Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - July 07, 2009

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 21 Jul 2009 21:31

Pakistan: Swat Taliban leader vows to seize assets of pro-army 'traitors'

Militant sources told Adnkronos International they have been waiting for the refugees to return to Swat so they can use them as human shields against the military.

The militants have also been waiting for the onset of winter when snowfalls will cut off military supplies

, the sources said
.
.
But residents of Mingora, the largest town in Swat said Fazlullah had been heard last week making illegal FM radio transmissions. It could not be confirmed if the broadcast was a live or a pre-recorded one. Some residents were quoted as saying Fazlullah sounded unwell in the broadcast and that his voice lacked its previous energy.

Pakistani military forces reportedly killed over suspected 50 Islamist militants in a two-day battle on Sunday and Monday in the Lower Dir district.

The Taliban however claimed their command and control structure had remained by and large intact during the military operation in the northwest.

Only two Taliban commanders, Daud and Shah Doran, had been killed, while command of the Swat militants is in the hands of Bin Yameen, according to the Taliban.

The Pakistani army earlier claimed Yameen had died in the military operation.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 21:34

VikramS wrote:I really do not understand all the heartburn about Balochistan etc. and a joint statement. All this is talk.

Fine, let us stop sending the real diplomats to these anyway, send the Jat policemen from Delhi, they will do a better job. All the hi-fi thinkers taken from IFS pool can be hidden for the real work in the background.

No Indian PM can give away Kashmir. As Jinnah once said, there will be a civil war.

Yes, So?

I still dont see as to how a PM wont try to give it away and maybe even succeed. People have given up parts of India at the cost of civil wars before. Still do (think ghettos and riots)

Gilani is being propped up and MMS is helping along. MMS is not that shrewd but not dumb either.

This is like giving up a perpetual lease for a short term gain. In five years Geelani and Zardari will be replaced by what have you.

The Baloch reference will remain (think Nehru-Jinaah)

Finally all that matters is the ground situation. As long as pigs get slaughtered at the LOC and the RAPE wake up to IED mubaraks things will be fine.

We are talking of foresight and looking at future here.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 21 Jul 2009 22:50

Sanku wrote:
Brilliant post RajeshA, Somnath, RajeshA speaks for me too, word for word.

Seconded. I would add for the "how does it matter, we are so clever and chankian only, we'll take care of it when the time comes" crowd that a country that consistently fails to deliver consequences to an external enemy that kills its people is an anemic country, that is begging to be overrun by savages. Ferocity and passion in defence of one's own is what makes the difference between being a prosperous nation and being just a big fat prey ripe for slaughter and consumption.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 21 Jul 2009 22:56

somnath wrote: What happens if there is a resolution along the LoC solution? Well to start with, Pakistan loses teh fig leaf of the Kashmir issue for all the jihadi outfits in Pakistan..It is then forced to take away troops from the Kashmir border towards the west, allowing us to improve our posture on the East..(Remember it was the minior diplomatic coup in the '90s by PVNR with China on the border talks that allowed us to withdraw troops from the Chinese border and deploy them on the Kashmir front) - now the reverse is required to preapre for the new great game in Asia!!
...

It shows very shallow understanding of TSP and Dragon. Talking about ground situation with fairy tale views about these 2 entities is very simplistic observation not worth serious look. Pakis are getting weak every day,getting clsoe to decomposition while we are climing up .There is no rush to have any sort of agreemenst with them or Chinese . Lets see how they can handle us in 10-15 years. The writting is on the wall and both need to read it carefully.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Jul 2009 23:01

somnath wrote:In these days of Keynesian resurgence, I follow the ultimate Keynesian postulate - "in the long run, we are all dead"...Our aim has to be to get a better life for us and our kids - and to see India at the pedestal in our generation, given that we have a once in a few centuries opportunity today...Aims based on Indic civilizational aspirations do not make for pragmatic geostrategy IMHO..

This type of thought process will have dangerous drifts...

"in the long run, we are all dead…" If we all are dead in the long run, what responsibility we are trying to escape from? If life is so meaningless/meaningful (from your Keynesian postulate) then isn’t it the right thing to make it purposeful?

“Our aim has to be to get a better life for us and our kids…” Why only us and our kids? What about our grand-kids? Why not limit it with ourselves? I am sure some political parties think that “Our aim has to be to survive this term and get elected next term”….

This is the very thought process that brought us to this discussion. When our national leaders were conceding Aksai-chin and POK to our opponents, they didn’t realize the same route would be used to transfer nuke technologies and missile parts… now the very same armaments are hindering a Indian proactive action (however silly that might sound).

IMO, if someone lacks the imagination to do the right thing (irrespective of time constraint), it is better we leave it to the next generation than conceding it to the enemy. In that perspective current administration is inimical to Indian interests… They are giving the enemy all the ammunition to fight tomorrow’s war. Two examples are Gandhi’s fasting to release Rs 20cr funds during 1948 war, and IKGs episode compromising RAW assets. One must not try to spin/justify such events/decisions to score brownie points.

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 21 Jul 2009 23:51

Clinton on Pakistan's terror commitment (BBC)

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that Pakistan has shown "a real commitment" to taking on extremists in the last six months. Speaking to an audience of university students in Delhi, Mrs Clinton said the commitment had been on the part of the Pakistani government and the Pakistani people.

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 22 Jul 2009 00:02

Missing U.S. Soldier May Be in Pakistan (ABC)

The U.S. soldier kidnapped by Taliban forces in Afghanistan may have been taken across the border to Pakistan, complicating efforts to obtain his release, according to two people involved in U.S. and Afghan military efforts to locate him, and three Afghan soldiers captured with him.

...a top Afghan insurgent commander has taken credit for capturing the soldier and has now moved the soldier to South Waziristan, Pakistan.

Officials at the Pentagon said they still believe Bergdahl is in Afghanistan.

Bergdahl was taken by Mullah Sangeen's men from village near the U.S. military post in Paktika...

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 22 Jul 2009 00:02

somnath wrote:In these days of Keynesian resurgence, I follow the ultimate Keynesian postulate - "in the long run, we are all dead"...Our aim has to be to get a better life for us and our kids - and to see India at the pedestal in our generation, given that we have a once in a few centuries opportunity today...Aims based on Indic civilizational aspirations do not make for pragmatic geostrategy IMHO..

You might be dead Somnath, but the same day your children arent and their children wouldnt. Dont confuse your life with the life of a country.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 00:09

Folks this is the paki thread if I need to remind everyone. And somnath, even for discussion, this is not the thread to be like JLN-2 apropos "Do you want Kashmir Jawaharlal?"

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 22 Jul 2009 00:17

And Ramana garu even more than that: bye bye Sylhet, goodbye Assam. Sorry for the

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Jul 2009 03:36

Pehle Na Hasne ka Vadda Karo ,Phir yeh Khabar mai Sunata hoon
Baki Intellectual Dea "p"th below
Sharm El-Sheikh - India's Waterloo?
Shri .Mati Hali

Now read Dr Awatar S Sekhon, a prominent leader of the movement for the rights of the people of Khalistan's Op-Ed presented by Ahmad Qureshi, titled A Sikh Leader: India is behind the fake Taliban, why are Pakistan officials silent? He uncovers Indian machinations quoting Major General Sajjad Ghani's revelations on a local TV news channel that the suicide bombers and throat-slitters are not Arab mujahideen or Afghan Taliban. This 'expertise' has been introduced by the Indians and the Israelis in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The crimes of the Indian-groomed Taliban have nothing to do with the Afghan Taliban fighting inside their own country and the Kashmiri freedom fighters inside their own territory. On the other hand, International media like the latest issue of Newsweek is busy discrediting Pakistan's Swat operations and the unprecedented early return of the IDPs in its story: "Pakistan's all-out offensive against the Taliban may already have failed." Take the Irish Sun's enigmatic story, "US installing radiation detectors at Pakistani ports," to check proliferation of nuclear material and weapons of mass destruction to and from the country. Moral of the story, Sharm El-Sheikh may not be India's Waterloo as yet but may prove to be so as in its eagerness to harm Pakistan, India may finally get exposed

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news- ... -Waterloo/

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 03:43

ISI chief wants to meet Indian couterpart, govt cautious

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Jul 2009 04:30

What audacious arrogance! ( Obama,the last Prophet of Piss Processes0
She Male Mazari

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=189226
Clearly the Americans are suffering from an overdose of arrogance, especially when it comes to Pakistan and Afghanistan and no one exemplifies it better than Holbrooke who shows no interest in learning anything about Pakistan or its people, but comes over far too frequently to push our compliant leaders into doing US bidding or simply to show the imperial colours. While Hillary Clinton happily agrees to sell all manner of hi-tech offensive weapons systems to India as well as agreeing to two nuclear power plants’ sites to built by US firms, we are being short changed again by the US even as our soldiers are being compelled into the quagmire of FATA to match the US/NATO mess up in Afghanistan
This is apart from the covert operations US personnel are involved in within Pakistani territory – all being supervised by the dubious General McChrystal in Afghanistan. Are the deaths of our soldiers in FATA and the mayhem brought to this country post-9/11 not a sufficiently visible quid pro quo for the Yankee paymasters? As if all that was not enough, the US insists on “training” our military in the art of counterinsurgency – a field in which their own record is hardly commendable – whether one looks at Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam! Incidentally, the arrogance of McChrystal seems to know no bounds as he goes about his “win them over or kill them” approach! Perhaps he ought to revisit the recent history of what happened to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan!

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=189226

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 22 Jul 2009 06:42

Pakistan Objects to U.S. Expansion in Afghan War

By ERIC SCHMITT and JANE PERLEZ

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan is objecting to expanded American combat operations in neighboring Afghanistan, creating new fissures in the alliance with Washington at a critical juncture when thousands of new American forces are arriving in the region.

Pakistani officials have told the Obama administration that the Marines fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan will force militants across the border into Pakistan, with the potential to further inflame the troubled province of Baluchistan, according to Pakistani intelligence officials.

Pakistan does not have enough troops to deploy to Baluchistan to take on the Taliban without denuding its border with its archenemy, India, the officials said. Dialogue with the Taliban, not more fighting, is in Pakistan’s national interest, they said.

The Pakistani account made clear that even as the United States recommits troops and other resources to take on a growing Taliban threat, Pakistani officials still consider India their top priority and the Taliban militants a problem that can be negotiated. In the long term, the Taliban in Afghanistan may even remain potential allies for Pakistan, as they were in the past, once the United States leaves.

The Pakistani officials gave views starkly different from those of American officials regarding the threat presented by top Taliban commanders, some of whom the Americans say have long taken refuge on the Pakistani side of the border.

Recent Pakistani military operations against Taliban in the Swat Valley and parts of the tribal areas have done little to close the gap in perceptions.

Even as Obama administration officials praise the operations, they express frustration that Pakistan is failing to act against the full array of Islamic militants using the country as a base.

Instead, they say, Pakistani authorities have chosen to fight Pakistani Taliban who threaten their government, while ignoring Taliban and other militants fighting Americans in Afghanistan or terrorizing India.

Such tensions have mounted despite a steady rotation of American officials through the region. They were on display last weekend when, during a visit to India, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said those who had planned the Sept. 11 attacks were now sheltering in Pakistan. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry issued an immediate rebuttal.

Pakistan’s critical assessment was provided as the Obama administration’s special envoy for the region, Richard C. Holbrooke, arrived in Pakistan on Tuesday night.

The country’s perspective was given in a nearly two-hour briefing on Friday for The New York Times by senior analysts and officials of Pakistan’s main spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence. They spoke on the condition of anonymity in keeping with the agency’s policy. The main themes of the briefing were echoed in conversations with several military officers over the past few days.

One of the first briefing slides read, in part: “The surge in Afghanistan will further reinforce the perception of a foreign occupation of Afghanistan. It will result in more civilian casualties; further alienate local population. Thus more local resistance to foreign troops.”

A major concern is that the American offensive may push Taliban militants over the border into Baluchistan, a province that borders Waziristan in the tribal areas. The Pakistani Army is already fighting a longstanding insurgency of Baluch separatists in the province.

A Taliban spillover would require Pakistan to put more troops there, a Pakistani intelligence official said, troops the country does not have now. Diverting troops from the border with India is out of the question, the official said.

In an interview last week, the new leader of American and NATO combat operations in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, paused when asked whether he was getting the cooperation he wanted from Pakistani forces in combating the Quetta shura. “What I would love is for the government of Pakistan to have the ability to completely eliminate the safe havens that the Afghan Taliban enjoy,” he said.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jul 2009 06:54

Gerard wrote:ISI chief wants to meet Indian couterpart, govt cautious

Let me help the ISI chief of Pakistan meet the ISI chief of India

http://india.gov.in/outerwin.php?id=htt ... rg/obj.htm

Manak Bhavan
9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002, India
Tel : +91 11 23230131, 23233375, 23239402 (10 lines)
Fax : +91 11 23234062, 23239399, 23239382
Grams : Manaksanstha

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 22 Jul 2009 07:17

Sanku wrote:
VikramS wrote:I really do not understand all the heartburn about Balochistan etc. and a joint statement. All this is talk.
Fine, let us stop sending the real diplomats to these anyway, send the Jat policemen from Delhi, they will do a better job. All the hi-fi thinkers taken from IFS pool can be hidden for the real work in the background.

No Indian PM can give away Kashmir. As Jinnah once said, there will be a civil war.
Yes, So?

I still dont see as to how a PM wont try to give it away and maybe even succeed. People have given up parts of India at the cost of civil wars before. Still do (think ghettos and riots)

Gilani is being propped up and MMS is helping along. MMS is not that shrewd but not dumb either.
This is like giving up a perpetual lease for a short term gain. In five years Geelani and Zardari will be replaced by what have you.

The Baloch reference will remain (think Nehru-Jinaah)

Finally all that matters is the ground situation. As long as pigs get slaughtered at the LOC and the RAPE wake up to IED mubaraks things will be fine.
We are talking of foresight and looking at future here.

I could not make any cogent conclusions from your statements above. The bottom-line is what you say does not matter; it is what you do which matters. You can always find some fig leaf or the other to justify your actions. The only thing relevant is whether you have to the will and the resources to carry out what is in your best interest. Everything else is noise and cacophony; especially when it comes to the TSP.

Talks with TSP are all bakvaas designed to keep the chai-biskut companies in business and in some occasions, provide the current ruler of TSP a victory over India to crow about. Some times the Paki declares victory unilaterally (Mush in Agra), sometimes the Indians provide them with some morsels to claim victory. Nothing will change in Balochistan or Kashmir for that matter. TSP can not let go of Kashmir; India is anyway a small player in Balochistan, if at all.

Dr. shiv, hope the ISI chief goes back branded with the ISI certification on his Musharraf

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 07:21

Good one shiv.

The irony is lost!

archan · Post by **archan** » 22 Jul 2009 07:21

shiv wrote:
Gerard wrote:ISI chief wants to meet Indian couterpart, govt cautious

Let me help the ISI chief of Pakistan meet the ISI chief of India

http://india.gov.in/outerwin.php?id=htt ... rg/obj.htm

Manak Bhavan
9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002, India
Tel : +91 11 23230131, 23233375, 23239402 (10 lines)
Fax : +91 11 23234062, 23239399, 23239382
Grams : Manaksanstha

Didn't they rename it to BIS over a decade ago?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 07:28

Well, there is still

http://www.isical.ac.in/

Welcome to Indian Statistical Institute (ISI), a unique P. C. Mahalanobish institution devoted to the research, teaching and application of statistics, natural sciences and social sciences.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 22 Jul 2009 07:32

^^^ guys, it is not about finalising a "deal" with Pakistan over Kashmir..It is about talking about talks...And as I mentioned before, talking just enough to run with Paki (elite) hares, while we run with the Paki (Baloch, Talib) hounds...Keep the Paki state in a position of unstable disequilibrium..

The point on "long run" was to amplify the pointlessness of carrying on a messianic civilizational agenda for the unforeseeable future, while we miss opportunities that present themselves today...Something very akin to what we did throughout the '60s and '70s - clinging on to supposed moral positions based on civilisational precepts (soemtimes borrowed ones like Communism), while one opportunity after another went abegging..Talking of Akhand Bharat etc is such a mighty waste of time - do you want an India with another 400 million muslims, bulk of them at various levels of jihadi indoctrination?

Geopolitically, we need a defanged Pakistan (defanged of its nukes), but a Pakistan that is also taking on its own people continuously...What we dont need is an Afghanistan clone at our borders..Even without nukes, that is what will take us back many many decades as the internecine violence inevitably spills over into India...It will decisively take our attention away from the grand vision of dominating Asia, competing with China in the process.....Crossing swords with China is a worthy battle to be fought, metaphorically, if not physically....Getting entangled with a bunch of jihadis and tribals is not...We need to leave that dirtty work to the worthies in Pakistan...

The Americans are impatient to get out of Afghanistan, and they would tolerate the "good Taliban"...this has led to all anti-Talib forces in Afghanistan joining hands - Fahim (the same "warlord" who was ejected out by Karzai) is today his running mate for the elections...And for all the build up of ANA, Fahim and KArim Khalili, together with Ismael Khan command more military resources than the ANA will do in the foreseeable future...Our cards need to be played with this group (we are already doing it)....

at the same time, we need to maintain the talks about talks with Pakistan so that the Americans keep pressurising them to withdraw more troops to deploy in the West while they carry out Operation Khanjar (and everything else)! If and when they move out, whatever situation it might be, it will be civil war there..And we will have enough powder to influence the outcome, while Pakistan deals with a accentuation of the problem on its borders..

Lastly, so many people are worked up over the mention of Balochistan..Well, now that Pakistan has made the reference, what stops us from talking about "root causes" there in future talks? So it becomes another issue to talk about our talks! In any case, pieces of paper never stopped anyone from doing what they want to do!!Who gains?

ramana wrote:And somnath, even for discussion, this is not the thread to be like JLN-2 apropos "Do you want Kashmir Jawaharlal?"

???

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 07:35

yeah. Why talk about J&K in TSP thread? As for JLN, Patel asked him if he wanted J&K or not? I see the same trend in your line of posts. I dont mind so long as you post in the J&K thread and not the TSP thread.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 22 Jul 2009 07:37

shiv wrote:Let me help the ISI chief of Pakistan meet the ISI chief of India

Nope! Here's his Indian counterpart

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 22 Jul 2009 07:42

ramana wrote:yeah. Why talk about J&K in TSP thread? As for JLN, Patel asked him if he wanted J&K or not? I see the same trend in your line of posts. I dont mind so long as you post in the J&K thread and not the TSP thread.

Yes..famous incident, actually the defence committee meeting to decide whether to send troops to Kashmir..JLN was talking of UN, Russia, China earth universe and everything when Patel asked the question..JLN's reply was, of course I do! Patel turned to the senior military officer in the meeting and said, "you have your orders"...

the reference to J&K was merely to exemplify possibilities of keeping Pakis engaged..

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Jul 2009 07:56

VikramS wrote:I really do not understand all the heartburn about Balochistan etc. and a joint statement.

Gilani is being propped up and MMS is helping along.

Why should India prop up Gilani at the cost of Zardari ? Zardari at least has said several times that 'India was not a threat'. Gilani, OTOH, is much closer to Kiyani and it is solely because of that he is still surviving as the PM and he has echoed the PA viewpoint about India. So, what do we gain by supporting Gilani ?

The mention of Balochistan might give TSP a stick to bang some drums. But that is just noise and cacophony. After all who in their right mind listens to TSP as a rational nation. With them it is all about how much you can negotiate for the next round of GUBO and aid.

The 3½ friends of Pakistan do. Even if not entirely, they do not mind saying or doing things that would placate Pakistan at times of need and Pakistan has been ensuring that the 'well of needs' doesn't go dry. These friends may GUBO and do other horrible things to Pakistan, but Pakistan willingly bends backwards (or, is it forwards ?) so long as India can be poked at.

Finally all that matters is the ground situation. As long as pigs get slaughtered at the LOC and the RAPE wake up to IED mubaraks things will be fine.

Let us see what the ground situation has been since 1947.

Pakistan inflicts wars on India which are finally resolved by third party intervention because India is unable to decisively overcome Pakistan {except in 1971 and that too on the Eastern front}.
Pakistan supports and creates all kinds of insurgencies in India
Pakistan severely inflicts terrorism on India with its own assets brazenly
Pakistan works to undermine India economically

Things are not fine for India and have indeed been steadily getting worse. Of course, Pakistan also suffers the backlash of its wrong policies but being a reckless state it doesn't care and in fact uses the situation to incite more hatred against India and get more recruits for terrorism. Meanwhile, its 3½ friends ensure that Pakistan will survive. Unless India can make these Pakistani friends withdraw or withhold their support for Pakistan, there is no hope for India.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 22 Jul 2009 08:17

Let us see what the ground situation has been since 1947.
Pakistan inflicts wars on India which are finally resolved by third party intervention because India is unable to decisively overcome Pakistan {except in 1971 and that too on the Eastern front}.
Pakistan supports and creates all kinds of insurgencies in India
Pakistan severely inflicts terrorism on India with its own assets brazenly
Pakistan works to undermine India economically
Things are not fine for India and have indeed been steadily getting worse. Of course, Pakistan also suffers the backlash of its wrong policies but being a reckless state it doesn't care and in fact uses the situation to incite more hatred against India and get more recruits for terrorism. Meanwhile, its 3½ friends ensure that Pakistan will survive. Unless India can make these Pakistani friends withdraw or withhold their support for Pakistan, there is no hope for India.

You give too much credit to Pakistan for success..For many years, Kashmir had no real insurgency problem, nothing material to impact mainland India in any case..The Kashmiri insurgency started in 1990...For many years, the Kashmir (as well as the Punjab) insurgencies were ringfenced, localised affairs..Therefore to say that Pakis succeeded in pushing us back is giving them too much credit for success...

The type of islamist terror we face today is a reflection of the global islamist contagion, and is clearly a very different challenge...

Despite all these, localised or jihadi, India has continued to carve a bigger niche for itself - so I find all this "without getting rid of Pakistan there is no hope" type of philosophising quite out of place...

Our challenge is to confront the Islamist terror in our homeland, while making our grand strategy for being an Asian great power work on the ground at various levels - economic, military and political...Making Pakistan the cornerstone of our strategy doesnt do that...And gives Pakistan far more respect than it deserves...

the 3and a half friedns of Pakistan only prop it up, they do no more..Each of them engage India at a very different level..We need not brnig our level down to Paksitan's!

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 22 Jul 2009 09:07

SSridhar wrote:
VikramS wrote:I really do not understand all the heartburn about Balochistan etc. and a joint statement.

Gilani is being propped up and MMS is helping along.
Why should India prop up Gilani at the cost of Zardari ? Zardari at least has said several times that 'India was not a threat'. Gilani, OTOH, is much closer to Kiyani and it is solely because of that he is still surviving as the PM and he has echoed the PA viewpoint about India. So, what do we gain by supporting Gilani ?

For all practical purposes 10% is a non-entity in Pakistan. He tried to wear shoes bigger than he could fit into and has been put in his place by the TSPA. Some news suggest that he is virtually in a house arrest kind of situation with no one wanting to drop any grass his way. Just because he made the right noises about India is meaningless right now he does not matter.

SSridhar wrote:
The mention of Balochistan might give TSP a stick to bang some drums. But that is just noise and cacophony. After all who in their right mind listens to TSP as a rational nation. With them it is all about how much you can negotiate for the next round of GUBO and aid.
The 3½ friends of Pakistan do. Even if not entirely, they do not mind saying or doing things that would placate Pakistan at times of need and Pakistan has been ensuring that the 'well of needs' doesn't go dry. These friends may GUBO and do other horrible things to Pakistan, but Pakistan willingly bends backwards (or, is it forwards ?) so long as India can be poked at.

The 3½ friends will find a reason to help the TSP if it serves their interest. They know TSP very well and are not idiots. Anything India says does not make the slightest difference in their plans; what India is willing and capable of, does. They are enough fig leaves floating in the air to find a reason for helping the TSP. A joint declaration between TSP-India which mentions the challenge in Balochistan is hardly a game-changer in any way. It is just hot air.

SSridhar wrote:
Finally all that matters is the ground situation. As long as pigs get slaughtered at the LOC and the RAPE wake up to IED mubaraks things will be fine.
Let us see what the ground situation has been since 1947.
Pakistan inflicts wars on India which are finally resolved by third party intervention because India is unable to decisively overcome Pakistan {except in 1971 and that too on the Eastern front}.
Pakistan supports and creates all kinds of insurgencies in India
Pakistan severely inflicts terrorism on India with its own assets brazenly
Pakistan works to undermine India economically
Things are not fine for India and have indeed been steadily getting worse. Of course, Pakistan also suffers the backlash of its wrong policies but being a reckless state it doesn't care and in fact uses the situation to incite more hatred against India and get more recruits for terrorism. Meanwhile, its 3½ friends ensure that Pakistan will survive. Unless India can make these Pakistani friends withdraw or withhold their support for Pakistan, there is no hope for India.

And how does the joint declaration somehow worsens that? What matters is India's will and capabilities. Everything else is just talk.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Jul 2009 10:33

Latest Presidential decree from the 10% President of Pak!

Pakistan president Asif Zardari bans jokes ridiculing him

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... g-him.html

Pakistan's president, Asif Zardari, has been accused of suffering from a sense of humour failure after banning jokes ridiculing him.

By Isambard Wilkinson in Islamabad
Published: 7:04PM BST 21 Jul 2009

Asif Zardari, Pakistan's president, has banned jokes ridiculing him Photo: AP
Pakistanis who send jokes about Asif Zardari by text message, email or blog risk being arrested and given a 14-year prison sentence.

The country's interior minister, Rehman Malik, announced the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had been asked to trace electronically transmitted jokes that "slander the political leadership of the country" under the new Cyber Crimes Act.

Related Articles
Pakistan president faces growing challenges to his authority
Pakistani president Asif Zardari admits creating terrorist groups

UN opens inquiry into assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan
Pakistan: India no longer a military threatMr Malik, said the move would punish the authors of "ill motivated and concocted stories through emails and text messages against the civilian leadership".

The step, which was described by human rights groups as "draconian and authoritarian", came after government was particularly riled by a barrage of caustic jokes being sent to the presidency's official email.

Critics have accused the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP), a party that espouses a liberal agenda, of stooping as low as the former military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, who took television broadcasters off air when he faced political opposition.

Mr Zardari, the widower of the assassinated former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, has long courted controversy.

During his wife's two tenures he earned the nickname of "Mr 10 per cent" on account of his alleged penchant for demanding kickbacks on government contracts.

A former polo-playing playboy, Mr Zardari has proved to be prickly about what others say of him since he was elected as president by the national parliament a year ago.

Most of the criticism stems from his government's inability to address problems such as severe power outages and inflation, and his inability to shake off old allegations of corruption.

Mr Zardari's thin-skin when it comes to jokes has forced Pakistanis to find other ways to refer to the president, with nicknames ranging from "dacu" or "bandit" to chief choor, meaning thief.

The ban has become the focus of intense television debate in Pakistan, as Mr Zardari's aides have attempted to justify the move using every argument ranging from counter-terrorism concerns to saying that women parliamentarians had received abusive messages.

The prime minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, with whom Mr Zardari has clashed, has distanced himself from the ban saying that it would not be enforced.

Mr Zardari's PPP-led government tried to target text messages and emails last month when it levied a new tax on all text messages.

The tax was abandoned after it emerged that it would ruin a major source of revenue for Pakistan's five mobile phone companies.

As soon as the tax was announced, a text message began making the rounds saying: "The government has imposed a tax on all messages. This means that until now President Zardari was getting abused for free. Now he'll get paid every time someone abuses him!"

Zardari jokes:

"Terrorists have kidnapped our beloved Zardari and are demanding $5,000,000 or they will burn him with petrol. Please donate what you can. I have donated five litres."

To commemorate the ascension to the Presidency, Pakistan Post has officially launched a new stamp. But the people of Pakistan are confused which side on the stamp to spit on.

Robber: "Give me all your money!"
Zardari: "Don't you know who I am? I am Asif Ali Zardari."
Robber: "OK. Give me all my money"

PS:Zardari is finished if he cannot laugh at jokes of himself.Popular leaders in history have had mixed reactions to jokes about themselves.According to Kushwant Singh,when writing in the much lamented Illustrated Weekly oif India,that the Nehru-Gandhi family have little sense of humour.The late immortal "Busybee",Behram Contractor, wrote this superb piece (not published then on Kushwant's advice) during the Emergency, when Sanjay Gandhi ruled the roost.It was a paen of praise about Mrs.G's son which went on and on in psychophantic fashion,finally ending with the words .. .....
"that the best person to succeed Mrs.Gandhi would be her son...
Rajiv Gandhi!

The late Lankan PM SWRD Bandaranaike was a victim of a famous cartoonist called Collette,who mercilessly savaged him in his drawings,along with another famous journo the late Tarzie Vittachi.But "Banda" enjoyed being made fun of and was most put out when there were NO cartoons about him,perfectly agreeing with Oscar Wilde's famous statement that the "only worse thing than being talked about, is not being talked about"!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Jul 2009 10:37

What I see as interesting about the current situation in Pakistan is that the military is (probably being forced to) playing second fiddle to the joke of a civilian government. I would have thought that the military could easily kick out 10% and b00b-squeezer, but they are not doing that.

I suspect that this is about unkil. Unkil says no money to anyone unless the civilian government appears to be in power. So you find the civ guys saying all sorts of funny stuff that the Pakarmy would never say and yet they lead a charmed life - a life insured by unkil. The army brass must be seething, but their stomachs probably begin to growl with hunger the minute they think of donning their coup-suits.

In the bad old days unkil would ask the Pak military to hold the Paki fort for them and the military would oblige but doublecross unkil along the way. Unkil is not doing that now. He is managing his own new version of the show where Pakistan is headed by a loose cannon who can say whatever he wants but the army can only fret in silence. In turn what the loose cannon fires is of litle consequence to anyone other than give the appearance of a civilian government ruling Pakistan who get to meet all the international bigwigs and go on all the phoren tours while the army brass miss out on that.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Jul 2009 10:45

shiv wrote:
I suspect that this is about unkil. Unkil says no money to anyone unless the civilian government appears to be in power. So you find the civ guys saying all sorts of funny stuff that the Pakarmy would never say and yet they lead a charmed life - a life insured by unkil. The army brass must be seething, but their stomachs probably begin to growl with hunger the minute they think of donning their coup-suits.

One American friend told me seriously that Pakistan must be supported for democracy. They(Pakis) need a chance and he was sympathetic. Pakis has been told that if the American public is pissed off with military rule they will lose the funds and grants from Congress.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 11:04

shiv wrote:What I see as interesting about the current situation in Pakistan is that the military is (probably being forced to) playing second fiddle to the joke of a civilian government. I would have thought that the military could easily kick out 10% and b00b-squeezer, but they are not doing that.

I suspect that this is about unkil. Unkil says no money to anyone unless the civilian government appears to be in power. So you find the civ guys saying all sorts of funny stuff that the Pakarmy would never say and yet they lead a charmed life - a life insured by unkil. The army brass must be seething, but their stomachs probably begin to growl with hunger the minute they think of donning their coup-suits.

In the bad old days unkil would ask the Pak military to hold the Paki fort for them and the military would oblige but doublecross unkil along the way. Unkil is not doing that now. He is managing his own new version of the show where Pakistan is headed by a loose cannon who can say whatever he wants but the army can only fret in silence. In turn what the loose cannon fires is of litle consequence to anyone other than give the appearance of a civilian government ruling Pakistan who get to meet all the international bigwigs and go on all the phoren tours while the army brass miss out on that.

US gives aid to TSP with civilians at the helm to assuage their own democracy H&D. The US gives go ahead to the TSPA for the coup, when the civilians try to make separate peace with India. The tripatriate arrangement works like that. In other words the US pays the rentier state to keep them viable.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 22 Jul 2009 11:28

Good one from Pravin Swami..

One of the more useless pieces of talk about talks is all the talk on intel sharing..

But this is interesting..

On September 18, the CIA delivered the first of two warnings of an impending Lashkar attack on Mumbai. Couched in general terms, it was delivered to India through the Research and Analysis Wing. In response to an Indian request, the CIA delivered further details on September 24, warning expressly that the Lashkar was planning to hit multiple targets including the Taj Mahal Hotel. India’s own intelligence services also warned that an attack was imminent.

So who goofed up? But OT here..

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 22 Jul 2009 11:46

somnath wrote:Good one from Pravin Swami..

So who goofed up? But OT here..

Post the complete rubbish on Intel sharing if you want to know "who goofed up":

On September 18, the CIA delivered the first of two warnings of an impending Lashkar attack on Mumbai. Couched in general terms, it was delivered to India through the Research and Analysis Wing. In response to an Indian request, the CIA delivered further details on September 24, warning expressly that the Lashkar was planning to hit multiple targets including the Taj Mahal Hotel. India’s own intelligence services also warned that an attack was imminent.

Pakistan’s own intelligence services, though, passed on nothing. Either the ISI was not watching the Lashkar or did not stop the operation, undermining Islamabad’s past promises to end anti-India terrorism.

Islamist terror around the world will continue till the Pakistan army exists and is propped up by its 3½ friends. Only when instability engulfs the whole of Pakistan can the rest of the world live in peace.

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 22 Jul 2009 12:57

SC of Pakistan has summoned Mush.

Added:
Geo TV report

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court of Pakistan issued notice to former President Gen (rtd) Pervez Musharraf in judges case, Geo News reported Wednesday.

The court summoned the former president to appear before court to clarify his position on July 29.

The PCO case hearing was adjourned till July 29.

A 14-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry heard the case relating the promulgation of emergency on November 3 and the appointment of judges of higher judiciary.

Giving his remarks, the CJ said justice will not meet its demands, if the court gives verdict without giving explanation chance to Musharraf; thereupon, Sindh High Court Bar counsel Hamid Khan retorted former Gen Yahya Khan appeared before court in Aasma Gilani case.

The CJ said the case is highly important.

CJ Chaudhry queried Hamid Khan Advocate regarding the repercussions of the verdict of this case, adding, ‘We will have to muse seriously why July 5, 77 happened, what effects judicial rulings had on national life.’

‘The case may have effects on our judges ranks, we will have to spot repercussions of the case ruling outside the courtroom.’

Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said in his remarks that the judges who took oath on PCO on November 3, 2007, ran foul of the order of 7 SC judges.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 22 Jul 2009 13:44

Bruce Riedel talks to National Interest about Pakistan. He wrote the cover story on Pakistan for NI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3SAx-m60uE

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 22 Jul 2009 14:07

Waziristan a tough nut for Pakistani forces

Leather industry facing a quagmire, exports declined by 28% in FY09

PSEB and the Pakistan IT Industry – Falling Apart Already? – Part 1

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Jul 2009 15:33

somnath wrote:You give too much credit to Pakistan for success..For many years, Kashmir had no real insurgency problem, nothing material to impact mainland India in any case..The Kashmiri insurgency started in 1990...For many years, the Kashmir (as well as the Punjab) insurgencies were ringfenced, localised affairs..Therefore to say that Pakis succeeded in pushing us back is giving them too much credit for success...

Let's be clear about what's going in Kashmir. It is jihadi terrorism, not insurgency and it has been going on since 1947, not since 90s only. Of course, in some other cases in India, there are insurgencies that has been helped by Pakistan. Be that as it may, Pakistan has been successful in managing itself vis-a-vis Bharat. At what cost to itself, is something else. It thinks any cost is worth paying for the destruction of Bharat. OTOH, India has always felt that it would be able to evict the Pakistanis from Kashmir, either diplomatically or militarily and retrieve any lost situation. That is why a long rope has been given to Pakistan without forcing the issue even when opportunities presented themselves. The overall Composite Index of National Capability (CINC), that is based on such things as quantity of iron&steel produced, military strength etc, has been consistently at a 4:1 ratio in favour of India at a minimum and even reaching a 7:1 ratio at times and yet India was unable to translate such a superiority into a tangible resolution of its conflict. Under normal circumstances, the preponderant state, in this case India, should have been able to set the course for the conflict and probably should have brought it to a quick conclusion. Usually, the conflict prolongs, interminably in some cases, only when the two opposing states are equally poised. The status quo power, India, has generally tended to leave the revisionist power Pakistan to set the agenda for the conflict and has been merely reactive, thus defying the generally accepted principles of conflict resolution. Pakistan entered into alliances solely with the intent of bringing down India. That's why I consider the Pakistani policy as tactically successful.

somnath wrote:The type of islamist terror we face today is a reflection of the global islamist contagion, and is clearly a very different challenge...

No it is not. As I said, the mistake that we generally make is that terror in Kashmir started after 1989, after the Geneva accord, when the out-of-job mujahideen had to be gainfully employed and Pakistan decided to replicate the Afghan paradigm in J&K. The jihad in J&K started in 1947 and has seen several phases, with the earliest ones being just covert Pakistani operations until the latest phase that started after 1989 aided by availability of men, material and funds and the nuclearization of Pakistan. The sub-conventional war, being waged by Pakistan might have acquired sophistication and induction of multi-national terrorists after circa 1989, but it has nevertheless been going on since Independence.

As for the 'global islamist contagion', it bit the J&K jihadis only in 2002 or thereafter. Of course, LeT, JI, HuM and JeM had close collaboration with Al Qaeda and these groups were extensively operating in J&K as well but there is no known 'operational collaboration' between these groups and Al Qaeda as far as J&K was concerned earlier to 2002.

Despite all these, localised or jihadi, India has continued to carve a bigger niche for itself - so I find all this "without getting rid of Pakistan there is no hope" type of philosophising quite out of place...

These are your words,not mine. When I say 'Things are not fine for India and have indeed been steadily getting worse.', the context is very clear. It is with reference to security situation in India.

...Making Pakistan the cornerstone of our strategy doesnt do that...And gives Pakistan far more respect than it deserves...

the 3and a half friedns of Pakistan only prop it up, they do no more..Each of them engage India at a very different level..We need not brnig our level down to Paksitan's!

When India attained Independence, it set for itself certain goals, the most important of which, was to provide a decent standard of living to its millions. In spite of various problems, flaws in approach or circumstances beyond its control, I believe that India has never lost sight of that goal. Pakistan also set a goal for itself, destruction of India. Therefore, Pakistan is certainly not the 'cornerstone' of our strategy, but, it is certainly causing us problems on multiple fronts because for Pakistan, 'India' is the conerstone. Whether we like it or not, we therefore have to perforce deal with that country. To pretend it is not so, is incorrect. It, therefore, needs to be tackled.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Jul 2009 15:52

VikramS wrote:For all practical purposes 10% is a non-entity in Pakistan. He tried to wear shoes bigger than he could fit into and has been put in his place by the TSPA. Some news suggest that he is virtually in a house arrest kind of situation with no one wanting to drop any grass his way. Just because he made the right noises about India is meaningless right now he does not matter.

Yes, he is the least popular politician in Pakistan today, but Gilani is equally irrelevant there. The only person who matters if Nawaz Sharif, who will win handsdown if there is an election today. However, he cleverly does not want to force the issue because he wants the PPP to bear the cross of lawlessness, poor economy, power shortage etc. In this situation, we need to sharpen the differences between Gilani and Zardari.

The 3½ friends will find a reason to help the TSP if it serves their interest. They know TSP very well and are not idiots. Anything India says does not make the slightest difference in their plans; what India is willing and capable of, does. They are enough fig leaves floating in the air to find a reason for helping the TSP. A joint declaration between TSP-India which mentions the challenge in Balochistan is hardly a game-changer in any way. It is just hot air.

I quite agree with you on the motives of the 3½ friends. I am not saying that the reference to Balochaistan will change their behaviour in any way, but, it gives them an opportunity to turn back at India and say "Hey, you guys are not exactly angels and you have yourself implicitly admitted to that".

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 15:55

VikramS wrote:[
I could not make any cogent conclusions from your statements above. The bottom-line is what you say does not matter; it is what you do which matters.

Indeed I make no sense, I am still figuring out why after publicy speaking for a year that Diplomacy will get us the results not arms after Mumbai V, we are suddenly saying oh talks are no big deal anyway they don't matter

I also make no sense because I am still figuring out why GoI spends so much money and effort and high quality manpower (IFS is top draw amongst possible Indian brainpower) on Diplomatic corps when it doesn't matter.

So in the end all we have to say for anything is it doesn't matter only a paper?

Why the concept of diplomacy bhai?

Yes a confused person like me is unlikely to make sense...

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 22 Jul 2009 16:36

Proof of RAW terror acts given to India: Pak paper
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS ... 807278.cms

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 22 Jul 2009 16:39

Armageddon in Islamabad
by Bruce Riedel
Faulty conclusions galore. Excerpts only.

The Case:

Pakistan as an Islamic-extremist safe haven would bolster al-Qaeda’s capabilities tenfold. The jihadist threat bred in Afghanistan would be a cakewalk in comparison.

The Pakistani jihadists were inside Afghanistan and part and parcel of the Taliban problem at the time of 9/11.

After a couple of years, the Afghan Taliban was allowed to regroup in Quetta, the largest city in Baluchistan, and in Peshawar, in the North-West Frontier Province, helping give birth to the Pakistani Taliban.Once again, Pakistan became the breeder of and a home to Islamist terrorists. This has been one of Pakistan’s greatest military assets and one of its greatest domestic weaknesses.

Thus Pakistan is both a patron and victim of terror.Many remain in denial, however, especially in the army. Others blame it all on the Americans and the CIA. As the mayor of Karachi, the largest megacity in the Islamic world, recently told me, Pakistan today is a country in the intensive-care ward of the global state system.

The Pakistani Taliban is now coalescing with the Punjab-based Lashkar-e-Taiba.

In the India-bordering provinces of Punjab and Sindh, where they already have a great deal of support, the extremists could mobilize a mass movement similar in some respects to that which toppled the shah of Iran in 1979.

The Future Scenario:

The new government would be composed of representatives of the Pakistani Taliban, LET and possibly the Islamist political parties that have contested electoral power in the past.

Large numbers of educated and Westernized Pakistanis would try to flee a new Islamic Emirate of Pakistan. They would find it difficult to find a port willing to take them

The emirate might also set up a new military force to act as a counterweight to the regular army, akin to the role of the SS in Nazi Germany or the Revolutionary Guard in Iran.

In the end, we would be left with an extremist-controlled Pakistan, infested with violence, an almost completely dysfunctional economy, harsh laws and even-harsher methods for imposing them, and above all a nuclear-armed nation controlled by terrorist sympathizers.

Afghanistan would become a battleground for influence between Pakistan and Iran, as Sunni-dominated Pakistan and Shia-dominated Iran would find a war for ideological dominance almost irresistible.

With many of the LET in power, a major mass-casualty attack on India like the November 2008 Mumbai bombings would be likely. India has shown remarkable restraint over the last decade as the Pakistani army, militants in Pakistan or both have carried out provocations like the Kargil War in 1999, the attack on the Indian parliament in 2001 and the Mumbai raid last year.

Pakistani embassies could become safe havens for terrorists pinpointing Zionist and Crusader targets.

In Pakistani-diaspora communities in the United Kingdom and the Gulf states the risk of terrorism would be even greater than it is today. The United States would have to take steps to curb travel by its citizens of Pakistani origin to their homeland.

Military options would be unappealing at best and counterproductive at worst. The United States would discover the same difficult choices Indian leaders have looked at for a decade.

Combined with air strikes, a blockade might impose real costs on the jihadist regime but is unlikely to topple it and would be hard to sustain in the absence of a major provocation.

The worst thing about the military option is that we might have little choice but to use it if al-Qaeda launched another 9/11-magnitude attack on the United States from a jihadist Pakistan.

Conclusions and Recommendations (Here's where Reidel trips and falls on his face)

A jihadist, nuclear-armed Pakistan is a scenario we need to avoid at all costs. That means working with the Pakistan we have today to try to improve its spotty record on terrorism and proliferation.

FOR THE last sixty years American policy toward Pakistan has oscillated wildly between periods when Washington was entranced by Islamabad and embraced its policies without question (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 43), or sanctioned Pakistan and blamed it for either provoking wars or developing nuclear weapons (Johnson, Carter, Bush 41 and Clinton). In the love-affair years, Washington would build secret relationships (the U-2 base in Peshawar and the mujahideen war in the 1980s) and throw literally billions of dollars at Pakistan with little or no accountability. In the scorned years, Pakistan would be démarched to death and Washington would cut off all military and economic aid. Both approaches failed dismally. Moreover, America endorsed every Pakistani military dictator, no matter that they started wars with India and moved the country ever deeper into the jihadist embrace. John F. Kennedy entertained the first dictator, Ayub Khan, at Mount Vernon, the only time George Washington’s home has ever witnessed a state dinner. Richard Nixon turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s murder of hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis to keep his friends in the army in power—and his back channel to China open. Yet despite Nixon’s support of Islamabad, India still scored an overwhelming victory against Pakistan in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. Ronald Reagan entertained Mohammad Zia ul-Haq as he encouraged the Arab jihadists that would become al-Qaeda. George W. Bush let Pervez Musharraf give the Afghan Taliban a sanctuary to kill American and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan.

What the U.S.-Pakistan relationship needs is constancy and consistency.

U.S.-aid levels should not be the product of temper tantrums on Capitol Hill. We should help Pakistan deal with its illiteracy rate, because literate women will fight the Taliban.

We also need to engage India constructively on how to reduce and then end the tensions, including in Kashmir, that have resulted from partition.

None of this will be easy. Pakistan is a complex and combustible society undergoing a severe crisis. America helped create that crisis over a long period of time. If we don’t help Pakistan now, we may have to deal with a jihadist Pakistan later. That should focus our attention.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer, is a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He has advised four sitting presidents on Pakistan.