Bharat Rakshak

Its funny that we expect USA to be "secular"! Why does it have to be secular? Has it ever made any constitutional commitment to being secular? Christian memes permeate its foundation - a radical post-Anglican version, yes, the rebellious Christianity of the enlightenment period of revolt and power struggle by one faction of the European elite against the others. Its rashtryia symbolism is solidly but not overtly Christian - but of course with a new flavour reconstructed-by-nursing-grievances and opportunist European immigrants. Its Presidents traditionally swore inauguration on the Christian Bible.

The first proto Constitution of Penn assured freedom of belief, and that idea has remained. But it also means the freedom of any Christian to believe in racism. It declares "equality" as ordained by "God" and as "self-evident". But it does also therefore assure the equality of anyone who believes that pagan Hindus are a blot on earth, and are an anti-Christian force or an obstruction in the way of Christianity, and opposes the "God" given right and duty to convert all pagans. You can even believe and say you believe in "racial supremacy" and march for that right [yes it happened]. The police will protect your right to say this and believe this [Yes they did]. Some inspired judge has even admitted the excuse of Sharia in influencing a certain judgment.

Now, in spite of foundations in Christianity, is not USA showing secularism in all the right spots that we define and characterize to be "secularism"? They are protecting exactly those freedoms of belief we in India, claim is the hall mark of "secularism"! They are allowing Hindu-bashing - which is the same as in India - which takes Barhmin and Hindu bashing as the signal epaulettes for secularism. They are allowing Zionist and Israel bashing - and academics have lost their jobs because of any research that shows any negativity from Islamic side - very similar to India - India even does not take the risk at all, it makes sure that such minds cannot even get through the filter, or get published or an academic position unless he/she is a Thaparite. However no academic gets into problems for bashing Hindus/Hinduism - just as in Indian secularism.

So by Indian standards - US is "secular" - it selects its targets of secularism carefully and it coincides with India.

If one now says that "not all Indians can be labeled by what a few influential voices" or the state regime does - is that latitude allowed for USA too?

What is USA doing differently in its "secularism" towards Pakistan, that India is not doing towards Pakistan? Both think that only the so-called lunatic fringe in Islamism that creates "terror", or "Pakistani terrorism is stateless terrorism". Both say they think "Pakistan" is as much a victim as India is. Both want dialogue. Both want to enhance the peace process. Both want a "stable" and "prosperous" Pakistan. Both are thinking of economic development of Pakistan. Both urge restraint and caution on Indian aam suffering a few blasts.

I guess what RajeshA ji is saying is that one need not paint a whole civilization with a broad bruch of "white christian" or "mid-eastern islamist". There is a quantifiable amount of goodwill for indic civilization in a significant section of Western society, and we shouldn't ignore that. The similar quality of goodwil is lesser in Islamic societies, but we need to build and expand that space also. We need to have a foot in the door in each case in order to deal with the anti-Indic contagion.

I posted a few times, if this thinking about Paki perfidy through the lens White Xian supremacy emanating from US has to take root, the backers will be the Indian left, the MSAs, the MKBs etc. The moment that lot achieves prominence, India is doomed on a lot of fronts. So clamoring on that front is indeed controversial in the first place however right it may seem, but the import is disastrous as we bring about a whole lot of people, leftist, Islamist, MKB, MSA types of folks out of the woodwork into the mainstream of political and hence subsequent ideological, economic debate and decision making. Something that India needs last. What will happen in such a scenario, irrespective of recent past history is when the 'White supremacist Xian Empire' gets into direct conflict with Islamists, India will have all the backers and institutions it needs to side up with Taliban types in the Islamic world and end up being rightfully hammered once again. I and most here too would not support an India fighting and supporting an Islamist cause or nation/s.

It is obvious, known that Islamists have been in conflict with India, Dharma, our form of worship, plurality etc long before the British came here or the USA was born.

Yet last 30 years, there is stark evidence that US for example is transforming the way it thinks. Dharmic faiths account for the largest increase in religious denomination amongst faiths in the US last few decades. Not Islam. Glass ceilings which existed till the early 90's have been broken in Industry, commerce, even in politics. These are all positive developments. Trade has it's hiccups but it has increased manifold. Pakistan's trade with US is negligible compared to what Indian industry interacts with the White Supremacist Xtian world. It brings about tens of millions of Indian jobs and vice versa. Americans today give aid reluctantly to the Pakistani's. Today we have the US offering us weapons they don't offer most of their allies. Forget Pakistan. They despite the distrust past many decades have acknowledged us as a defacto Nuclear weapons state..something they won't and have refused to do with Pakistan and will not for any Muslim country. These may or may not have a significant impact on India but one thing is clear that the White Xtian Supremacist world is changing the way it interacts with India. Only a fool will recommend joining hands with an Islamist and facing off that part of the world in spite. India cannot be united on that front. It will break up. India will only truly unite under a Dharmic banner. Nothing else. And that is not easy to achieve or comprehend how, but simple to understand once the clutter clears up.

brihaspati wrote:Plenty of most interesting arguments. Will reserve for later this evening. Perhaps also great insight into how we think and model others.

But for the moment, just one short question - why are we moving swiftly from the "white Christain" to focus onlee on the Amir Khans? As culture - there is the broad brush - "white Christian", but when we are talking of nations - we are focusing only on the US? I heartily agree that the US has played its own vicious share of racism - sure - but why exempt the artillery on raniland?

Should we speculate - like as has already been done about being supposedly touchy about USA - as to why raniland is not up for similar bashing? Raniland hosts some of the staunchest Paki favouring, anti-India subcontinental Islamist - Paki+BD origin voices. These guys have well entrenched orgs who are oiled up well often overtly by sections of ruling regimes and a widere variety of media and academic as well as social activism.

Brihaspati raniland (by which I presume you mean Britain) is hardly being "let off the hook" as far as my posts are concerned. You may have missed the connections I have made in several posts about how this business was started with European racism with the White protestants being the post WW2 victors of an intra Europe race supremacy tangle. If you seacrh the forum posts for Olaf Caroe - you wil find my reference to him in this very thread and how Olaf Caroe is documented as having "taught" the Americans the strategy of using the loyal "martial race" mussalman

The concentration on America is for a reason that i will repeat since it is clear that unless I repeat people miss what i have said several times in the past. And I will keep repeating as long as necessary.

Ideology does not kill. Ideology that is armed with deadly weapons becomes a real threat. From the military standpoint, the Pakistan army is afar bigger threat than the Taliban. That Pakistan military is an ally of the USA. It's formidable capability has been augmented for decades by the USA. And that USA basically took over "management" of the world from the British empire. The racist policies that set up the empire have been consistently supported by the USA.

Is there any particular reason why people are using code words for USA and Britain. Is there some fear that FBI/CIA reading these posts via Echelon will target free people living in free countries?

RajeshA wrote: 1) USA is one of India's main economic partners. It has welcomed many of our citizens and treats them well. In the essence of how USA deals with Indians and how Pakistan deals with Indians, there is a huge difference. Now when pronouncing equivalences, should one forget all that?

After killing off India's economy, Britain became India's "leading partner". For the Indian economy to develop we need land routes to Iran and central Asia via a Pakistan that is not being manipulated by the last gasp of imperialism, the USA

RajeshA wrote: On Islam vs. White Christianity Aggression: Since we are comparing the two, we should develop some metric for it.

You are proposing favouring some people for being less racist than others based on some "metric" for racism? . Hair splitting would be OK for most discussions - but who do you have "more racist" and "Less racist"? Like "More rapist" and "Less rapist". "More criminal" and "less criminal"? I think that is unacceptable

RajeshA wrote: 3) On Morality:
In the case of international affairs, this is however a difficult test.

You see - there is a litany of excuses to let the US off the hook.
They are our economic partners. They are less racist. And now "It is difficult". No sir.

Building goodwill, bridges, influence etc. which then translates into expanded export market share is part of the challenge for all emerging countries and powers in the world stage.

About white supremacy meme, as I mentioned in my posts, the problem is not so much that non-white people get negatively affected by it from white racism these days, things definitely have improved since the civil rights era, end of Apartheid etc. But it is the prevailing lack of self respect on the part of non-whites, as a by product of believing or subscribing to this old and obsolete meme of white supremacy, I personally think is the biggest hurdle, a mental block if you will. It is as if non-white people have for so long gotten used to their inferior stations in global heirarchy, that they have lost the ability to visualize a different non-hierarchical new world and work diligently to make it into a reality.

Countries like China and India has the potential to do much more than they are doing now. China does not have to be concerned about money and selfish interest only, while destroying the environment and polluting their own country as well as other places. India does not have to be obsessed with Pakistan or Pakjabi hatred of Indic's, or even white christian condescension for Indic's, I believe people of India have much bigger fish to fry. For global players the stature of China and India, all the world is a stage:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... xports.PNG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... xports.PNG

Western markets have high competition, because most countries in the world are trying to capture this same market. The potential for growth, I believe, is in market creation in new emerging population centers in other regions in a sustainable way. And nothing will accelerate market creation more than political stability and free flow of goods and people that come from further regional integration such as Latin American Union, African Union, ASEAN, Central Asian Union, Arab League etc., where India, China and the West, whoever among these powers are interested in betterment of humanity and their own long term betterment, can work, together or individually, to make these unions happen. There are problem cases - like Japan and Korea, who feel themselves to be superior to South East Asians, like Pakistan (mis)led by Pakistan Army is obsessed with the fear of India breaking it apart or Turkey being an essentially "white" Anatolian Muslim country, claiming to be Turkic, not sure if it wants to go with Asian Turkics or just wait forever for their accession to EU - these cases can be left alone for the time being till they grow up and make up their mind.

People will rightly recognize the power(s) that help them make these leaps (union) possible and as a result reward the responsible and progressive power(s) with preferential market access for the long term. The days of divide and rule I believe are over. It is time for regional integration and the future will belong to those powers that have the vision to see this future, run with it before any one else gets a clue and start building influence to make things happen.

And shiv ji, complaining is ok, but this situation we have is a product of the current world system. Unless work is done to transform the world system, I believe making noise will help only if the resulting energy created from these complaints is directed towards creative and constructive transformation of the world system, one example of which I tried to paint above.

Somewhere someone said, it is far easier to destroy than it is to create. So it is a challenge, but I think it is worth it.

AKalam wrote:
And shiv ji, complaining is ok, but this situation we have is a product of the current world system. Unless work is done to transform the world system, I believe making noise will help only if the resulting energy created from these complaints is directed towards creative and constructive transformation of the world system, one example of which I tried to paint above.

Kalamji - in my view Indians are sitting in a trance like state imagining that the USA means good for the world and India. They do not want to be woken up because things are too comfortable leaving the management of world affairs to the US. But ultimately India will have to play its hand. For India to play its hand Indians have to see the clout that nations have and not "accept the power of nations as inevitable".

The idea of "doing" is so frightening that few Indians really want to say anything that rocks the current world order. They jump at every opportunity to accept it philosophically and say that "This is how the world works. Live with it. The Americans are better than Islam." Actually opposing the Americans is more frightening than opposing Pakistan and its Islamists. So many seem to hope that the world will change itself for the better. Like Jesus will come again, Hindus hope for the arrival of Kalki in the current Kaliyug.

It ain't gonna happen that way. The future of the Subcontinent will have to be guided by the people of the subcontinent and not by a USA controlling a genocidal Islamic army of Pakistan. In Bangladesh people should know about the Pakistan army and how much support it received from the USA. Trusting that USA to do good for us black monkeys is a mistake.

shiv wrote:Brihaspati raniland (by which I presume you mean Britain) is hardly being "let off the hook" as far as my posts are concerned. You may have missed the connections I have made in several posts about how this business was started with European racism with the White protestants being the post WW2 victors of an intra Europe race supremacy tangle. If you seacrh the forum posts for Olaf Caroe - you wil find my reference to him in this very thread and how Olaf Caroe is documented as having "taught" the Americans the strategy of using the loyal "martial race" mussalman

Shiv ji, I am very well aware of Caroevian nakhra. That is a history I also raised many times on my posts. In fact, a long time ago, I think I did bring up the processes by which the brits decided to use Arab Islamism against Ottoman Islamism to safeguard their empire and secure the Mediterranean for their access to IOR empire. But that is a well known history. Why is UK being let off the hook now? You are saying you are not aware of the situation currently? In my post I was mentioning now, or you missed the reference to current strong relationship between various faces of the ruling juntas and Paki or BD anti-Indian circles and their near-daily propaganda? I was not talking of the historical Brits - if you cared to read carefully. By the way, I have even proposed in other threads that ISI itself could be a overseas front for some wing of the MI's of Brits.

The concentration on America is for a reason that i will repeat since it is clear that unless I repeat people miss what i have said several times in the past. And I will keep repeating as long as necessary.

Ideology does not kill. Ideology that is armed with deadly weapons becomes a real threat. From the military standpoint, the Pakistan army is afar bigger threat than the Taliban. That Pakistan military is an ally of the USA. It's formidable capability has been augmented for decades by the USA. And that USA basically took over "management" of the world from the British empire. The racist policies that set up the empire have been consistently supported by the USA.

I have been quite amused for some pages now seeing the argument of how US arms alone is sustaining Paki terror against India. You have not made it clear the exact chain of consequent factors by which US arms supports LeT, or Jaishi, or Qasab bloodshed on Indians. Can you please let us know as to what proportion of the arms and ammunition used in 26/11 was sourced from USA?

I will anticipate your logic - correct me if your logic for repeating the claim that USA alone, with its arms supply, sustains terror on India - is something else. If your claim is true then either
(1) US arms supplies to Pakistan state sustains the Pakistani state to provide enough threat perception to its enemies so that they do not retaliate on any terror attacks from pakiland or do not take steps to dismantle Pakiland regime which sponsors such terror.
(2) US supplies arms of a nature and type usable by terrorists - and it hands them over directly to terrorists or gives to paki state agencies to be handed over to terrorists.

As for (1), it assumes that India has, wants to, and will - want to dismantle Paki state machinery that sustains terror, or wants to retaliate at all. The arguments against retaliation has been consistently - that trade and prosperity will suffer, leading to loss of economic growth. I did not see you arguing against such arguments. However, suppose we accept that the Indian state does really have such intentions and the only reason it cannot do so is for fear of US arms in the hands of Pakis.

What is most curious for me to see is that

(a) you are assuming that Indian solidarity with Pakis will turn Pakis so much so against USA that USA will stop arming Pakis out of anger [you can see very well that that is not how US mindset works - it will continue to do business and it profits from selling arms - the only industry in which it has an edge over rival biz interests].

(b) you are assuming that turning Pakis against the US will stop their getting substitution patrons who will be ready to supply replacements.

(c) you are assuming that Indian expression of solidarity will be reciprocated by the theologian+feudal+army combine in Pakiland, who will magically transform from pretending good-faith and good-neighbourly behaviour until the very last moment and enjoy the fruits of your friendship and then suddenly ambush you at your most vulnerable and trusting moment. No wonder you demand that we de-emphasize the reality of islamism and the in-built taqyia required to be practised on unsuspecting non-Muslim allies that is conditioned through the texts into the leadership.

As for point (2) - you have not provided data on the types of arms and ammunition that Paki terrorists use on Indians and that are predominantly sourced by the USA. I am assuming that any event that involved towed heavy duty artillery or anti-ship or anti-radar guided missiles etc used in terrorist operations in India or say the fighter jets supplied to Pakis were used by terrorists on India - has not been made public. Any information may help.

Is there any particular reason why people are using code words for USA and Britain. Is there some fear that FBI/CIA reading these posts via Echelon will target free people living in free countries?

Oh in that case the post mentioning Penn, and the sarcasm citing real events such as the judge acknowledging sharia - would be noticed by the FBI/CIA way before you bring the citations to their notice! Raniland would be immediately honed in on - do not worry!

I am not writing from the safety of an India that will do its utmost to protect anything or anyone who sympathizes with Islamism and inherent goodness of the Paki-land ruling circles or theologians. Or for that matter anyone who joins the chorus of righteous indignation against USA that goes out from the entire pro-Islamism network that spans the stretch from sub-Saharan Africa, through the Gulf and the subcontinent, to Indonesia. [Frankly, I think it is a bit of a hypocrisy - don't you think - I mean the USA bashing bit from the theologians?]

Making a pun on that nation's rulership may at most only reroute my journey through British processing but still the endpoint of the journey will be a five-sided building or certain offshore sites of USA which has been mentioned by name. Or maybe that pun was found to be unsuitable for the H&D of the country which was onlee bad in the past in Caroevian times but has become the washed Tulsi leaf after it went to banaprastha after handing over all nakhragiri to USA? my apologies to hurt sentiments - pun onlee, no serious disrespect intended. How can it be - aren't both countries "white Christian" and therefore one who protects the H&D of one nation must be secretly a sympathizer of the other!

I am trying to get an understanding of the nature of arms supplies to Pakiland: SIPRI suggests [ http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=421 ] the following in its summary trends for 2010:

Arms transfers to Pakistan increased by 128 per cent between the periods 2001–2005 and 2006–10. Aircraft accounted for 45 per cent of imports, with deliveries to Pakistan in 2010 including 18 F-16C combat aircraft from the USA, 15 JF-17 combat aircraft from China and 3 Erieye AEW aircraft from Sweden. Pakistan also received large numbers of air- to-air missiles and guided bombs from China and the USA, and anti- radar missiles from Brazil.

This is their report on major conventional weapons : I am assuming that we have no evidence of this being used yet by LeT or Jaishi or Sipahi or Qasab et al. This of course does not rule out their future potential use for terror against India.

Should we bracket China as simply a US stooge through which USA diverts US made JF-17's and Sweden a third party cover through which US made AEW's are passed to Pakis? Otherwise we will have to start bashing the Chinese and the Swedes too, separately.

Extracted from SIPRI database on major conventional weapons transfer to Pakiland between 2001 and 2010:

Supplier/ Year Year(s) No. 
 recipient (R) No. Weapon Weapon of order/ of delivered/ 
 or licenser (L) ordered designation description licence deliveries produced Comments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil
R: Pakistan 100 MAR-1 Anti-radar missile (2008) 2010 (100) $108 m deal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China
R: Pakistan 46 F-7MG Fighter aircraft (2001) 2001-2003 (46) F-7PG version; incl 6 or 9 FT-7PG version
11 F-7MG Fighter aircraft (2002) 2003 11 F-7PG version
(6) A-5C Fantan FGA aircraft (2003) 2003 6
(20) C-802/CSS-N-8 Anti-ship missile (2003) 2006 (20) For Jalalat FAC
(143) D-30 122mm Towed gun (2003) 2003-2004 143
2 Type-347G Fire control radar (2003) 2006 2 For 2 Jalalat FAC produced in Pakistan
1 YLC-2 Air search radar (2003) 2003 1
10 YLC-6 Air search radar (2003) 2005-2006 (10)
(6) AS-565SA Panther ASW helicopter 2005 2009-2010 (6) Z-9EC version
(70) C-802/CSS-N-8 Anti-ship missile (2005) 2009-2010 (50) For Jiangwei (F-22P) frigates
(70) R-440 Crotale SAM (2005) 2009-2010 (50) For Jiangwei (F-22P) frigates; HQ-7 (FM-80) version
(200) PL-12/SD-10 BVRAAM (2006) 2010 (25) For JF-17 and possibly modernized Mirage-3/5 combat aircraft; contract possibly not yet signed
(300) PL-5E SRAAM (2006) 2009-2010 (110) For JF-17 combat aircraft; PL-5E-II version
(12) A-100 300mm Self-propelled MRL (2008) 2010 (12)
(50) C-802/CSS-N-8 Anti-ship missile (2008) 2010 (10) For JF-17 combat aircraft
(600) LS-6 Guided bomb (2008) 2010 (100) For JF-17 combat aircraft
(2) SLC-2 Arty locating radar (2008) 2010 (2) For use with A-100 MRL
(50) WMD-7 Aircraft EO system (2008) 2009-2010 (22) For JF-17 combat aircraft
4 ZDK-03 AEW&C aircraft 2008 USD278 m deal; delivery 2011
(30) C-802/CSS-N-8 Anti-ship missile (2010) For Type-002 FAC; designation uncertain

L: Pakistan . . Red Arrow-8 Anti-tank missile 1989 1990-2010 (20350) Pakistani designation Baktar Shikan
. . QW-1 Vanguard Portable SAM (1993) 1994-2010 (1450) Pakistani designation Anza-2
(300) Type-90-2/MBT-2000 Tank (1998) 2001-2010 (198) MBT-2000 (Al Khalid or P-90) version
(50) JF-17 Thunder/FC-1 FGA aircraft 1999 2007-2010 (25) Developed for Pakistan; incl production of components and assembly in Pakistan; incl 8 mainly for testing; first 42 production version ordered 2009 for $800 m; total up to 150-350 planned
6 K-8 Karakorum-8 Trainer/combat ac (2001) 2003 6 Incl production of components and assembly in Pakistan
27 K-8 Karakorum-8 Trainer/combat ac 2005 2007-2010 27 K-8P version
4 Type-053H/Jiangwei Frigate 2005 2009-2010 3 $500-750 m deal; F-22P version; incl 1 produced in Pakistan; Pakistani designation Zulfiquar, delivery 2009-2013
2 Type-022/Houbei FAC 2010 Designation uncertain; incl 1 produced in Pakistan; delivery probably 2011/2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
France
R: Pakistan (25) SM-39 Exocet Anti-ship missile 1994 1999-2006 (25) $100 m deal; for Agosta-90B (Khalid) submarines
(100) F-17P AS torpedo (1996) 1999-2006 (100) F-17P Mod-2 version; for Agosta-90B (Khalid) submarines
(40) Mirage-5 FGA aircraft 1996 1998-2004 (40) Ex-French; $120 m 'Blue Flash-6' deal; modernized (ROSE-2 and ROSE-3 programme) before delivery; incl 6 Mirage-3D
2 ATAS Sonar (1999) 2000-2001 (2) For modernization of 2 Amazon (Tariq) frigates
10 AS-350/AS-550 Fennec Light helicopter 2004 2006 10 AS-350B3 version
8 SA-316B Alouette-3 Light helicopter 2005 2008 (8) Ex-French; SA-319B version
10 AS-350/AS-550 Fennec Light helicopter (2007) 2010 (10) Armed AS-550C3 version
2 MESMA AIP engine 2007 For modernization of 2 Agosta-90B submarines

L: Pakistan 2 Agosta-90B Submarine 1994 1999-2003 2 Part of $750 m deal (+ $200 m for modernization of Pakistan Naval Dockyard to build submarines; 1 assembled/produced in Pakistan); Pakistani designation Khalid
1 Agosta-90B MESMA Submarine 1994 2008 1 Part of $750 m deal (+ $200 m for modernization of Pakistan Naval Dockyard to build submarines); Pakistani designation Khalid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany (FRG)
R: Pakistan 4 MTU-538 Diesel engine (2003) 2006 4 For 2 Jalalat FAC produced in Pakistan
59 DM-2A4 Seehecht AS/ASW torpedo 2005 2007-2008 (59) $80 m deal; for Agosta-90B (Khalid) submarines
(30) Luna UAV 2006 2007-2008 (30) For 3 Luna UAV systems; delivery temporarily delayed after Pakistani state of emergency in 2007
4 MTU-4000 Diesel engine 2006 2007-2008 4 For MRTP-33 FAC delivered by Turkey
(250) M-113 APC (2007) Ex-FRG; status uncertain after German government halted deliveries in late 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesia
R: Pakistan 3 CN-235 Transport aircraft 2002 2004 (3) Part of $49-54 m deal (incl $24 m for 1 more for VIP transport); CN-235-220 version
--------------------------------------------------------------
Italy
R: Pakistan 25 Falco UAV 2006 2008-2009 (25) Incl assembly in Pakistan
200 Aspide-2000 SAM 2007 2010 (60) Part of EUR415 m deal for Spada-2000 SAM systems
(10) Spada-2000 SAM system 2007 2010 (3) EUR415 m deal; Spada-2000 Plus version; delivery 2010-2013

L: Pakistan (135) Grifo Aircraft radar 1995 2000-2004 (135) Grifo-7 version; for modernization of some 35 Mirage-3 and 100 F-7P combat aircraft
(57) Grifo Aircraft radar (2002) 2004-2005 (57) Grifo-7PG version; for 57 F-7MG (F-7PG) combat aircraft from China
(25) Falco UAV 2009 2010 (12) Including production of components and assembly in Pakistan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lebanon
R: Pakistan (10) Mirage-3E FGA aircraft (2000) 2002 10 Ex-Lebanese; $4.7 m deal; Mirage-3EL version; incl 1 Mirage-3BL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Libya
R: Pakistan 150 Atar-9 Turbojet 2004 2004-2005 (150) Ex-Libyan but probably never used
(10) Mirage-5 FGA aircraft 2004 2007-2010 (10) Ex-Libyan; 50-70 delivered but most for spare parts only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia
R: Pakistan 12 Mi-8/Mi-17/Hip-H Helicopter 2001 2002 (12) Part of $50 m deal; delivery delayed after Indian complaints from 2001 until 2002-2003
4 Mi-8/Mi-17/Hip-H Helicopter 2001 2002 4 Second-hand; modernized before delivery; part of $50 m deal
12 Mi-8/Mi-17/Hip-H Helicopter (2003) 2004 12 Part of $51 m deal; 1 more delivered for VIP transport; ordered via UK company
(50) RD-33/RD-93 Turbofan (2004) 2007-2010 (22) RD-93 version; for JF-17 combat aircraft from China
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweden
R: Pakistan (25) Type-43 ASW torpedo 1994 1999-2004 (25) Type-43X2 version; for modernized Amazon (Tariq) frigates
1 Saab-2000 Transport aircraft 2006 2008 1 Second-hand; modernized before delivery
4 Saab-2000 AEW AEW&C aircraft 2006 2009-2010 (4) Original SEK8.3 b deal for 6-8 reduced to SEK7 b deal for 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L: Pakistan . . RBS-70 Portable SAM (1985) 1988-2010 (575)
(150) MFI-17 Supporter Trainer aircraft (2001) 2001-2010 (106) Super Mushshak version
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Switzerland
R: Pakistan (48) GDF 35mm AA gun 2006 2007-2009 (48) Part of CHF156 m ($120 m) deal
(24) Skyguard Fire control radar 2006 2007-2009 (24) Part of CHF156 m ($120 m) deal; for use with GDF 35mm AA guns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turkey
R: Pakistan 2 MRTP-33 FAC/patrol craft 2006 2007-2008 2 Pakistani designation Kaan-33
12 Panter 155mm Towed gun (2007) 2009 (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine
R: Pakistan (320) 5TDF Diesel engine (2000) 2004-2007 (320) For modernization of Type-59 tanks to Al Zarrar; no. could be up to 400
315 6TD Diesel engine 2002 2004-2010 (195) $150 m deal; for Type-90-2 (MBT-2000 or Al Khalid) tanks from China
4 Il-78M/Midas Tanker/transport ac (2006) 2009-2010 2 Ex-Ukrainian
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA
R: Pakistan (250) 6V-53 Diesel engine (2000) 2005-2006 (250) For Talha APC and Al Qaswa ALV produced in Pakistan
5 Bell-205/UH-1 Huey-2 Helicopter (2001) 2002 5 Ex-US UH-1H rebuilt to Huey-2 before delivery; part of $73 m US; for Ministry of Interior; aid for Afghan border patrol and anti-narcotics operations
3 Cessna-208 Caravan Light transport ac (2001) 2002 (3) For Ministry of Interior; aid for Afghan border patrol and anti-narcotics operations
(100) Paveway Guided bomb (2001) 2002 (100) Paveway-2 version
6 CT-7 Turboprop 2002 2004 (6) For 3 CN-235 transport aircraft from Indonesia; CT-7-9C3 version
(59) T-37B Trainer aircraft 2003 2004 (59) Ex-US; aid; possibly incl some for spares
(20) Bell-209/AH-1F Cobra Combat helicopter 2004 2007 (12) Ex-US; modernized before delivery; status of last 8 uncertain; 20 more for spares only
26 Bell-412 Helicopter 2004 2004-2005 26 Originally $230 m deal for 2 year lease but given to Pakistan in 2007; from Canadian production line; for use in 'war on terrorism'; incl some for police; Bell-412EP version
(2014) BGM-71 TOW Anti-tank missile (2004) 2006-2008 (2014) $82 m deal; TOW-2A version; for AH-1 combat helicopters
6 C-130E Hercules Transport aircraft 2004 2005-2007 (6) Ex-Australian aircraft sold back to US producer and sold to Pakistan; $64 m deal; modernized before delivery; 1 more for spares only
300 AIM-9L/M Sidewinder SRAAM 2005 2007 300 $29 m deal; AIM-9M1/2 version
6 AN/TPS-77 Air search radar 2005 2008-2009 (6) $89 m deal
14 F-16A FGA aircraft 2005 2005-2008 14 Ex-US (but only used 2-4 years); originally produced for Pakistan but delivery embargoed 1988, taken over by USA 2002 and after few years given as aid to Pakistan); aid
7 P-3CUP Orion ASW aircraft 2005 2007-2010 (5) Ex-US P-3C rebuilt to P-3CUP in USA (paid with US aid worth up to $970 m); first 2 delivered without complete systems (to be installed later); delivery 2007-2012
(60) RGM-84L Harpoon-2 Anti-ship missile 2005 2006 (60) $61 m deal; incl 40 AGM-84 version
2 SA-316B Alouette-3 Light helicopter 2005 2006 2 Second-hand; SA-319B version
500 JDAM Guided bomb (2006) 2010 (250)
115 M-109A5 155mm Self-propelled gun 2006 2007-2010 (115) Ex-US; $87 m deal (incl $57 m 'FMF' aid)
1600 Paveway Guided bomb (2006) 2010 (1600) Incl 700 GBU-12 and 300 GBU-10 version
2 TF-50 Gas turbine 2006 2007-2008 2 For MRTP-33 FAC delivered by Turkey
18 AAQ-33 Sniper Aircraft EO system 2007 2010 (18) For F-16 combat aircraft
(500) AIM-120C AMRAAM BVRAAM 2007 2010 (250) $265 m deal; AIM-120C-5 version; for F-16 combat aircraft; delivery from 2010
200 AIM-9L/M Sidewinder SRAAM 2007 2010 (200) AIM-9M8 and AIM-9M9 version; for F-16 combat aircraft
(35) AN/APG-68 Aircraft radar 2007 AN/APG-68(V)9 version; for 'Mid-Life Update' (MLU) modernization of 35 F-16A combat aircraft to F-16C (F-16AM or F-16MLU); delivery from 2011
4 Bell-205/UH-1 Huey-2 Helicopter (2007) 2008 (4) Ex-US UH-1H rebuilt to Huey-2 before delivery; for Ministry of Interior; aid for Afghan border patrol and anti-narcotics operations
3198 BGM-71 TOW Anti-tank missile (2007) $185 m deal; incl 2776 TOW-2A and 422 TOW-2RF; status uncertain
18 F-16C Block-50/52 FGA aircraft 2007 2010 18 $1.4 b 'Peace Drive 1' deal (part of $3.1 b deal); incl 6 F-16D
10 RGM-84L Harpoon-2 Anti-ship missile 2007 2009 (10) AGM-84L version; for P-3C ASW aircraft
5 Bell-205/UH-1 Huey-2 Helicopter (2008) 2009 5 Ex-US UH-1H rebuilt to Huey-2 before delivery; for Ministry of Interior; aid for Afghan border patrol and anti-narcotics operations
(20) T-37B Trainer aircraft 2008 2009 (20) Ex-US; aid; possibly some for spares only
(14) Bell-209/AH-1F Cobra Combat helicopter (2009) 2010 (14) Ex-Jordanian
2 Bell-412 Helicopter 2009 2010 2 $24 m aid, Bell-412EP version
(2) DB-110 Aircraft recce system (2009) 2009 (2) For F-16 combat aircraft
10 Mi-8/Mi-17/Hip-H Helicopter 2009 2009 10 Ex-US; Mi-17 version; incl 4 on 5-year lease; aid
1 RH-800RA/SIG Reconnaissance ac 2009 2010 1 Hawker-850XP version
(550) M-113A3 APC (2010) Ex-US
1 Perry Frigate 2010 2010 1 Ex-US; aid; modernized in $65 m deal before delivery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Isnt it a who is who of innocents? Brazil - part of BRICS march towards peace and prosperity. Indonesia? Turkey! Lebanon! Germany? Ukraine! Friends of India - Switzerland, Italy - the seat of global peace, the great land of great friend of India - Muammar Gaddafi, Russia, France,....hmm.

I am eager to know which one of these above supplied stuff has been used by Paki sourced terrorists on India.

Has it {the US} ever made any constitutional commitment to being secular?

Yes.

brihaspati wrote: I have been quite amused for some pages now seeing the argument of how US arms alone is sustaining Paki terror against India. You have not made it clear the exact chain of consequent factors by which US arms supports LeT, or Jaishi, or Qasab bloodshed on Indians. Can you please let us know as to what proportion of the arms and ammunition used in 26/11 was sourced from USA?

The amusement is mutual, but the reason is different. You have made a specious argument here by alleging that I have said somewhere that "US arms alone is sustaining Paki terror". It shows that I have to deal with meaning twisters who choose to attribute things that i did not say to me. It is a valid way of arguing. I'll give you that. But the meaning you have inferred is rubbish.

brihaspati wrote:I will anticipate your logic - correct me if your logic for repeating the claim that USA alone, with its arms supply, sustains terror on India - is something else. If your claim is true then either
(1) US arms supplies to Pakistan state sustains the Pakistani state to provide enough threat perception to its enemies so that they do not retaliate on any terror attacks from pakiland or do not take steps to dismantle Pakiland regime which sponsors such terror.
(2) US supplies arms of a nature and type usable by terrorists - and it hands them over directly to terrorists or gives to paki state agencies to be handed over to terrorists.

Brihaspati - you are an amusing man. Your conclusions are wrong and your ignorance seems astounding. I don't consider you ignorant, so it is likely that you are doing this deliberately. Having said that I wil repeat what everyone seem to know on BRF that you pretend not to know. You must be the only person on BRF seems to, for reasons known only to yourself, displaying ignorance of the following facts

• The Pakistani army is armed by the US
• The Pakistan army sponsors terrorists (with small and medium arms - guns IED, grenade launchers) but the army retains the heavy weapons that are dangrous to India like tanks and artillery.
• The Pakistani army uses high tech communication deviced to help infiltration of jihadis
• Any time India attacks or threatens to attack Pakistan, the Paki army, that has maintained deniability then flauints the artillery, aircraft and tanks that will do the real damage to the Indian armed forces - our only way of hittinmg Pakistan other than with hot air

brihaspati wrote:
What is most curious for me to see is that

(a) you are assuming that Indian solidarity with Pakis will turn Pakis so much so against USA that USA will stop arming Pakis out of anger [you can see very well that that is not how US mindset works - it will continue to do business and it profits from selling arms - the only industry in which it has an edge over rival biz interests].

(b) you are assuming that turning Pakis against the US will stop their getting substitution patrons who will be ready to supply replacements.

(c) you are assuming that Indian expression of solidarity will be reciprocated by the theologian+feudal+army combine in Pakiland, who will magically transform from pretending good-faith and good-neighbourly behaviour until the very last moment and enjoy the fruits of your friendship and then suddenly ambush you at your most vulnerable and trusting moment. No wonder you demand that we de-emphasize the reality of islamism and the in-built taqyia required to be practised on unsuspecting non-Muslim allies that is conditioned through the texts into the leadership.

If you disagree that is fine. Your and I have had plenty to disagree about in teh past and it will continue, but it sis your ignorance or pretend ignorance of facts that, as far as I am concerned, makes it a total waste of time for me to actually take time out answering questions such as the one below.

brihaspati wrote:As for point (2) - you have not provided data on the types of arms and ammunition that Paki terrorists use on Indians and that are predominantly sourced by the USA. I am assuming that any event that involved towed heavy duty artillery or anti-ship or anti-radar guided missiles etc used in terrorist operations in India or say the fighter jets supplied to Pakis were used by terrorists on India - has not been made public. Any information may help.

Sorry. Any information will not help because I have posted so much that I cannot post all that, and given that you don't actually read much of what is written, it will be a waste of time telling you that the Pakistani army and the jihadis are one and the same. The jihadis hit us, but the army protects Pakistan against any India attacks and the US lends it support here.

This makes attacks on Pakistan painful for India. The degree of pain that Pakistan can inflict on India is augmented and perpetuated by US aid to the Pakistani army.

Asking for more detail is unfair to me. Please believe what you like.

However the style of argument you have used is a lesson to me. In fact it can be used against your pet ideas about Islam and I will use the opportunity to use this style of argument to ask how you consider Islam to be a threat? Is there any data that all the people of Pakistan are followers of hateful Islamist ideology that you warn peopel against?I believe that you are generalizing too much and applying the characteristics of a small group of Islamists to all Pakistanis. Any data you provide in this regard will be helpful.

I believe that friendship and love may well be reciprocated by Pakistanis about whom there is no data that you have provided proving that they are all fundamentalist Muslims.

Brihaspati - You are doing a yeoman job of finding out arms supplied to Pakistan. But start from 1958-9. That is my advice. You are starting from 2000 - a date that is 50 plus years after Pakistan became a US ally.

You are either just ignorant or trolling. The latter is a game that two can play.

I wil be back with comprehnsive data in due course, not that i know the sort of arguments that are being put forward. Fortunately unlike vague accusations of how bad Islamists are there is plenty of data about US arms to Pakistan and how they have been used. Enough to fill a book. And I will post, in due course, enough data to fill that book

I start with this compilation I made some time ago. It is not a database of arms supplies but merely documents the threat as seen by Indian governments
----------------------------------------------------------
US arms supplies to Pakistan have been a chronic irritant in India-US relations,
but the US has consistently chosen to supply Pakistan for its own "interests".
Arming Pakistan with weapons to fight India was in the US interest in other
words.
I want to have an archive of whatever news reports I can find from the past
about this..

I have linked, in a post above, the failure of an Indian lobbying effort n
stopping F-16 sales to Pakistan in 2004
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... 0_1_india-
sacks-law-firms-indian-government

Here are a few more that I found. I will post whatever I find here as a ready
reckoner for how long the US has known that India objects to arms
supplies/aid/sales to Pakistan as a measure of how long US interests in arming
Pakistan has been at loggerheads with a core Indian interest. I am hoping it
will allow me to see where Indian objections worked and when they failed

I have reports from 1953 to 2010 - 57 years (older than most BRFites) about arms
supplies to Pakistan from the U with reports from Nehru in 1953, mentions of
Reagan, ad Bush Sr and Indira Gandhi. I still need to fill the 1953 to 1970 gap.
No time now. Will do later

From 1953
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/acc ... MTS=ABS:AI&
type=historic&date=Nov+16%2C+1953&author=&pub=The+Sun+%281837-1985%29&desc=U.S.-
PAKISTAN+PACT+REPORTS+HIT+BY+INDIA&pqatl=google

Prime Minister Nebru served notice on the United States and Pakistan
today that any military pact between them would "have some very far-reaching
consequences in the whole structure of things in south Asia."

1965
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PT ... AJ&pg=4972,
2003518&dq=indian+concern+us+arms+supply+pakistan&hl=en
Oct 13 1965

An Indian government spokesman also said that India has made its views
known to the US Government "in very clear and unmistakable terms" on the
question of resumption of arms supplies to Pakistan

1968
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Q4 ... AJ&pg=3818,
1850902&dq=indian+concern+us+arms+supply+pakistan&hl=en
16 May 1968

Some members of the Senate foreign relations committee believe the US is
once again becoming involved in an arms race in the Indian subcontinent. This
was the conclusion they reached after an investigation of a proposed
Italian-Pakistani tank deal that has received the approval of the state dept.
The deal involves a complicated three way transaction with the US as a silent
acquiescent partner.

From 1970
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/acc ... MTS=ABS:AI&
type=historic&date=Nov+10%2C+1970&author=&pub=The+Sun+%281837-1985%29&desc=U.S.+
ARMS+CALLED+DANGER+TO+INDIA&pqatl=google

America's decision to supply arms to India's neighbor, Pakistan, will
increase tension in the subcontinent, harming India's effort to normalize
relations with Pakistan, Swaran Singh, the Indian minister of external affairs
said...

From 1973 - two years after the Bangladesh war
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=g3 ... AJ&pg=6826,
6011114&hl=en

US lifts Arms Embargo on Pakistan

1973
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/csmonitor_h ... html?dids=
176616402:176616402&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Mar+16%2C+1973&author=By+Charlotte+
Saikowski+Staff+correspondent+of+The+Christian+Science+Monitor&pub=Christian+
Science+Monitor&desc=No+military+impact+seen+in+arms+embargo+end&pqatl=google

Despite New Delhi's displeasure, Washington's decision to lift its
embargo on arms shipments to Pakistan and India is not viewed here as having
military significance.

From 1975
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0o ... AJ&pg=3015,
3992308&dq=indian+concern+us+arms+supply+pakistan&hl=en

US move to lift arms embargo on Pakistn linked to protection of oil
supply

1975
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=NU ... AJ&pg=7183,
3161644&dq=indian+concern+us+arms+supply+pakistan&hl=en
Wed Feb 19th 1975

India has officially warned the United States that any decision to resume
arms supplies to Pakistan will jeopardize Indo-American relations

1975
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=51 ... AJ&pg=2993,
3007773&dq=indian+concern+us+arms+supply+pakistan&hl=en

Oil supplies and arms to Pakistan are connected ... Such a decision would
be consistent with the multi-billion dollar US arms sales to Iran

From 1981
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/acc ... MTS=ABS:AI&
type=historic&date=Aug+25%2C+1981&author=&pub=The+Sun+%281837-1985%29&
desc=Pakistan+arms+protest+voiced+by+Mrs.+Gandhi&pqatl=google

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi last night conveyed to President Reagan
India's serious concern at American arms supplies for Pakistan and "dangers of
great power rivalry being brought to the Indian subcontinent.

1981
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nw ... AJ&pg=1297,
513092&dq=indian+concern+us+arms+supply+pakistan&hl=en

India Upset by arms sales to Pakistan

1984
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7V ... AJ&pg=6753,
7136315&dq=indian+concern+us+arms+supply+pakistan&hl=en

(Indira) Gandhi says arms to Pakistan fuel arms race (in meeting with
George Bush sr)

1994
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego/ac ... 1242494791:
1242494791&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+16%2C+1994&author=MATT+
MILLER&pub=The+San+Diego+Union+-+Tribune&desc=Clinton+has+chance+to+mend+U.S.-
India+ties&pqatl=google

Clinton has chance to mend U.S.-India ties
[1,2,3,4 Edition]
The San Diego Union - Tribune - San Diego, Calif.
Author: MATT MILLER
Date: May 16, 1994

Abstract (Document Summary)

Pakistan, on the other hand, has been a military dictatorship for most of its
life, but became an important U.S. surrogate in its Cold War fight against the
Soviet Union. In the 1980s, billions of dollars worth of weapons flowed through
Pakistan. Much of this was destined for Afghan rebels fighting Soviet troops.
But India saw the sophisticated weapons as a source of further insecurity and
priming a regional arms buildup. Indeed, some of those U.S. weapons are now
turning up in Kashmir, where separatists are fighting Indian troops, Indians
allege.

Wikileaks Cables 2005
http://www.thehindu.com/news/the-india- ... 983608.ece

4. (C) There is universal opposition in India to the supply of
sophisticated arms to Pakistan, with the F-16 aircraft symbolizing a US
commitment to upgrading the Pakistani armed forces. The Secstate visit has
raised new fears among the GOI that it could again be blindsided by an
announcement in Islamabad, this time concerning new weapons supplies. With
Parliament now engaged, the issue is certain to be raised in the Secretary's New
Delhi media interactions.

MULFORD

2010
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article798669.ece

Ahead of his talks with top U.S. officials here, Defence Minister A.K.
Antony has said he would convey New Delhi’s concerns about supply of American
arms to Pakistan as a portion of them is being diverted against India and seek
an “early solution” to export control restrictions.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2007_pg1_6

Pakistan has top-of-the-line US arms
By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: The defence relationship between Pakistan and the US has been described as "robust" in a research study published here and the military and defence equipment received by Pakistan since 2001, "top of the line".

Col David O Smith, former US military attaché at the US embassy in Islamabad, writes in the current issue of Strategic Insights, a publication of the Centre for Contemporary Conflict at the National Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, recalls that between 1954 and 2002, the US provided Pakistan a total of $12.6 billion in economic and military assistance.

Since 9/11, it has provided $4.42 billion in economic and military assistance to Pakistan, but when $4.58 billion in reimbursement for Pakistan's military contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom is added, the total amount of direct US Treasury outlay to the Pakistani government in 2002-2007 amounts to $9 billion. Fully $6.39 billion of this amount is directly or indirectly related to Pakistani military programmes.

According to Col Smith, "The US has made available to Pakistan a wide variety of top-of-the-line military equipment hitherto considered politically sensitive. Air force systems delivered or in the pipeline include 36 F-16 C/D block 50/52 fighter aircraft, the most modern version currently flown by the US Air Force; a programme to modernise all 34 of Pakistan's existing F-16 fleet to the same standard; 500 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) - the largest single international AMRAAM purchase in the history of the programme; 200 AIM-9M Sidewinder missiles; and six C-130E transport aircraft. Navy systems delivered or in the pipeline include eight P-3C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft; a programme to modernise Pakistan's existing P-3 fleet; Harpoon block 2 missiles, and three additional P-3 aircraft that will be configured with the E-2C HAWKEYE airborne early warning electronics suite.

"Army equipment delivered or in the pipeline includes 26 Bell 412 helicopters; 20 AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters and modernisation of Pakistan's existing Cobra fleet, Harris high frequency radios, TOW-2A anti-tank missiles, and 115 M-109A5 howitzers. To manage these programmes the embassy security assistance office, the Office of the Defence Representative, Pakistan (ODRP) has expanded to a complex organisation of approximately 40 military personnel headed by a major general."

shiv ji,
2000-2001 is supposed to be a turnaround for war-against terror type of US excuses in supplying Pakiland. Since we were looking at terrorist angle I took that as the modern benchmark.

But I agree, we should look back further and then tie that up with US weapons being used inside India by Paki sourced terrorists.

However, the difficulty with major conventional weapons - will still remain. We will have to go into infantry weapons, explosives, and small weapons. Thats an even harder area to figure out flows by source and sink.

From what you are posting - it is still about major conventional weapons of large-scale national-army involving warfare. These are not systems used by the paki terrorists who do manage to continuously get in and wreak havoc. You are yet to show me a connection to the direct usage by terrorists.

No one denies the potential increase in risk of war - by the US arms supplies to Pakistan. But so far we have had only three "wars" with Pakis after the Republic was formed. Was your original gripe against the USA for increasing the risk of war on the subcontinent? My impression was you were talking of the terrorist activities in the so-called low-intensity or asymmetric framework.

http://www-pub.naz.edu:9000/~aamghar6/T ... ations.htm

The U.S. military, economic, and political ties with Pakistan go back to 1953, the time when the United States signed an agreement to provide military aid to Pakistan under the United States Mutual Security Act. The agreement had the purpose of enhancing Pakistan's military capabilities to counter and contain the Soviet expansion. In 1971, the United States supplied arms and ammunitions to Pakistan to crush revolts in East Pakistan (currently Bangladesh). Pakistan was comprised of two parts: the western part (currently Pakistan) and the eastern part (currently Bangladesh). The eastern part gained independence from West Pakistan in December 16, 1971 after bloody revolts and direct intervention of Indian troops in support of East Pakistan (Brown 400-01).

<snip>

The Pakistani government allowed the United States to establish military bases on Pakistani soil and use its airspace. In response, the United States lifted the sanctions imposed during the 1990s and forgave more than $1 billion of Pakistani debt. The Bush administration worked with the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to help provide Pakistan with loans on generous terms. Over the last five years, the United States has provided Pakistan with more $10 billion; the Pakistani army took 59.5 percent ($4.93 billion) of the amount to cover expenses of the fight against the Taliban. Another 14.9 percent (1.23 billion) was allotted for financing the Pakistani military and reimburse purchases of weapons from United States. Direct cash transfer to the Pakistani government for budget support accounted for 19.4 percent (1.61 billion) of the total amount. However, development assistance, food aid, and humanitarian aid took only 6.2 percent ($512 million) of the amount (Hathaway).

The United States helped Pakistan avoid a devastative war with India in late 2001 and early 2002 and worked with both countries to relax tensions and reach a peaceful resolution to the crisis. The United States has resumed its sales of F-16 fighter aircraft to Islamabad and granted Pakistan the status of a major non-NATO ally (Hathaway).

shiv wrote:http://www-pub.naz.edu:9000/~aamghar6/T ... ations.htm

The U.S. military, economic, and political ties with Pakistan go back to 1953, the time when the United States signed an agreement to provide military aid to Pakistan under the United States Mutual Security Act. The agreement had the purpose of enhancing Pakistan's military capabilities to counter and contain the Soviet expansion. In 1971, the United States supplied arms and ammunitions to Pakistan to crush revolts in East Pakistan (currently Bangladesh). Pakistan was comprised of two parts: the western part (currently Pakistan) and the eastern part (currently Bangladesh). The eastern part gained independence from West Pakistan in December 16, 1971 after bloody revolts and direct intervention of Indian troops in support of East Pakistan (Brown 400-01).

<snip>

The Pakistani government allowed the United States to establish military bases on Pakistani soil and use its airspace. In response, the United States lifted the sanctions imposed during the 1990s and forgave more than $1 billion of Pakistani debt. The Bush administration worked with the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to help provide Pakistan with loans on generous terms. Over the last five years, the United States has provided Pakistan with more $10 billion; the Pakistani army took 59.5 percent ($4.93 billion) of the amount to cover expenses of the fight against the Taliban. Another 14.9 percent (1.23 billion) was allotted for financing the Pakistani military and reimburse purchases of weapons from United States. Direct cash transfer to the Pakistani government for budget support accounted for 19.4 percent (1.61 billion) of the total amount. However, development assistance, food aid, and humanitarian aid took only 6.2 percent ($512 million) of the amount (Hathaway).

The United States helped Pakistan avoid a devastative war with India in late 2001 and early 2002 and worked with both countries to relax tensions and reach a peaceful resolution to the crisis. The United States has resumed its sales of F-16 fighter aircraft to Islamabad and granted Pakistan the status of a major non-NATO ally (Hathaway).

Okay - economic aid is not direct arms supply, so if you say that this money was used to buy the explosives and arms used by terrorists inside India - I agree to the possibility. But it is not arms supply - which you maintained was the chief cause of Paki terror on India.

Did you retain the last paragraph as a support to my suggested line of reasoning by which US conventionala rms supply could be linked to paki sponsored terror on India - via stabilizing of Pakistani state route? but then it will draw the counters I posted as to declared Indian intent towards the stability and continuity of Pakistan. India wants to stabilize Pakistan too - isnt it - so US help in stabilizing and guaranteeing continuity of Paki state should be in Indian interest - no?

brihaspati wrote: You are yet to show me a connection to the direct usage by terrorists.

I have actually posted a reply above, But you have not read it. You seem to have missed a lot of information if you are being honest here.

The Pakistan army uses jihadis against India. Any military retaiiation against Pakistan is defended by the Pakistan armed forces. This is what thwarts any Indian aims of doing anything beyond minor cosmetic responses to Pakistan.

In 1965 Pakistanis sent in "infiltrators", but the war that resulted was nearly lost by India because of US arms in Pakistan

In 1999 Pakistans sent "infiltrators" while Indian positions were pinned down using accurate US made weapons locating radars and artillery fire

In Op Parakram India faced the Pakistan army, not jihadis.

Other ways in which US arms are used

1. Secure communications for terrorists entering India
2. Up to the early 2000s - artillery suppressive fire against indian forces at the border to give infiltrators cover.

Pakistanis do not have to give US arms to Jihadis as long as the jihadis do the killing and dying, while the army and governance structure remains intact and powerful against Indian retaliation.

India's military options vis a vis Pakistan are limited because of US arms aid, and because the Paki army knows that India's options are limited, they are able to wage a terror war against India. If you don't know this I am really surprised and wonder how much more you don't know.

Okay - going back to 1950: have to break it up into several posts perhaps.

Transfers of major conventional weapons: sorted by supplier. Deals with deliveries or orders made for year range 1950 to 2010 [Source SIPRI database]

Supplier/ Year Year(s) No. 
 recipient (R) No. Weapon Weapon of order/ of delivered/ 
 or licenser (L) ordered designation description licence deliveries produced Comments


Australia
R: Pakistan 45 Mirage-3E FGA aircraft 1990 1990-1991 (45) Ex-Australian; $28 m deal; Mirage-3OA version; incl some Mirage-3OD; modernized in Pakistan after delivery; 5 more for for spares only
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belarus
R: Pakistan (1920) 9M119/AT-11 Sniper Anti-tank missile 1996 1997-1999 (1920) For T-80UD tank; status uncertain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil
R: Pakistan 100 MAR-1 Anti-radar missile (2008) 2010 (100) $108 m deal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada
R: Pakistan (3) AN/APS-504(V) MP aircraft radar (1984) 1985-1988 (3) For 3 F-27 transport aircraft modified to F-27 Maritime MP aircraft in the Netherlands
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China
R: Pakistan (25) Type-501B Fire control radar (1964) 1964-1967 (25)
72 F-6/Farmer Fighter aircraft 1965 1965-1966 (72) Aid
4 Il-28/Beagle Bomber aircraft (1965) 1966 4 H-5 (B-5) version; Pakistani designation B-56
(400) M-30 122mm Towed gun (1965) 1965-1974 (400) Type-54-1 version
(4) MiG-15UTI/Midget Trainer aircraft (1965) 1966-1967 (4) Ex-Chinese
(200) WZ-120/Type-59 Tank (1965) 1965-1966 (200)
(550) WZ-120/Type-59 Tank (1966) 1967-1970 (550)
(50) ML-20 152mm Towed gun (1968) 1968 (50) Supplier uncertain; probably ex-Chinese
(50) Type-63 Light tank (1969) 1970-1971 (50)
12 Type-062/Shanghai Patrol craft (1970) 1972-1973 (12)
(50) Type-60 Light tank (1970) 1971-1972 (50)
200 D-74 122mm Towed gun (1971) 1971-1973 (200) Type-60 version
(103) F-6/Farmer Fighter aircraft (1971) 1971-1972 (103) Deal incl complete F-6 overhaul factory and probably some FT-6 trainer version
4 Type-025/Huchuan FAC 1972 1973 4
159 WZ-120/Type-59 Tank (1973) 1974 159
(50) FT-5 Trainer aircraft (1974) 1975-1976 (50)
(2) MiG-17PF/Fresco-D Fighter aircraft (1974) 1975 (2)
(173) Type-59-1 130mm Towed gun 1974 1976-1980 (173)
2 Type-037/Hainan Patrol craft 1975 1976 2
(825) WZ-120/Type-59 Tank (1975) 1978-1988 (825)
60 F-6/Farmer Fighter aircraft 1977 1978-1980 (60)
20 MiG-17PF/Fresco-D Fighter aircraft 1978 1978 (20)
(25) FT-6 Trainer/combat ac 1979 1980-1981 (25)
2 Type-037/Hainan Patrol craft 1979 1980 2
(20) HY-2/SY-1A/CSS-N-2 Anti-ship missile 1980 1981 (20) For Hegu (Haibat) FAC; SY-1A (CSS-N-2) version
4 Type-024/Hegu FAC (1980) 1981 4
52 A-5C Fantan FGA aircraft 1981 1983-1984 (52) A-5III version
(40) HQ-2/CSA-1 SAM (1983) 1983 (40)
1 HQ-2/CSA-1 SAM system (1983) 1983 (1)
(32) HY-1/SY-1/CSS-N-1 Anti-ship missile 1983 1984 (32) For Huangfen (Azmat) FAC
4 Type-021/Huangfen FAC (1983) 1984 4
14 FT-5 Trainer aircraft (1984) 1985 (14)
(100) HN-5A Portable SAM (1984) 1987 (100)
1 Fuqing Support ship (1985) 1987 1
24 F-7M Airguard Fighter aircraft (1986) 1987-1988 (24) F-7P (F-7MP) version; incl 4 FT-7 version
75 F-7M Airguard Fighter aircraft 1988 1989-1991 (75) $225 m deal; F-7P (F-7MP) version; incl 15 FT-7P version
4 P-58A Patrol craft (1988) 1989-1990 4 Pakistani designation Barkat; for coast guard
(250) WZ-121/Type-69 Tank (1990) 1993-1999 (250) Type-69-IIP or Type-69-IIMP version; incl assembly and probably production in Pakistan
40 F-7M Airguard Fighter aircraft 1992 1993 40 F-7P (F-7MP) version
(87) Type-59-1 130mm Towed gun (1992) 1998-2000 87
3 LL-1 Fire control radar (1994) 1996-1997 (3) For modernization of 3 Tariq (Amazon or Type-21) Class frigates; for use with LY-60N SAMs
(36) LY-60 SAM (1994) 1996-1997 (36) For 3 modernized Tariq (Amazon) Class frigates
2 Type-76 37mm Naval gun (1995) 1997-1999 2 For 2 Jalalat FAC produced in Pakistan
(6) Y-12 Transport aircraft 1995 1996-1997 (6)
2 Type-347G Fire control radar (1996) 1997-1999 2 For 2 Jalalat FAC produced in Pakistan
(20) C-802/CSS-N-8 Anti-ship missile 1997 1997-1999 (20) For Jalalat FAC
46 F-7MG Fighter aircraft (2001) 2001-2003 (46) F-7PG version; incl 6 or 9 FT-7PG version
11 F-7MG Fighter aircraft (2002) 2003 11 F-7PG version
(6) A-5C Fantan FGA aircraft (2003) 2003 6
(20) C-802/CSS-N-8 Anti-ship missile (2003) 2006 (20) For Jalalat FAC
(143) D-30 122mm Towed gun (2003) 2003-2004 143
2 Type-347G Fire control radar (2003) 2006 2 For 2 Jalalat FAC produced in Pakistan
1 YLC-2 Air search radar (2003) 2003 1
10 YLC-6 Air search radar (2003) 2005-2006 (10)
(6) AS-565SA Panther ASW helicopter 2005 2009-2010 (6) Z-9EC version
(70) C-802/CSS-N-8 Anti-ship missile (2005) 2009-2010 (50) For Jiangwei (F-22P) frigates
(70) R-440 Crotale SAM (2005) 2009-2010 (50) For Jiangwei (F-22P) frigates; HQ-7 (FM-80) version
(200) PL-12/SD-10 BVRAAM (2006) 2010 (25) For JF-17 and possibly modernized Mirage-3/5 combat aircraft; contract possibly not yet signed
(300) PL-5E SRAAM (2006) 2009-2010 (110) For JF-17 combat aircraft; PL-5E-II version
(12) A-100 300mm Self-propelled MRL (2008) 2010 (12)
(50) C-802/CSS-N-8 Anti-ship missile (2008) 2010 (10) For JF-17 combat aircraft
(600) LS-6 Guided bomb (2008) 2010 (100) For JF-17 combat aircraft
(2) SLC-2 Arty locating radar (2008) 2010 (2) For use with A-100 MRL
(50) WMD-7 Aircraft EO system (2008) 2009-2010 (22) For JF-17 combat aircraft
4 ZDK-03 AEW&C aircraft 2008 USD278 m deal; delivery 2011
(30) C-802/CSS-N-8 Anti-ship missile (2010) For Type-002 FAC; designation uncertain

L: Pakistan (45) Type-83 122mm Self-propelled MRL (1981) 1982-1983 (45) Pakistani designation Azar; designation and supplier uncertain; could be BM-11 from North Korea
6 K-8 Karakorum-8 Trainer/combat ac 1987 1994 6 Incl some components produced in Pakistan and some assembled in Pakistan
(1000) HN-5A Portable SAM (1988) 1989-1998 (1000) Pakistani designation Anza-1
(55) M-11/CSS-7 SSM (1988) 1992-1994 (55) Incl assembly in Pakistan
. . Red Arrow-8 Anti-tank missile 1989 1990-2010 (20350) Pakistani designation Baktar Shikan
(268) Type-85-IIM Tank 1990 1992-1996 268 Type-85-IIAP version; incl assembly from kits and production in Pakistan
. . QW-1 Vanguard Portable SAM (1993) 1994-2010 (1450) Pakistani designation Anza-2
(65) W-653/Type-653 ARV (1994) 1995-2000 (65) Incl assembly/production in Pakistan; Pakistani designation ARV-W653
(300) Type-90-2/MBT-2000 Tank (1998) 2001-2010 (198) MBT-2000 (Al Khalid or P-90) version
(50) JF-17 Thunder/FC-1 FGA aircraft 1999 2007-2010 (25) Developed for Pakistan; incl production of components and assembly in Pakistan; incl 8 mainly for testing; first 42 production version ordered 2009 for $800 m; total up to 150-350 planned
6 K-8 Karakorum-8 Trainer/combat ac (2001) 2003 6 Incl production of components and assembly in Pakistan
27 K-8 Karakorum-8 Trainer/combat ac 2005 2007-2010 27 K-8P version
4 Type-053H/Jiangwei Frigate 2005 2009-2010 3 $500-750 m deal; F-22P version; incl 1 produced in Pakistan; Pakistani designation Zulfiquar, delivery 2009-2013
2 Type-022/Houbei FAC 2010 Designation uncertain; incl 1 produced in Pakistan; delivery probably 2011/2012

brihaspati wrote:
Okay - economic aid is not direct arms supply, so if you say that this money was used to buy the explosives and arms used by terrorists inside India - I agree to the possibility. But it is not arms supply - which you maintained was the chief cause of Paki terror on India.

I did not. You are making up things to buttress an absent argument. Not even a weak one. You have not read most of what I have posted and are simply jumping in for the fun of it. That is actually trolling and I am not sure why you choose to do it to me.

I think we are on the same side. You need not agree with me. But stop trolling. The infomation you seek is freely available in large amounts and stop claiming that I said things that I did not say.

shiv wrote:

brihaspati wrote: You are yet to show me a connection to the direct usage by terrorists.

I have actually posted a reply above, But you have not read it. You seem to have missed a lot of information if you are being honest here.

The Pakistan army uses jihadis against India. Any military retaiiation against Pakistan is defended by the Pakistan armed forces. This is what thwarts any Indian aims of doing anything beyond minor cosmetic responses to Pakistan.

In 1965 Pakistanis sent in "infiltrators", but the war that resulted was nearly lost by India because of US arms in Pakistan

In 1999 Pakistans sent "infiltrators" while Indian positions were pinned down using accurate US made weapons locating radars and artillery fire

In Op Parakram India faced the Pakistan army, not jihadis.

Other ways in which US arms are used

1. Secure communications for terrorists entering India
2. Up to the early 2000s - artillery suppressive fire against indian forces at the border to give infiltrators cover.

Pakistanis do not have to give US arms to Jihadis as long as the jihadis do the killing and dying, while the army and governance structure remains intact and powerful against Indian retaliation.

India's military options vis a vis Pakistan are limited because of US arms aid, and because the Paki army knows that India's options are limited, they are able to wage a terror war against India. If you don't know this I am really surprised and wonder how much more you don't know.

I did not miss it - I even anticipated it in an earlier post - my point number (1) which said that you have to give a convoluted chain of logic by which US arms stabilizes the Pakistani state and increases threat perception in victims of Paki terror and stops them from retaliating. I suggested this logical chain sometime before you mentioned it in the post above. But I also drew three subsequent problems to that chain of logic. Did you miss them too?

brihaspati wrote:Okay - going back to 1950: have to break it up into several posts perhaps.

And while you are filling up the forum with this info please a attempt a degree of intellectual honesty and see how much was "aid" and how much was purchase. I am not bluffing. I have been through all this. If you need to convince yourself - that is fine, But stop trolling me. The US has given Pakistan more than enough aid to take care of all its arms requirements worries for decades.

brihaspati wrote: I did not miss it - I even anticipated it in an earlier post - my point number (1) which said that you have to give a convoluted chain of logic by which US arms stabilizes the Pakistani state and increases threat perception in victims of Paki terror and stops them from retaliating. I suggested this logical chain sometime before you mentioned it in the post above. But I also drew three subsequent problems to that chain of logic. Did you miss them too?

No I did not miss them. I don't agree with your original premise and I see no point in answering questions based on that premise. But please go ahead with your research. I am waiting for the years 1953 to 1999.

shiv ji, you too seem to have missed this post of mine - and the three issues I raised about this argument of indirect perpetration of Paki terror through stablizing and securing the Paki ruling regime and its army: so I am reposting relevant parts of it :

brihaspati wrote:

shiv wrote:The concentration on America is for a reason that i will repeat since it is clear that unless I repeat people miss what i have said several times in the past. And I will keep repeating as long as necessary.

Ideology does not kill. Ideology that is armed with deadly weapons becomes a real threat. From the military standpoint, the Pakistan army is afar bigger threat than the Taliban. That Pakistan military is an ally of the USA. It's formidable capability has been augmented for decades by the USA. And that USA basically took over "management" of the world from the British empire. The racist policies that set up the empire have been consistently supported by the USA.

I have been quite amused for some pages now seeing the argument of how US arms alone is sustaining Paki terror against India. You have not made it clear the exact chain of consequent factors by which US arms supports LeT, or Jaishi, or Qasab bloodshed on Indians. Can you please let us know as to what proportion of the arms and ammunition used in 26/11 was sourced from USA?

I will anticipate your logic - correct me if your logic for repeating the claim that USA alone, with its arms supply, sustains terror on India - is something else. If your claim is true then either
(1) US arms supplies to Pakistan state sustains the Pakistani state to provide enough threat perception to its enemies so that they do not retaliate on any terror attacks from pakiland or do not take steps to dismantle Pakiland regime which sponsors such terror.
(2) US supplies arms of a nature and type usable by terrorists - and it hands them over directly to terrorists or gives to paki state agencies to be handed over to terrorists.

As for (1), it assumes that India has, wants to, and will - want to dismantle Paki state machinery that sustains terror, or wants to retaliate at all. The arguments against retaliation has been consistently - that trade and prosperity will suffer, leading to loss of economic growth. I did not see you arguing against such arguments. However, suppose we accept that the Indian state does really have such intentions and the only reason it cannot do so is for fear of US arms in the hands of Pakis.

What is most curious for me to see is that

(a) you are assuming that Indian solidarity with Pakis will turn Pakis so much so against USA that USA will stop arming Pakis out of anger [you can see very well that that is not how US mindset works - it will continue to do business and it profits from selling arms - the only industry in which it has an edge over rival biz interests].

(b) you are assuming that turning Pakis against the US will stop their getting substitution patrons who will be ready to supply replacements.

(c) you are assuming that Indian expression of solidarity will be reciprocated by the theologian+feudal+army combine in Pakiland, who will magically transform from pretending good-faith and good-neighbourly behaviour until the very last moment and enjoy the fruits of your friendship and then suddenly ambush you at your most vulnerable and trusting moment. No wonder you demand that we de-emphasize the reality of islamism and the in-built taqyia required to be practised on unsuspecting non-Muslim allies that is conditioned through the texts into the leadership.

The attempt to force the 'logic' where one needs to prove that US made arms were being supplied to the terrorists (as proof of US involvement) is astounding in its naivete. Because it is the most easily disputable. If the terrorists were using russian made AK-47 - does that mean Russia was supporting paki terrorists in india?

Infact even if it could be proved that US supplied small arms were being supplied to paki terrorists - it would still be the least pernicious aspect of US support to the pak army. Infact the pak army could let the terrorists sneak in empty handed and buy ammonium nitrate in india.

The key concern for india is that the US arms to pak made indian punishment of TSP very very costly - Think of operation Parakram (that is where the trade off with growth and development comes in). Every time india tried to build a conventional asymmetry it was thwarted by US and finally they gave (along with China) them access to nukes (so here again the economic growth argument comes in).

The supply of arms aid by the US to pak ensured that the latter could continue to bleed India with a thousand cuts without fear of retaliation. This was then sought to be explained away as indian 'weakness' rather than US perfidy.


I though these facts were self evident on BRF. Why are we reinventing the wheel?

brihaspati wrote:
(a) you are assuming that Indian solidarity with Pakis will turn Pakis so much so against USA that USA will stop arming Pakis out of anger [you can see very well that that is not how US mindset works - it will continue to do business and it profits from selling arms - the only industry in which it has an edge over rival biz interests].

I have made no such blanket assumption. You think I have made that assumption and you are against the assumption you think I have made

brihaspati wrote:(b) you are assuming that turning Pakis against the US will stop their getting substitution patrons who will be ready to supply replacements.

I have made no such assumption. You are once again trying to read my mind. Turning Pakis against the US is a useful end in itself. That is as much as I agree with. Doing that will not be easy, but I think it is a good idea. I would use any means possible, however unlikely, to achieve that end. Anything that you attribute to me beyond that is totally conjured up in your own mind. Please don't try and patch your imagination onto what you think are "my assumptions"

brihaspati wrote:(c) you are assuming that Indian expression of solidarity will be reciprocated by the theologian+feudal+army combine in Pakiland, who will magically transform from pretending good-faith and good-neighbourly behaviour until the very last moment and enjoy the fruits of your friendship and then suddenly ambush you at your most vulnerable and trusting moment. No wonder you demand that we de-emphasize the reality of islamism and the in-built taqyia required to be practised on unsuspecting non-Muslim allies that is conditioned through the texts into the leadership.

I have made no such assumption. You are worried enough about an imagined assumption of this kind that you are arguing against it. Your argument may be valid, but saying that i made such an assumption is a figment of your imagination. You have used my statements to create a straw man that you have proceeded to knock down. That is your business and has nothing to do with me.

Actually I too thought many facts would be self-evident on BRF - but did not realize that they would be selectively self-evident.

For example after so much churning and piskological dissection of the Paki elite metality : we are still wallowing in the naivette of assuming that

(a) Indian solidarity with Pakis will turn Pakis so much so against USA that USA will stop arming Pakis out of anger [you can see very well that that is not how US mindset works - it will continue to do business and it profits from selling arms - the only industry in which it has an edge over rival biz interests].

(b) turning Pakis against the US will stop their getting substitute patrons who will be ready to supply replacements.

(c) Indian expression of solidarity will be reciprocated by the theologian+feudal+army combine in Pakiland, who will magically transform from pretending good-faith and good-neighbourly behaviour until the very last moment and enjoy the fruits of your friendship and then suddenly ambush you at your most vulnerable and trusting moment.

No wonder that this naivette can only be supported by the matching demand that we de-emphasize the reality of islamism and the in-built taqyia required to be practised on unsuspecting non-Muslim allies that is conditioned through the texts into the leadership.

shiv ji,
those three points are at least something concrete on which your proposal could be justified. Or your proposal makes an effectivity claim if at least these three conditions are valid. If you are not assuming any such thing -then any of those conditions failing can jeopardize your hoped for proposal to be of any benefit for India. There could be other overwhelming reasons you have not stated - but if at least one of my stated conditions fail - turning Paki aam [no chance of elite turning] against USA will not stop arms flow to Pakiland and the security of its army. You want the arms flow to stop - don't you?

By the way - no GOI ever expressed its thought that it wanted to but could not retaliate for fear of US arms. It did not retaliate because it did not want to destabilize a state which itself was a "victim" or precipitate war - at least that was the official line. Are we sure we are not putting thoughts and words in our own hearts into the governing minds?

The whole question reduces to a very simple one then :

Target : stop advanced arms supply to Paki army.
Why: so that it cannot threaten using them when faced with retaliation for terror activities against India.

How to achieve target? Convince Pakis that they are racially abused by US - Or that the "white Christian" identity is an American identity and cannot be the identity of SDRE subcontinental Muslims of Pak.

Hope: this convincing will turn Pakis against the US.

Logic : When Pakis turn against US, US arms flow to Paki army will stop.

Any precedence for such logic? Nope! None whatsoever! US continues to supply arms even when Pakis blatantly lie and steal and carry out duplicity on the very source of aid and bites the hand that feeds it.

Even if hypothetically true, will that stop arms flow to Pak? No chance : a host of cash starved hardware rich western, ex-soviet loop and China ready to fill up the gap. They do already a brisque biz - some of them may have surplus cash to take up the US "aid".

Does convincing Pakis of their SDRE homogeneity with India guarantee that continued terror supported by replacement arms suppliers - will stop? that is assuming that Pakis forget their taqyia guilt-freeing injunctions. Possible - may be! But where is that teacher?

another indicator of US behavior is the Iran-Contra affair. the supposedly "great enemy" of Mullahs' Iran was clearly not seen as an "enemy" when it was armed by US for some hare-brained scheme! the Ayatollahs were carrying on their rhetoric of hatred and animosity and "civilizational clash" very actively and US was doing the same about Iran. that did not stop the arms supplies! only after the "balance" between Iraq and Iran was restored did the supplies stop. this is US mentality. as long as goals are met, do anything and everything. the same with Pakistan. the idea of supporting Pakistan is fueled by more fundamental needs, in US thinking. they need Pakistan to beat up India and maintain that "lever".

The intention should not be to stop arms to Pak. The rubicon has already been crossed. The idea should be to broaden the target horizon for pakjabi terrorists. So far India has done the heavy lifting on behalf of the rest of the world. Why shouldn't india assist them to channelise their hatred in other directions? Afterall many from pakjab want to migrate - some will and may carry their chip with them.

India has lived and adapted to the pak threat - the others also should. If this means India should become friendly with paki elite - 'we are like you onlee'; so be it

brihaspati wrote: shiv ji,
those three points are at least something concrete on which your proposal could be justified. Or your proposal makes an effectivity claim if at least these three conditions are valid. If you are not assuming any such thing -then any of those conditions failing can jeopardize your hoped for proposal to be of any benefit for India.

Brihaspati - I have no grandiose plans that should be boiling down to your 3 proposals. I am a simpleton maybe, but not such a stupid simpleton as to conjure up those ridiculously naive "three points" which you claim are a necessary corollary of what you think I am saying.

I have been stressing only the following points from the very beginning, with no plans, corollaries, effects or anything of the sort

• The US's presence in the Indian subcontinent is the current chapter of an imperial white Christian racist plan that was set in motion by the British in pre-1947 India where sympathy for the possible fate of Muslims resulted in the creation of an Islamic Pakistan that would have western support against the bigoted Hindu in return for some favors
• Whether the US overtly subscribes to such a plan or not, that is the very plan that is in progress right now in The Indian subcontinent. The US is continuing a plan set in motion by White Christian racists
• The Pakistan army is beholden to the USA as the Muslim league was beholden to the British empire. In turn the USA ensures survival of that Army in power.
• While the US ensures that the army is not destroyed by an aggressive India, the US makes sure that the Pakistan army itself does not get the sort of support it needs to overwhelm India. This is in perfect consonance with the plan to keep Hindu India and Islamic Pakistan tied up against each other, with the latter doing the Great white man's job.
• As I see it the only way forward from this is to get the USA out of the subcontinent or at the very least somehow stop the US from keeping the Pakistan army as powerful as it has been all these years. This would in my view open up more opportunities for the people of the Indian subcontinent to relate to each other in the way they did before the imperial powers came in
• My vision for India if any is for land routes to be open for India up to Iran, central Asia and beyond. The Pakistani army is the most powerful entity that stands in our way. That army is supported by the USA
• I am hoping that Pakistanis will somehow magically understand the power dynamics of the subcontinent and will see how their Islamic Army is no more than slave mercenary force for a white Christian USA. This, I am hoping, will enable Pakistanis to get a better idea of the sorts of problems they face. If that happens to create a demand for the US to leave Pakistan by democratic common consent within Pakistan, so be it. I would be the last one to oppose that, should it occur

brihaspati wrote:By the way - no GOI ever expressed its thought that it wanted to but could not retaliate for fear of US arms. It did not retaliate because it did not want to destabilize a state which itself was a "victim" or precipitate war - at least that was the official line. Are we sure we are not putting thoughts and words in our own hearts into the governing minds?

Thank you for informing me about what the GoI thinks or does not think. I will remember to ask you next time if I have any doubts in this regard since you are the one who reads and recognises thoughts in my head and the motivations of the Indian government. In this case the clarification was not required, but since you have made it, I take it as the truth.

shiv saar,
the import of my post was completely different.

shiv wrote:

RajeshA wrote: 1) USA is one of India's main economic partners. It has welcomed many of our citizens and treats them well. In the essence of how USA deals with Indians and how Pakistan deals with Indians, there is a huge difference. Now when pronouncing equivalences, should one forget all that?

After killing off India's economy, Britain became India's "leading partner". For the Indian economy to develop we need land routes to Iran and central Asia via a Pakistan that is not being manipulated by the last gasp of imperialism, the USA

Q: Are the number of Indians - soldiers and civilians, who have died directly at the hands of Pakistanis or in operations masterminded by Pakistanis, equal to the number of Indians who have died at the hands of Americans? If not, why the insistence on equivalence?

shiv wrote:

RajeshA wrote: On Islam vs. White Christianity Aggression: Since we are comparing the two, we should develop some metric for it.

You are proposing favouring some people for being less racist than others based on some "metric" for racism? . Hair splitting would be OK for most discussions - but who do you have "more racist" and "Less racist"? Like "More rapist" and "Less rapist". "More criminal" and "less criminal"? I think that is unacceptable

The metric is not about racism. It is about intensity of hate due to racism-religious reasons.

Q: Is the Sum Total of Intensity of Hate from Pakistan equal to that of Hate from USA?

Why is the question valid? Well intensity of hate provides motivation! So the question is: If the intensity of hate is different, why cannot one consider strategic interests to be the defining factor for America's involvement in the Indian Subcontinent Region. Why should the motivation be defined as racial-religious? And why should it be considered as equal to that of Pakistan? So much so, that if somebody says the predominant reason for America to be involved is strategic interests, then according to you he also must describe Pakistan's animosity towards India as "secular"!

shiv wrote:

RajeshA wrote: 3) On Morality:
In the case of international affairs, this is however a difficult test.

You see - there is a litany of excuses to let the US off the hook.
They are our economic partners. They are less racist. And now "It is difficult". No sir.

That is your spin! But most Indians do not consider USA to be an enemy of India the way Pakistan is! That is the perception, and I gave you a couple of reasons why the perception is so!

You speak of "not letting Americans off the hook", however what you are offering are collective wailing sessions to Indians, but no hook! Where is the hook? Where are the suggestions for the measures India should take against America for coddling with Pakistanis? A yowl but no bite, makes the dog simply look pathetic!

This discussion is about
1) your attempt to misrepresent the nature of the motivation for Pakistan's and America's anti-Indian behavior and activities,
2) your attempt to play down the role of Islamism in Pakistan in their anti-Indian stance. You call both Indians and Pakistanis as two Black Monkeys, play down the role of Islamism, call USA the White Cat making the White Cat the foe of both Black Monkeys, and you create a MK Bhadrakumar narrative!

RajeshA wrote: This discussion is about
1) your attempt to misrepresent the nature of the motivation for Pakistan's and America's anti-Indian behavior and activities,
2) your attempt to play down the role of Islamism in Pakistan in their anti-Indian stance. You call both Indians and Pakistanis as two Black Monkeys, play down the role of Islamism, call USA the White Cat making the White Cat the foe of both Black Monkeys, and you create a MK Bhadrakumar narrative!

Your perceptions are clearly different from mine and you conjure up metrics to suit your viewpoint. We are going to be in disagreement here.

If fact I would be deeply grateful if you could show me exactly where I have played down the role of Islamism. You are making up things. I was definitely making an equivalence between "national interests" and national actions. You say that US actions are in US interests and have nothing to do with morality. I asked you if Pakistani actions too, manifesting as Islamic extremism could not similarly be dismissed as "Pakistani national interests" rather than moralizing over Islamic extremism.

All that I have consistently said is that Islamism as a doctrine will become as harmless as a mouse if it is unable to kill. American weapons empower the doctrine. Removal of the America factor will make it weaker, at which time I will concentrate my particular attention to what I perceive as the next step.

There is no need to worry about what I say. I can't see how anything I say will have any effect on anything. Its just an opinion. I hope you too are not conjuring up a whole Mahabharat of consequences to my statements

shiv wrote:If fact I would be deeply grateful if you could show me exactly where I have played down the role of Islamism. You are making up things. I was definitely making an equivalence between "national interests" and national actions. You say that US actions are in US interests and have nothing to do with morality. I asked you if Pakistani actions too, manifesting as Islamic extremism could not similarly be dismissed as "Pakistani national interests" rather than moralizing over Islamic extremism.

Right there you played it down again!

RajeshA wrote:

shiv wrote:If fact I would be deeply grateful if you could show me exactly where I have played down the role of Islamism. You are making up things. I was definitely making an equivalence between "national interests" and national actions. You say that US actions are in US interests and have nothing to do with morality. I asked you if Pakistani actions too, manifesting as Islamic extremism could not similarly be dismissed as "Pakistani national interests" rather than moralizing over Islamic extremism.

Right there you played it down again!

OK sir if that is the depth of your objection then it makes no difference to me. I can sit with your accusation and will not have to respond because it is sensible or important or anything noteworthy.

In fact it is possible to play an interesting game to see exactly what all the worry about Islamic extremism is about. But I will reserve that for an appropriate time

shiv saar,

if you're taking a fact of Anti-Indian Islamic Extremism in Pakistan, and making it into a conditional dependent on how we characterize US policies, then how else to interpret your views, than "playing it down"! That is the simple logic of it!

The Islamic hate of the Pakis towards Indians and Hindus stands on its own feet! That has been a core determination on BRF!

RajeshA wrote: The Islamic hate of the Pakis towards Indians and Hindus stands on its own feet! That has been a core determination on BRF!

True Rajesh. We are guaranteed to go around in circles because of what i am going to say next

But support of that racist hatred of Hindus to the extent of calling Kashmiri terrorists as freedom fighters and arming Pakistan with AMRAAMs to this day is in US interest. To me that means that US interests lie in encouraging and supporting Pakistani racist hatred of Hindus. Is it non racist to support racists? This may be a morality question. The answer to that morality question is that a nation that supports racism as "national interest" cannot escape the racist tag no matter how you might want to spin it. The US is a nation that still supports racism. Naturally the US and its supporters will deny that vehemently. But it's actions that count. Not excuses. The US is a racist White Christian nation that uses its vassal Pakistani army to fight its foes while supporting and encouraging Pakistan's racism.

If India were one of the US's foes, we would hardly know the difference.

shiv saar,

First a detour. I am totally of your opinion, that USA even today does not wish to see a India which is beyond its levers of control, Pakistan being one of the most prominent lever.

I am in fact even of the opinion that USA has on purpose allowed Pakistan to get nuclear weapons so as to keep India in check.

Furthermore, I'm sure USA is aware that the only way they manage to keep Pakistan in their control is through their rabid hate for Indians and Hindus.

That is the containment cage USA has prepared for India.

And ever since Indo-US relations have thawed in the 90s, USA is trying to move its levers of control over India, into India itself. I think, it will be possible for any keen looker to see how much US influence (and control) one finds in India at all levers of power.

With this level of confidence that US controls India, USA has shown some lessened support for Pakistan. At the time it is not clear whether the support Pakistan gets from USA is simply because of AfPak compulsions or it is also because USA still desires outside containment of India, over and beyond its control over India's internal levers of powers.

It is obvious USA is desirous to see India enmeshed in a America-driven security architecture in Asia, where US's interests are looked after and the other countries are there to carry the load. However if India has to play such a role, US would have to decrease some of the external controls over India.

As long as AfPak theater is hot, USA cannot afford to dismantle Pakistan, which is nothing but the Anglo-American external control over India. After that the question would arise, how much USA needs India to rise in Asia in order to hold up American influence and strength in Asia, and whether India is going to play along.

That is how I read US involvement with Pakistan and India.

---------------

Now to your issue of racism. Americans have never allowed ideological differences with a group or country from stopping it from engaging with them to get what they want. If Pakistan were to hate India because of caste reasons, America would still have exploited that hate. In that way USA is color blind, race blind, religion blind, ideology blind! They put Nazi scientists to work on the American Bomb!

Also we could differentiate between how USA deals with India and how it deals with individual Indians. One would think if religious-racial hate were part of the American psyche they would treat Indians badly. It is true, they have self-righteous religious-racial superiority complex, but racial hate is a different thing.

However if somebody wants to characterize it differently, then that too is okay! I think it confuses the issue slightly but that is hardly something I would find worth arguing over!

shiv saar,
as long as we acknowledge that Pakistanis have a racial-religious hatred of Indians and that that is one strong driver for their behavior towards Indians, Hindus and India, the rest are mostly semantic differences in opinion!

shiv wrote:Is it non racist to support racists?

Not necessarily. Do all those who finance Medha Patkar care deeply about the environment, or displaced tribals?

RajeshA wrote: If Pakistan were to hate India because of caste reasons, America would still have exploited that hate. In that way USA is color blind, race blind, religion blind, ideology blind! They put Nazi scientists to work on the American Bomb!

That's really tough for America. The fact is Pakistanis are racist and the US supports them. The US by sheer bullshit luck played a racist card and now has to face up to a racist smear. Why are you so keen on protecting the US from a slur? What difference does it make to you if the US is declared racist? What difference does it make to the US?

None whatsoever no? Then why worry about it? That's all. Why am I being given excuses on behalf of the US by many Indians? You see, Americans never seem to think "Hey those Hindus. They are not racist. Why are we supporting the Pakis who call them racists?"

The reason why you and other Indians jump up to defend the US is because you believe that it is unfair/immoral/ignorant to paint the US as immoral. You are saying "The US is amoral. Not immoral".

Why do Americans not jump up to defend Hindus against Pakistani slurs the way Indians stoutly defend America? That is because they don't care. They don't give a damn either way. But if Americans are amoral and don't give a damn either way, they should not get upset at being labelled as racist or of having defective morality. If Americans are not going to be upset by slurs why are Indians on BRF getting upset? You are applying the very morality you accuse Indians of having in abundant excess. You too are Indian and have strong opinions of morality and immorality and my accusations simply must be opposed. I am being opposed in a situation where the US would not give a damn either way.

No need to worry. You can be amoral like Americans and let me be immoral like Pakistanis. The US is a white Christian racist nation because it supports racists. The Americans surely don't give a damn either way do they? Why are people so upset on BRF about something that is not totally wrong but seems immoral because the poor poor USA just happened to support racism when they might much rather have supported a gay nation if all Pakis were homosexual.

You are not actually going change my opinion on this. You may not believe it but the US, being free from morality should not give a damn either way, whether it is declared a racist state or not by random jerks.

There is another explanation though. And that is the US by and large agrees that Hindus are racist. But that is too straightforward an explanation. The convoluted ones fetch a better price.