouted which the DT Editor also says

Rashed Rahman replied that religious parties had always been marginal in the political process, if it was a free political process. Citing the example of elections, he said that such parties did not obtain more three percent of the seats, if the elections were not manipulated in any way.

“So clearly, Pakistan is a moderate Muslim country. The bulk, the majority of the people are entrenched in the Sufi tradition, they are not extremists. So the extremists are not gaining the upper hand, unless someone gives them a boost,” he said.

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 02 Dec 2011 18:17

^^ The Pakis will give a fresh deadline and keep on postponing it indefinitely. Those statements of vacating bases is 200% for public consumption and they know it more than anyone else, things when sold can seldom be gotten back through words. They are waiting for the public memory to wear thin and the outrage to soothe. They have already issued such warnings 2-3 times in the past. And then if their bluff is called, they can always plead helplessness through some channel that they are in no position to take on NATO etc etc.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 02 Dec 2011 18:23

^^^ All smoke and mirrors. The budding caliphate is moderate?

The mango abdul, which is a majority of the population has been engineered by their own government to be a reactionary force with firm belief in misguided tenets which enables the multilayered rule in Porki land to manipulate them.

Multi-layered is possibly what the Porkis want to convey in their defence when things go wrong. There are two layers. One the political parties and the other the military. The military forming the bulk: The armed forces and the jihadis. Jihadis being nothing but an extension of their military. The jihadis come in various hues. Some, at times, at loggerheads with the PA. But the PA still has some semblance of control. This is borne out by the fact that in the recent few weeks there haven't been the normal self inflicted attacks in Porkistan. Normal programming has been halted.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 02 Dec 2011 18:46

CRamS wrote:
Wrong. India's so called "victory" in any war with TSP will be phyrric at best. For TSP, its a no loose situation. Short of my fantasy below, I would welcome US involvement even if its humiliating to India, because only US can restrain TSP from going nuke within days if not minutes of full-scale war breaking out. Don't mock my pessimism guys, but I am not really sure how credible India's second strike capability is with all the cut backs etc under MMSJi (and even under VajpayeeJi because after 5 patakis, nothing much was done except dialouge with "my friend Strobe").

So you think 1971 was pyrrhic victory? You need get out of you funk man!

Rather, I know I am dreaming, my prescription would be for India & US to bury the hatchet and jointly tackle TSP. I can't imagine why India's and US's interests can't be aligned when it comes to obliterating TSP's terrorist machine and put an end to its nuke blackmail. I would think its a no brainer. But the reality is that I don't know what price US will demand from India for this. India's break up into a lose federation serving as a cheap source of labor and large consumer base for US?

Wishful thinking, betraying a lack of understanding of not only US but more importantly of India too.

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 02 Dec 2011 19:19

CRamS: Dream on. India will not do a U turn on over 60 years of established policies and practices to join up with the world's lone manic depressive super power. The US is very unpredictable, and in a tight economic bind. It is liable to do anything at all, where ever it sees any advantage for itself, and now, particularly in its presedential election cycle, is not a time to mess with this beast. Besides, india needs to deal with the paki and its aftermath, not just to get rid of the problem. This is something India needs to handle with great care. Cowboy Sam is not a useful means of doing it.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 02 Dec 2011 19:30

KLNMurthy wrote:@ManuT excellent spellout of TSP. Strategic depth concept.

Thanks,
Trying to watch the 2 videos (Gen Jim Jones and AEI video.) Jim Jones seems right on the money. Will catch up later.

Mihaylo · Post by **Mihaylo** » 02 Dec 2011 19:53

shiv wrote:
Raja Bose wrote:We need a BRF acronym/term for the Paki white flag flying over the Paki Army post pest-e-shaheedized by NATO AC-130s. It is after all the Ultimate Towel.
That was a white towel wasn't it? Not a flag as such. Someone archive that picture.

That's a well 'tailored' white piece of cloth and not a towel or somebody's banyaan

. Do pakis actually carry this to war ... just in case they have to raise it to surrender ?

-M

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 02 Dec 2011 20:10

Venkarl wrote:.. Dead included senior military officials, What I think is it could be an infiltration bid to do some hit job in guise of Taliban. After the attack, James Jones warns porkis of any terrorist attack in India. The question is why would he warn after the attack? He or some other US official had many occasions to warn porkis in the past as they were/are at it(harming India) 24/7, 365 days? My gut feeling is, 28+ ppl manning and roaming near small posts was an infiltration bid to do a hit job in Afghanistan in the guise of Taliban and the target was an Indian asset. See, India too remained silent on the attack incident, I mean pin drop silent . The attack was preplanned and I think the intel has reached the right people in right time.
..

Good point Venkarlji.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 02 Dec 2011 20:12

Philip wrote:Don't underestimate the viciousness the of the Paki in uniform.Zia had the eyes of a snake,Gen.Mush-a-rat,th face and whiskers of a bandicoot and Gen.Kill-any,the eye of the vulture.He is apatient bird,waiting and watching.He will extract revenge against the US/NATO if given enough time.It would be far better for the US to disgrace and depose him.Senior US veterans of the Afghan War have said that there is simply no way that the terrorists under the ISI could operate without the Vulture's knowledge.He was earlier the ISI chief.Therefore,it is easy for the US/West to denounce him,impose personal sanctions against him,restrict his international travel,foist charges againt him for trial at the Hague on charges of terrorism,inhuman rights,etc.,etc.

This reminds me of that Paki debate video. In that they were talking about some sensitive and embarrassing information on Kiya-nahi that US can release whenever they want to take him out.

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 02 Dec 2011 20:21

When reading paki bilge from DT edits or Shafi et al, keep in mind these are people whose parents are siblings, or first cousins at best. There is not much that sets them apart from the dumb abduls except the English language. Over time I've found their writing tiresome, repititious and full of the same self servicing lies. They exist to write what they write. Used to be they had counterparts in US tinktanks who took what they served up and vollyed back. All very predictable. Atleast that last part has changed, but at a huge cost of lives of US service men and women.

manju · Post by **manju** » 02 Dec 2011 20:44

SSridhar wrote:
shiv wrote:That guy to his right was an utter bore. And to the extreme left - the guy called Eli something was also saying some funny stuff. He was saying that the US's Pakistan policy was to deal with some ...........
That guy on Kamran's right (Tom Donnolley, I think) ............ Of course, Ms. Fair simply dominated the show and everybody was overawed by her, I thought.

I think the last question in that video was very interesting. It was, I think ABCD who asked (I am paraphrasing) "in case pakistan continues.. should we just attack pakistan/or let pakistan be taken over by India. They (India) will be more helpful to the US in Afghanistan"

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 02 Dec 2011 21:13

Regarding the broken up paki state, it will be very dangerous to float independent Sindh and Balochistan. History going back to MB teaches us that is a bad idea. Those two should be kept in check within a loose federation, perhaps just governing foreign, defense, economic matters. Needs fleshed out.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 02 Dec 2011 21:18

parsuram wrote:CRamS: Dream on. India will not do a U turn on over 60 years of established policies and practices to join up with the world's lone manic depressive super power. The US is very unpredictable, and in a tight economic bind. It is liable to do anything at all, where ever it sees any advantage for itself, and now, particularly in its presedential election cycle, is not a time to mess with this beast. Besides, india needs to deal with the paki and its aftermath, not just to get rid of the problem. This is something India needs to handle with great care. Cowboy Sam is not a useful means of doing it.

The fact, that in some circles in the US, India's rejection of the F18 and F16, was seen (in irritation) of India's continuation of its Non -Aligned policy augurs well for us.

We should fight our own battles. Yes, we may bumble, but at the end we will have the satisfaction of doing it ourselves.

1971 was a case in point!. The FIRSTs after WWII: biggest tank battle, the largest number of POWs, the astounding attack by small missile boats on Karachi. The battle in the skies using so called 'inferior' aircraft like the Gnat. All these had military strategists scractching their head in disbelief! We won.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 02 Dec 2011 21:25

more than that unkil did some double taking on how SDRE non-martial types with inferior goddamncommie equipment managed to beat a munna... came as quite a surprise

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 02 Dec 2011 21:26

Prem wrote:Another Tiger Niazi ,Abb ki Baar maar ke dekh ad infinitum
Troops free to hit back in future: Kayani

So earlier they weren't!! Which military in the world has a protocol of not to return fire when deliberately being hit upon by other country?

kayani, chu**ye, paka mat.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Dec 2011 21:26

parsuram wrote:Regarding the broken up paki state, it will be very dangerous to float independent Sindh and Balochistan. History going back to MB teaches us that is a bad idea. Those two should be kept in check within a loose federation, perhaps just governing foreign, defense, economic matters. Needs fleshed out.

Modified Art 370 or modified reverse millat like status.