NationStates Jolt Archive

This time a Brit officer on the ground, says what I have been saying all the time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1778443,00.html
A senior British officer accused Pakistan of allowing the Taliban to use its territory as a "headquarters" for attacks on western troops in Afghanistan as insurgents struck on multiple fronts yesterday.

In one of the worst 24-hour periods since they were ousted from power in 2001, the Taliban launched two suicide bombs, numerous firefights and a massive assault on a village in Helmand province, where 3,300 British soldiers are being deployed. The violence, which started on Wednesday night, caused 105 deaths including 87 Taliban, 15 police, an American civilian and a Canadian woman soldier, according to the highest estimates. British forces were not involved.

Colonel Chris Vernon, chief of staff for southern Afghanistan, said the Taliban leadership was coordinating its campaign from the western Pakistani city of Quetta, near the Afghan border. "The thinking piece of the Taliban is out of Quetta in Pakistan. It's the major headquarters," he told the Guardian. "They use it to run a series of networks in Afghanistan."

The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, echoed these comments by accusing Pakistan of arming the insurgents. "Pakistani intelligence gives military training to people and then sends them to Afghanistan with logistics," the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press news agency quoted him as saying.

Col Vernon said the Quetta leadership controlled "about 25" mid-level commanders dotted across the Afghan south, one of whom was captured last month. He declined to name him.

The unusually forthright British criticism, reflecting sentiments normally expressed in private by western commanders, drew a furious denial from the Pakistani military.:rolleyes:

"It is absolutely absurd that someone is talking like this. If the Taliban leadership was in Quetta we would be out of our minds not to arrest them,":rolleyes: said a spokesman, Major General Shaukat Sultan. "They should give us actionable intelligence so that we can take action."

The clash reflects growing tensions between Pakistan and the west as Nato prepares to assume command of southern Afghanistan from the US on July 31.

About 7,000 troops from Britain, Canada and the Netherlands are deploying to Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan provinces, while another 1,000 Americans and Romanians will be stationed in Zabul.

Kandahar has suffered the worst upheaval, much of it apparently aimed at unbalancing the Nato mission before it can settle down. Canadian troops have been pummelled with a string a suicide attacks, roadside bombs and an axe attack on an officer during a village meeting.

On Wednesday a suicide bomber rammed into a UN vehicle near the main coalition base at Kandahar airport, killing himself and injuring the driver. Col Vernon said he had tightened security on the road after similar attacks in March by "imposing Northern Ireland procedures". On Wednesday night hundreds of Taliban fighters assailed Musa Qala village in northern Helmand, sparking an eight-hour battle that officials said left 40 militants and 13 police dead.

Having convulsed the volatile south, the guerrilla summer offensive now threatens the rest of the country. Yesterday suicide bombers struck in the normally peaceful cities of Herat in the west and Ghazni to the north, killing an Afghan motorcyclist and a US police trainer.

"This is the worst things have been since the fall of the Taliban," said a western source in Kandahar.

Across the border, worried British and Canadian diplomats are pressing the Pakistani government to take a tougher approach to the Taliban. Although Pakistan forces have killed or arrested hundreds of al-Qaida suspects since 2001, it has detained only a handful of Taliban officials. The last big catch was spokesman Abdul Latif Hakimi, who was arrested in October 2005 after his mobile phone was traced to Quetta.

"Clearly the Taliban are at large in Baluchistan, operating in Quetta. Obviously that's a cause for concern," said a British diplomat in Islamabad. "There's no evidence of a serious network of Taliban camps but it's easy for them to take cover in Afghan refugee camps."

The 930-mile border, most of it barren mountains and desert, is notoriously porous. Maj Gen Sultan said that it was impossible for Pakistani officials to discriminate between ordinary Afghans and Taliban insurgents.

Col Vernon did not say whether Mullah Omar, the Taliban's leader, was also sheltering in Quetta. Relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan worsened sharply in March after Afghan allegations that Omar, Osama bin Laden and more than 100 Taliban leaders were hiding in Pakistan.

The Taliban fight has also become a propaganda war. The insurgents regularly paste "night letters" - threatening tracts against "collaborators" - on walls and doors in southern villages. A Taliban radio station has also started operating in Helmand, where the British troops are being deployed. Nato commanders are retaliating, pushing local media to publicise their successes. Domestic pressure means western journalists are also coming under scrutiny.

I always thought it was obvious, it just tends to get ignored.

From the above article

Although Pakistan forces have killed or arrested hundreds of al-Qaida suspects since 2001, it has detained only a handful of Taliban officials.

Reason being that taliban IS proxy of Pakistani establishment.

The unusually forthright British criticism, reflecting sentiments normally expressed in private by western commanders, drew a furious denial from the Pakistani military.

"It is absolutely absurd that someone is talking like this. If the Taliban leadership was in Quetta we would be out of our minds not to arrest them," said a spokesman, Major General Shaukat Sultan.

Yeah, like how the army arrested the chief of Lashkar-e-toiba, Prof Hafiz Saeed, from the LET headquarters in Muridke, just 70 odd miles from Lahore, the biggest city in Pakistan, even though the army has declared LET as a terrorist org.:rolleyes:


"They should give us actionable intelligence so that we can take action."


The coalition might as well give the intelligence to the taliban itself directly since any intel passed on to Pakistanis would eventually end up there.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195976,00.html
More Than 100 Killed in Afghan Violence
Thursday, May 18, 2006

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — In some of the deadliest combat since the Taliban's fall, hundreds of militants with machine guns stormed a town, battled Afghan, U.S. and Canadian forces and set off car bombs.

More than 100 people were killed, including dozens of insurgents and a U.S. civilian, officials said Thursday.

There is also a video piece in the webpage. Normally I do not endorse FOX news, but this one is quite OK reporting.

Meanwhile, Karzai speaks out unequivocally..

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL74388.htm
KABUL, May 18 (Reuters) - Pakistan is training militants and sending then into Afghanistan but Islamabad should realise it no longer has power to determine events in Afghanistan, Afghan President Hamid Karzai was quoted as saying on Thursday. Relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan deteriorated sharply this year after Afghanistan said Taliban insurgents were able to operate from the safety of Pakistani soil.

"Pakistani intelligence gives military training to people and then sends to Afghanistan with logistics," the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) news agency quoted Karzai as saying.

Taliban violence has surged this year and about 80 people were killed in fighting in various parts of Afghanistan on Wednesday and Thursday.

Many Afghans blame Pakistan for supporting the Taliban, or at the very least turning a blind eye to Taliban operating from Pakistan's lawless border regions.

Pakistan, which is battling Taliban and al Qaeda-linked militants on its side of the border, denies helping the Taliban.

But a senior U.S. security official said recently Pakistan was not doing enough in the war on terrorism, and militant sanctuaries on the Pakistani side of the border had to be dealt with.

Pakistan supported the Taliban until the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when it joined the United States in its war on terrorism.

Karzai said the influence Pakistan used to have over Afghanistan was a thing of the past.

"Pakistan should know that gone are the days when Afghan governments were formed in Pakistan and dissolved there," Karzai was quoted as telling tribal elders and officials in the eastern province of Kunar, which is on the Pakistani border.

"Afghans are now themselves masters of their country and the Afghan people themselves will take decisions," he said.

Karzai also descried fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar as a coward, AIP said.

"If he is a man, he should come out ... now he is hiding in the other country and sending youth to kill our people," he said.

"Pakistan wants that Afghanistan be its military base but that dream will never come true."

The heat is on and one Mullah Dadullah of taliban has been sacrificed..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4997548.stm
A top Taleban leader, Mullah Dadullah, has been captured in Afghanistan, Afghan officials have told the BBC.

The senior military commander was said to have been detained by international troops in southern Kandahar province.

The Dutch say the same...
http://www.pajhwak.com/viewstory.asp?lng=eng&id=17698
KABUL, May 7 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot said Sunday militants and Taliban fighters were crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan to carry out attacks in the southern Uruzgan province, where Dutch forces being deployed.

It's a bit like telling Russia to step sheltering terrorists in Chechnya. They're trying, they're killing people all the time, but it's just not enough. I suppose all we can do is shrug and meh.

BREAKING NEWS!!


SUN IS SLIGHTLY WARM!



It's no more obvious than your article.

It's a bit like telling Russia to step sheltering terrorists in Chechnya.

Wrong analogy.

They're trying, they're killing people all the time, but it's just not enough. I suppose all we can do is shrug and meh.

They are NOT trying. That is the point. The number of taliban captured by Pakistani authorities is not more than 20 and especially no taliban leader of importance have been captured by Pakistan (apart from the odd spokesman who is a small fry)...

They are NOT trying. That is the point. The number of taliban captured by Pakistani authorities is not more than 20 and especially no taliban leader of importance have been captured by Pakistan (apart from the odd spokesman who is a small fry)...
But they do all those military offensives in which they lose dozens of soldiers at a time. A year or two ago, I saw TV news footage of them using a whole regiment to attack some village with a tunnel network. I think it finished with both sides getting their asses kicked and withdrawing. They do have a go. They just can't deploy the concentrated firepower Russia can deploy.

But they do all those military offensives in which they lose dozens of soldiers at a time. A year or two ago, I saw TV news footage of them using a whole regiment to attack some village with a tunnel network. I think it finished with both sides getting their asses kicked and withdrawing. They do have a go. They just can't deploy the concentrated firepower Russia can deploy.

That was a show they put on. They sent in the frontier corps (paramilitary types) and not the full fledged operation that they are capable of mounting if they wanted to. The problem is the lack of will, not the lack of ability.

See here for a detailed report

http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/printables/060327roco02?print=true
McGary sits down on a rock under an apple tree and tells Mike to gather the village men around him. As usual, McGary lets a moment pass, and then another, and then he begins to speak. "My name is Captain McGary. I'm the coalition commander in Daychopan District," he begins quietly. Mike translates every few sentences. "And for all you hardworking honest men here, I apologize for what happened this morning; it brings me no pleasure to pull you from your beds in the morning. But unfortunately as we drove in here to check on your village the enemy blew up one of our trucks, so our mission of peace and help became a mission of war. I apologize for bringing war to your valley."

The men sit cross-legged on the grass, rapt.

"Your government has sent me food and supplies to feed this valley for five years. It sits in Baylough, but I can't get it here, because they shoot at us. Do they not want you to eat? I can bring the food here, but I need you to talk to these men in the mountains. Ask them what they fight for—why? If they want us to leave Afghanistan, the fastest way is to stop fighting. Believe me, we're ready to go home. I have a four-year-old son, and he asked me if he can go to Afghanistan sometime. I want to bring him here to see a strong Afghanistan, all the tribes united under Islamic law. That's what's in my heart. So please, if you see those men in the mountains, tell them what's in my heart."

McGary takes off his helmet and puts it on the ground next to him. "The men in the mountains are getting paid by Pakistan," he says. Mike translates; heads nod. "Pakistan wants to see Afghanistan remain weak. So fight for Afghanistan and don't be a puppet of Pakistan!"

If you want to make an American intelligence officer blanch, ask him whether the Pakistani military is supporting the Taliban. Officers like McGary seem willing to talk about it all day long—it's their men who are dying, after all—but intelligence officers inhabit that awkward world where politics and war intersect, and the wrong question can literally set them to stammering.

On the one hand, Washington considers Pakistan a staunch American ally in the War on Terror, and for a mid-level intelligence officer to suggest otherwise would be professional suicide. On the other hand, suspicions about Pakistani involvement in the Taliban are so commonplace that a blanket denial would almost serve to confirm that it is true. When the topic comes up, American intelligence officers invariably slip into a question-and-answer format that seems intended to impart a message of reasonableness: "Do Pakistanis slip across the border to join the Taliban? Of course. Is the government of Pakistan aware of this? Undoubtedly. But can they put a stop to it … ?"

Pakistan's relationship with militant groups in Afghanistan goes back to the early 80s, when the C.I.A. went through Pakistani intelligence to funnel $2 billion to $3 billion in weapons and cash to mujahideen groups fighting the Soviet Army. It was up to the ISI, as the Pakistani intelligence service is known, to decide which commanders would receive the aid, and they invariably chose Islamic radicals, who could be counted on to fight not only the Russians but also the Indian Army in the disputed region of Kashmir. In addition, the Pakistani government fostered the creation of thousands of religious schools, called madrassas, which were strung along the Afghan border like coils of razor wire. The most extreme of these madrassas indoctrinated tens of thousands of young Afghans and Pakistanis with radical Islam, and it was in these theological furnaces that the Taliban militias were forged.

A cooperative Taliban regime in Kabul was part of Pakistan's plan to build "strategic depth" in the region, but unfortunately Osama bin Laden became part of that plan as well, and after 9/11, Pakistan watched in dismay as the United States bombed their wayward creation out of existence. Surviving Taliban and al-Qaeda forces fled across the border into Pakistan and sought refuge in the supposedly "lawless" tribal areas along the Afghan border. Their presence in his country forced Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf to make a choice: he could either round up all the Taliban and al-Qaeda elements and provoke the ire of religious extremists at home or leave them alone and provoke the ire of the United States. In a brilliant move, he decided to do both.

Every few months, it seems, the ISI catches some al-Qaeda figure—Ramzi bin al Shibh, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah—and hands him over to the United States. These operations don't cost Musharraf much politically, because the foreign jihadists are not particularly beloved in Pakistan. In return, the ISI seems to receive some degree of indulgence from the United States when it comes to the Taliban. Since 9/11, not a single mid- or high-ranking commander of the Taliban has been turned over to the United States. The official explanation for this—one repeated by both Washington and Islamabad—is that the Pakistani military is simply not powerful enough to control the scattered Pashtun tribes of the border area where the Taliban are located. And if they did attempt it, President Musharraf would be quickly toppled by an uprising of Islamic radicals.

This vision of a Pakistan teetering on the brink of anarchy simply doesn't square with reality, however. In recent parliamentary elections, no candidate, including Islamic radicals, got more than 11 percent of the vote—hardly a threat to a military dictator. And the Pakistani military is configured to repulse a land invasion from India that would involve airpower, armored divisions, and hundreds of thousands of men; the idea that they cannot control Pashtun tribal areas that start a few hours' drive from Islamabad is laughable. And even if that were true, Taliban commanders are hardly hiding in caves up in the mountains; they live in villas in the suburbs of Quetta. They use cell phones, they drive cars, they go to mosques—they are easy to find, in other words. The Pakistani government is simply choosing not to.

Meanwhile, an average of nearly two American soldiers now die every week in Afghanistan—proportionally almost the same casualty rate as in Iraq, where there are seven times as many troops. They are being killed by Taliban fighters who are recruited, financed, and trained in Pakistan and whose commanders have ongoing relationships with elements of the Pakistani military. To put this in context, consider that in 1983 Hezbollah agents with links to the Iranian government drove a truck bomb into the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, and killed 241 servicemen. Now imagine that same scenario but with Iran as an American ally rather than as her sworn enemy. You have just imagined the current situation with Pakistan.

"The cost of not pressuring Pakistan is that it really hurts our efforts in Afghanistan, and in my view the security environment is moving in the wrong direction," says Seth Jones, a Rand Corporation analyst who advises the U.S. government on Afghanistan. "If you look at the number of insurgent attacks, in the proliferation of I.E.D.'s, in their sophistication, in the use of suicide attacks, it's very clear to me that not only is the insurgency not being defeated, but in many ways it's increasingly able to cause violence."

If I had had any doubts about the depth of Pakistan's role in the resurgent Taliban, those were gone by the time I left Afghanistan. In a situation that I can say almost nothing about because of risks to the people involved, I was able to interview a former member of the Taliban government who said that after 9/11 he was recruited by the Pakistani military to fight the Americans. He says that he turned the job down, but that the Taliban still consider him to be "one of them." Since then, Afghan intelligence has looked into his claims and decided that he was, in fact, telling me the truth when we met. They believe he did not approach American intelligence agents with his information out of fear that they would just send him to Guantánamo.

Not only is the Pakistani military allowing the Taliban to operate freely in Pakistani territory, this man said, but they themselves are training some of the Taliban recruits. He gave me the name, home address, phone numbers, and code name of the ISI major who had tried to recruit him after 9/11. ("You can tell his house because of the razor wire around the wall," he said about the man's residence, on a certain street in Quetta.) He also gave me the name and phone number of another ISI agent, who brings recruits from a certain region of Afghanistan and places them in training camps in western Pakistan, then sends them back across the border to fight. Then he gave me the names of 10 Afghans who are currently part of a larger group working for the ISI as a sort of government-in-exile. (In February, President Karzai submitted a similar list of known Taliban leaders—many with addresses—to the Pakistani government, demanding that they be arrested.) He said that bin Laden was not working closely with the ISI, but neither were they entirely separate. Then he made this surprising claim: "However much money Pakistan is taking from the United States to catch bin Laden, they are also taking from bin Laden to not capture him."

It's a military dictatorship led by an officer who led a coup, and they cite election results as proof that the government is politically strong enough to attempt a serious offensive.

They really need to make their minds up.

I just don't buy the idea that the Pakistani political establishment is resilient enough to deliberately embark on a full-scale civil war in the West of the country, to please someone on another continent.

All the sources you have shown make Pakistan out to be an absolute scumbag.

My question is, and this is honest, why does America seem so buddy buddy with Pakistan then? Why does America not confront Pakistan about the Taliban...ect...and why is a country like this "allowed" to have nuclear weapons?

My question is, and this is honest, why does America seem so buddy buddy with Pakistan then? Why does America not confront Pakistan about the Taliban...ect...and why is a country like this "allowed" to have nuclear weapons?
Because it is too late for any other approach. It is too large to defeat or even to allow to implode, without loss of weapons traceability. Regime change is the last thing you want, because as is often the case in that part of the world, the people who stand to benefit are worse.

It's a military dictatorship led by an officer who led a coup, and they cite election results as proof that the government is politically strong enough to attempt a serious offensive.

On the contrary, it was Musharraf who engineered a split in the PML party to create PML(Q) faction so that the Muttahida Majilis Alliance can come to power in NWFP.


I just don't buy the idea that the Pakistani political establishment is resilient enough to deliberately embark on a full-scale civil war in the West of the country, to please someone on another continent.

First off, there is NO political establishment in power. It is the army and the army is capable of rounding off talibani elements in their country.

It is just a question of will.

Musharraf cannot let go of taliban because he cannot crackdown on jihadis seperately and he would have to crackdown on anti-India jihadis which he is not willing to do.

So he plays a game of trying to satisfy everybody (the US, India, his own army, the jihadi leaders of his country) without actually doing nothing to sort the problem (the presence of taliban and the jihadis in Pakistan).

"to please someone on another continent":rolleyes:

puhleaze...so you are saying that pakistan should not be mounting operations against the taliban in their country because of the nature of taliban and the threat it poses to pakistani society and neighboring societies....and it should not be doing so just because it would make US happy..:rolleyes:

This is about the recruitment of Pakistanis for the new Afghan jihad. requires login
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/international/asia/15afghan.html
In the tape, the men described a fairly low-budget network that begins with the recruitment of young bombers in the sprawling Pakistani port city of Karachi. The bombers are moved to safe houses in the border towns of Quetta and Chaman, and then transferred into Afghanistan, where they are provided with cars and explosives and sent out to find a target.

The tape appears to confirm Afghan officials' suspicions that the suicide bombings, which are largely a recent phenomenon in Afghanistan, were generated outside Afghanistan, and in particular from neighboring Pakistan. It was shown to The New York Times by an Afghan official who asked not to be identified because of the diplomatic implications of the contents.

A Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, dismissed the claims of the Afghan government. "This is a propaganda campaign of the government," he said by satellite telephone from an unknown location. He added that there was no need to recruit Pakistanis for the attacks. "They are all Afghans," he said of the suicide bombers. (Don't pakis say same thing about J&K how the freedom struggle is indigenous!)

But Afghan officials said the confessions provided the proof they needed to demand action from Pakistan. "I think there is a factory for these bombers," said Asadullah Khaled, the governor of Kandahar Province.

"Most of the attackers are non-Afghans," the governor of Kandahar, Mr. Khaled, said Saturday at a memorial service for 14 victims of the latest bombing. "We have proof, we have prisoners," he added. "We have addresses, we have cassettes."

Three of the men, speaking in Urdu, said they were Pakistanis and had been recruited as bombers.

Two of the men, Akhtar Ali and Sajjad, who only gave one name, said they had been recruited by a man named Jamal, who was working for the Taliban and who owns a bookstore in Karachi. Sajjad had been staying with his brother in Karachi when Jamal showed him video cassettes in which Muslim clerics urged listeners to go and fight a holy war and earn a sure way to paradise.

"I was doing nothing, walking around, playing cricket and football," Sajjad said, adding in reference to a senior cleric: "The maulavi sahib talked to me and showed me a cassette, so I got involved. They were talking on the cassettes and telling us to do this and that, telling me to kill Americans."
"I heard from the clerics there that if you fight jihad, you would go to paradise," he said. "There are cassettes there and they say: 'There is jihad against non-Muslims.' "
"Most of the attackers are Pakistanis; I can tell you 99 percent are Pakistani," he said. He said he had not seen any Arabs coming through.

"They are getting their logistics there, so it is obvious that Pakistan is also giving them money, in my opinion," Mr. Baqi said, adding that he and the other Afghan Taliban had free movement in Pakistan. "The people who are bringing anarchy in Afghanistan, the Pakistanis don't say anything to them," he said.

Because it is too late for any other approach. It is too large to defeat or even to allow to implode, without loss of weapons traceability. Regime change is the last thing you want, because as is often the case in that part of the world, the people who stand to benefit are worse.

Strange, that actually made sense to me.

Are you sure thats you, Tactical Grace?

All the sources you have shown make Pakistan out to be an absolute scumbag.

My question is, and this is honest, why does America seem so buddy buddy with Pakistan then? Why does America not confront Pakistan about the Taliban...ect...and why is a country like this "allowed" to have nuclear weapons?

Pakistan's one of our pet dictatorships. They're like a less oil-rich version of the Saudis. We prop up their government, they give us various concessions. We don't usually stop propping up governments unless they actually do something to really get us angry, and we don't really care that they're supporting terror.

Pakistan's one of our pet dictatorships. They're like a less oil-rich version of the Saudis. We prop up their government, they give us various concessions. We don't usually stop propping up governments unless they actually do something to really get us angry, and we don't really care that they're supporting terror.

What concessions are those?

There is a political establishment in power. The army.

See, the military takes on a political dimension the moment it touches public office. It becomes as sensitive to public opinion as a used car salesman who suckered the public in a democracy. Because most militaries are intelligent enough to understand that their room for maneuvre is greatly increased if they meet certain minimum standards of public satisfaction. Play all the sides off each other and maintain the status quo - live to enjoy a long happy retirement on a luxury yacht or a Moscow/London penthouse. Try for a decisive shift in the balance of power - take a bullet from a popular subordinate or end up seeking asylum in the same.

What concessions are those?

They probably have some oil. They don't oppose us openly, and they take our side in arguments. That sort of thing is what we get out of most of our pet dictatorships. Occasionally there are other industries, import monopolies, etc. I don't know what exactly we're getting out of Pakistan, but if we're propping them up it's got to be something.

All the sources you have shown make Pakistan out to be an absolute scumbag.

My question is, and this is honest, why does America seem so buddy buddy with Pakistan then? Why does America not confront Pakistan about the Taliban

Because of the "Musharraf may be an SOB but he is our SOB" thinking.

Come to think of it, the cons of this relationship is not that costly to the adminstration. yeah a few soldiers die now and then, but with absolutely no spotlight on Afghanistan, there is no political cost to the administration. Seriously, who cares about Afghanistan?

As long as Musharraf hands over AQ # 3s now and then with some goatherds thrown in as extra and helps with intel on AQ cells inside US ( like the Hayat case in Lodi, CA etc) and helps in preventing attacks on the US mainland (which would be a huge political cost to the admin), everything is fine.

In exchange, they get to have a client state and a dog that can be unleashed in the neighborhood.

It is indeed amazing how much "get out of jail free" cards that Pakistan gets considering their involvement in 911.

Get this. The then serving chief of ISI (inter services intelligence - Pakistani CIA), Gen Mahmoud Ahmad was in Afghanistan a week before 911, when Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the northern alliance, was assassinated by a sophisticated camera bomb. On 9/11 he was in NY hosted by none other than the now ex CIA chief Peter Goss.

After 9/11 he was a part of the delegation sent to talk with Mullah Omar to get the taliban to hand over Osama. He advised to Mullah Omar to be defiant, contrary to the objectives of the delegation.

All this time he was still the chief of ISI and only after an Indian intel report of Omar Sheikh (the guy who killed Daniel Pearl ostensible for getting too close to the truth) wiring $100 K to Mohd Atta under the instructions of Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad was made public, did Musharraf relieve him of his post.

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs2908
Tell the soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division, Alpha Company, that the war in Afghanistan ended four years ago and they might be apt to clear up some of your misperceptions.

Early this month, 21-year-old Sgt. Rick Zamora of Del Rio, Texas, was on Observation Post 4 near the Pakistani border when he heard shots being fired.

Sgt. Rick Zamora (front)

"It's not unusual around here," he says. "We thought it was just the ANA (Afghan National Army). They're always firing their weapons. But when the machine guns started opening up on us we knew something was going on."

Zamora and other members of 1st Platoon say they came under attack by assailants using small arms, machine guns and RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) from ridge lines about 500 meters away.

For much of the American public, the war in Afghanistan began to fade from memory soon after the Taliban was toppled from power in the late fall of 2001.

But four years later, over 17,000 U.S. troops, as well as thousands of other multinational forces, remain to provide stability for a fledgling Afghan national government yet to assert any real authority beyond the boundaries of the capital city, Kabul.

And in some sectors of the country, violence from Taliban remnants, believed to be operating from safe havens inside Pakistan, is a regular occurrence — like on Observation Post 4.

"We knew it was real when we started to heard the zips and cracks," says Pfc. John O'Brien, 27, from Boston. "We started running for cover and I turned around to see the tracer rounds flying over the sergeant's head."

Members of the platoon returned fire with their own 240 light machine guns and then called in for artillery support.

Sgt. James Duke, 26, of Milburn, Okla., was the forward observer on Observation Post 4 that day.

"It seemed like all they were firing were tracers [illuminated rounds]," says Duke, "so it was easy to see what direction they were firing from. I shot a compass reading to the northwest and called into the TOC [tactical operations center]."

Within minutes from the start of the attack, five 105mm artillery rounds were arcing overhead in the direction of what the acronym-obsessed U.S. military, perhaps aptly, terms the "POO." It stands for the "point of origin" of the hostile fire.

"It was just perfect," Duke says. "The rounds landed exactly where they were supposed to and the firing stopped immediately. The whole fight was over within 15 minutes."

"We found one body," says Capt. Chris Nunn of Texas, commanding officer of Alpha Company. "But their guys are very adept at recovering their own dead and wounded."

In a place where friends, foes and criminals often wear the same color camouflage, it's often tough to tell exactly whom you're fighting. But the Army command in the region thinks it has a pretty good idea that the Taliban or their supporters were behind the assault.

"We can track these kind of attacks directly to the Pakistani madrassas' [Islamic fundamentalist schools] graduating classes and the good weather," says the 10th Mountain Division's 2nd Battalion, 87 Infantry Commander, Lt. Col. Chris Toner.

It becomes as sensitive to public opinion <snip>.

You assume that public opinion. You have no idea of that. All your ideas come from what your media feeds you which in turn is fed by your govt authorities which in turn is fed by the Pakistani authorities.

The truth may very well be different.

www.carnegieendowment.org/files/45.grare.final.pdf
The fear of an Islamic threat has been the driving force behind most Western countries’ foreign policies toward Pakistan in recent years. The possibility that violent Islamists will kill President Pervez Musharraf, throw Pakistan into turmoil, take over the country and its nuclear weapons, and escalate regional terrorism has dominated the psychological and political landscape. Such fears have usually led to support of the Pakistani military as
the only institution able to contain the danger. But the Islamist threat is neither as great nor as autonomous as many assume. True, Pakistan has experienced more than its share of religious violence, both sectarian and jihadi. But serious law-and-order problems do not mean the fate of the state is at stake. No Islamic organization has ever been in a position to politically or militarily challenge the role of the one and only center of power in Pakistan: the army.

On the contrary, the Pakistani Army has used Islamic organizations for its purposes, both at home and abroad. Islamist organizations balance the power of rival mainstream political parties, preserving the army’s role as national
arbiter. The army has nurtured and sometimes deployed violent Islamists in Afghanistan (with U.S. support at first), Kashmir, and other hot spots on the subcontinent.

Although the army’s control is solid, the situation is not without risks: a few of the militants have turned against the army because of Pakistan’s “betrayal” of the Taliban and cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan
and in the “war on terror.” Moreover, the infrastructure that supports regional sectarianism and Kashmir-Afghan jihadi activities can be hijacked for international terrorism, as demonstrated by the July 2005 London bomb
blasts. The risk of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, triggered by attacks similar to the ones carried out by the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba in Delhi after the October 2005 earthquake, cannot be dismissed
either.

Yet evidence is scant that these organizations pose an uncontrollable threat. Also, a Pakistan headed by an Islamist party would not necessarily be unstable. In fact, in the existing power setup, politico-religious organizations
have often been used to channel popular resentment in a socially and politically acceptable way, preventing unrest.

What the West perceives as a threat to the regime in Pakistan are manifestations of the Pakistani Army’s tactics to maintain political control.
The army uses its need for modernist order to justify its continued claim on power and, with it, a substantial part of state resources. This de facto army monopoly on power is preventing the emergence of a truly democratic, economically sound Pakistan.

The Pakistani military is the main source of insecurity on the subcontinent, making it necessary to challenge the common perception and policy in the international community that stability and security depend on not pressuring
military sovereigns such as Musharraf. Orderly army retrenchment is a necessary but insufficient condition for progress, hence the need for
new approaches and alternative policies

By focusing on only Islamist
militancy, Western governments
confuse the consequence and the
cause: The army is the problem.

FYI, the motto of the Pakistan Army is: "Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi Sabilillah".

Translated into English, it means "Faith, Piety, Fight in the Way of Allah".

The Pakistani army *is* the biggest jihadi group. The idea that this jihadi group fights its own unofficial army is ludicrous.

Because of the "Musharraf may be an SOB but he is our SOB" thinking.

Come to think of it, the cons of this relationship is not that costly to the adminstration. yeah a few soldiers die now and then, but with absolutely no spotlight on Afghanistan, there is no political cost to the administration. Seriously, who cares about Afghanistan?

As long as Musharraf hands over AQ # 3s now and then with some goatherds thrown in as extra and helps with intel on AQ cells inside US ( like the Hayat case in Lodi, CA etc) and helps in preventing attacks on the US mainland (which would be a huge political cost to the admin), everything is fine.

In exchange, they get to have a client state and a dog that can be unleashed in the neighborhood.

It is indeed amazing how much "get out of jail free" cards that Pakistan gets considering their involvement in 911.

Get this. The then serving chief of ISI (inter services intelligence - Pakistani CIA), Gen Mahmoud Ahmad was in Afghanistan a week before 911, when Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the northern alliance, was assassinated by a sophisticated camera bomb. On 9/11 he was in NY hosted by none other than the now ex CIA chief Peter Goss.

After 9/11 he was a part of the delegation sent to talk with Mullah Omar to get the taliban to hand over Osama. He advised to Mullah Omar to be defiant, contrary to the objectives of the delegation.

All this time he was still the chief of ISI and only after an Indian intel report of Omar Sheikh (the guy who killed Daniel Pearl ostensible for getting too close to the truth) wiring $100 K to Mohd Atta under the instructions of Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad was made public, did Musharraf relieve him of his post.

And what exactly, is America's relationship with India like?

You assume that public opinion. You have no idea of that. All your ideas come from what your media feeds you which in turn is fed by your govt authorities which in turn is fed by the Pakistani authorities.
The Pakistani secret service feeds me TV news via Channel 4. Yeah. Cool.

And what exactly, is America's relationship with India like?

Was bitter and cold. Now improving.

Here's another datapoint.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:tMTzrFqR5EEJ:206.190.35.122/s/latimests/20050728/ts_latimes/pakistanconnectionseenintalibansnewtactics%3B_ylt%3DA86.I23AzPpC.UwBkgTsbr8F%3B_ylu%3DX3oDMTBidHQxYj h2BHNlYwN5bnN0b3J5+Pakistan+Connection+Seen+in+Taliban%27s+New+Tactics+paul+watson&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=13&client=firefox-a

Cached version of the original story (now archived) in LA Times. Old but still pertinent. Has lots of details.
ASADABAD,
Afghanistan — Telephone and power lines haven't reached the villages clinging to the craggy mountainsides of Kunar province. Digital phones and computer chips are even further beyond the shepherds' imaginations.

So when sophisticated bombs detonated by long-range cordless phones began blowing up under U.S. and Afghan military vehicles on mountain tracks, investigators knew they had to search elsewhere for the masterminds.

Afghan officials immediately focused on nearby Pakistan and its military, whose Inter-Services Intelligence agency helped create the Taliban in the early 1990s and provided training and equipment to help the Muslim extremists win control over most of the country.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf joined the Bush administration's war on terrorism and publicly turned against the Taliban immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks. But Afghan officials allege that Taliban and allied fighters who fled to Pakistan after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001 are learning new, more lethal tactics from the Pakistani military at numerous training bases.

"Pakistan is lying," said Lt. Sayed Anwar, acting head of Afghanistan's counter-terrorism department. "We have very correct reports from their areas. We have our intelligence agents inside Pakistan's border as well.

"If Pakistan tells the truth, the problems will stop in Afghanistan. They say they are friends of Americans, and yet they order these people to kill Americans."

At least 38 U.S. troops have died from hostile fire in Afghanistan this year, higher than the annual combat death toll for any year since the invasion.

Musharraf has denied that his military supports the Taliban or any other Afghan insurgents and the Bush administration and U.S. military spokesmen continue to praise Pakistan's role in combating terrorism.

Pakistan's army recently added 4,000 troops to the 70,000 soldiers patrolling the rugged, nearly 1,500-mile, border between the countries in what it says is a determined effort to stop infiltrations of Afghanistan.

Pakistani Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan, a military spokesman, said it was ridiculous to suggest that Pakistan had a secret operation to train insurgents to build complex electronic bombs.

"This is just a figment of some absurd mind, nothing else," Sultan said.

High-tech bombs similar to those being found in Afghanistan have killed Pakistani soldiers too, he said. More than 250 Pakistani troops have died in border operations in the last year, Sultan said.

"We haven't found any sanctuary, so far, where such items probably could be made," he said, adding that Pakistan's military didn't know where the sophisticated bomb-making technology was coming from.

Anwar, the Afghan official, who has worked in intelligence for 27 years, acknowledged that there was no smoking gun linking insurgents in Afghanistan to Pakistan's military intelligence.

Yet despite the Pakistani military's assertions, increasing numbers of guerrillas are crossing into eastern and southern Afghanistan, Anwar and other Afghan officials said.

"Last year, the enemy wasn't able to attack our checkpoints or plant so many mines," Anwar said. "This year, they have become very strong."

Anwar said reports from intelligence agents across the border and 50 captured prisoners describe an extensive network of militant training camps in areas of Pakistan's federally administered North Waziristan tribal area where government forces are firmly in control.

Tauda China, a village in the area, which is home to Pushtun tribes, is the site of one camp where Inter-Services Intelligence agents trained militants, Anwar said. He alleged that there were as many as six other camps in the surrounding valley, which is closed to outsiders and guarded by Pakistani troops and armed Afghans.

"Our agents have been there," Anwar said. "They tried to enter the valley and the soldiers didn't allow them."

Zulfiqar Ali, a Pakistani journalist who freelances for the Los Angeles Times, recently reported that at least some training camps that were closed on Musharraf's orders have been reopened.

The government denies that there are training camps. But Ali, who also writes for the Pakistani magazine the Herald, visited one camp and found armed militants with fresh recruits as young as 13 undergoing 18-day "ideological orientation" and weapons training. Several sources said 13 militant camps had been reactivated in the Mansehra region alone in the first week of May.

Militants said their official funding had continued during Musharraf's ban, but the camps had been abandoned and falling apart until this spring.

"Our transport fleet is back, electricity has been restored and the communications system is in place," a militant guide reportedly boasted to Ali.

The reported reopening of militant training camps in Pakistan coincides with the discovery of the high-tech bombs in Afghanistan.

Two months ago, Afghan security forces discovered six high-tech bombs in the town of Sarowbi, east of Kabul, the Afghan capital. The triggers consisted of long-range cordless phones attached with black electrical tape to electronic boxes, which Anwar believes convert the ringing phone's signal into an electrical charge, detonating the explosives.

"These phones are Pakistani-made phones," he said.

Since March, when heavy winter snow in the insurgents' hide-outs began to melt, the Taliban and its allies have been intensifying attacks on military and civilian targets in Afghanistan.

In addition to the rising number of U.S. deaths, about 700 people, including Afghan civilians, soldiers and insurgents, have died in the escalated fighting.

In late June, suspected Taliban guerrillas ambushed a four-man Navy SEAL reconnaissance unit high in the Hindu Kush mountain range of Kunar province. Only one of the SEALs survived the attack, and only by good fortune, according to the
Pentagon's account. A rocket-propelled grenade blast knocked him down a mountainside, and despite his wounds he managed to escape to a village that gave him shelter.

Sixteen U.S. troops sent to rescue the SEALs died when insurgents shot down their helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade.

Lt. Naqibullah Nooristani, operations commander for Afghan troops fighting alongside U.S. forces in Kunar, said the Taliban and its allies were proving so resilient because they were receiving improved training and equipment just across the border in Pakistan.

The guerrillas who escaped after attacking the U.S. troops left behind trash that suggests they have a good supply chain, Nooristani said.

"When our soldiers got up on the mountain, we saw empty cans of Pepsi and old running shoes, which means they changed into new ones for the operation," the lieutenant said, sitting on the edge of a cot where he sleeps next to his desk.

"They have Pepsis in the mountains while I can't find them here in the city," Nooristani said. "That means they are well supported."

The lieutenant estimated there were 300 Taliban fighters just in the Pec valley northwest of Asadabad, the provincial capital. Thousands more are fighting in several other border provinces in eastern and southern Afghanistan, Afghan officials said.

Police recently found four remote-controlled bombs in the luggage of an Afghan taxi passenger traveling on the main road from Jalalabad, near the Pakistani border, said Anwar, the Afghan counter-terrorism chief. The detonators were small, silver-colored explosive capsules that were made in Pakistan, he said.

The man transporting the bomb components, Sanaullah Khan, was from Parwan province, north of Kabul.

Under interrogation, Khan said he had entered Afghanistan with four Pakistani men after receiving training at a camp in Shamshatu, near Peshawar, Pakistan, Anwar said, reading from an interrogator's report.

Khan provided few details about the training camp, Anwar said.

Shamshatu is the site of a large U.N. camp for Afghan refugees. As recently as this spring, Pakistani newspaper reports said 90% of the camp's residents were loyal to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former prime minister and warlord whose Hizb-i-Islami militia is now allied with the Taliban against the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan.

Khan told investigators he had received the explosive devices found in his bag from a Pakistani whom he identified as Fazal Rabi. He said Rabi lived at the camp and was "very well connected with Al Qaeda," according to the interrogation report.

Lt. Gen. Moin Faqir, who oversees the Afghan army's operations as central corps commander, said his forces first started seeing bombs with computer components six months ago in Kunar province.

"It is not easy to use these mines unless you are well trained for it," he said.

Unlike conventional land mines that have plagued Afghanistan for decades, these new devices are not triggered by the pressure of wheels rolling over them, Faqir said.

Instead, they are designed to explode directly under the vehicle's passenger cab, increasing the chances that a relatively small explosion would maim or kill. They are also easier to conceal than regular land mines.

Faqir said he could not say with certainty who was providing the equipment and training to build the new bombs.

"I think we all know where these mines are from," he added with a pained smile.

The Afghan general chose his words carefully. A uniformed U.S. military advisor was sitting on a couch next to him, taking notes on everything he said. Without using names, Faqir made it clear he thought the source of the sophisticated bombs was an enemy of the worst kind because it pretended to be an ally.

"No one should have two faces with his friend," he said, adding that such people would suffer shame and destruction. "Once you shake hands with somebody, you should stand with him till the end."

The Pakistani secret service feeds me TV news via Channel 4. Yeah. Cool.

:rolleyes:

You have proved how misinformed and clueless you are in this thread.

:rolleyes:

You have proved how misinformed and clueless you are in this thread.

Agreed.

And I found your posts to be very informing and revealing. I NEVER knew the situation regarding Pakistan was this complex, nor this dangerous.

What is the relationship between India and Pakistan?

The Afghan general chose his words carefully. A uniformed U.S. military advisor was sitting on a couch next to him, taking notes on everything he said. Without using names, Faqir made it clear he thought the source of the sophisticated bombs was an enemy of the worst kind because it pretended to be an ally.

"No one should have two faces with his friend," he said, adding that such people would suffer shame and destruction. "Once you shake hands with somebody, you should stand with him till the end."

I thought those two paragraphs were very interesting.

Heres my question concerning all of this.

Why hasnt America even confronted Pakistan about this, at all?

:rolleyes:

You have proved how misinformed and clueless you are in this thread.
So you are implying what they are feeding me propaganda. :eek:

My word. You could be right. Even the BBC could have been infiltrated.

So you are implying what they are feeding me propaganda. :eek:

My word. You could be right. Even the BBC could have been infiltrated.

:rolleyes:

Hes trying to be serious with you, why are you acting like this?

So you are implying what they are feeding me propaganda. :eek:

My word. You could be right. Even the BBC could have been infiltrated.

oooohhh...that's why you said that it is public opinion of Pakistan that forces the Paki army to act like the way it does....cuz obviously you happen to know what the public opinion of Pakistan is by reading...the beeb.:confused:

The bbc is not without bias in reporting of South Asia. Its south asia desk is filled with Brit-Pakis. "infiltrated" or not is not my care. I always filter the BBC for bias when it comes to south Asia.

Now now, there is nothing wrong in being misinformed. Being clueless is a right. :D Just don't argue based on your assumptions and expect not to be exposed.

If you are going to push your own politically-coloured opinion of the people of Pakistan, could you please not refer to them as Pakis? You have been told on numerous occasions that the term is racist.

What is the relationship between India and Pakistan?

Bitter. Both sides are talking peace at the behest of American pressure but both the public and the officials themselves are cynical of any meaningful progress in the peace talks.

The problem is that there cannot be peace without Pakistan giving up its ambition to acquire Kashmir. Giving it up would mean that the army would lose its preeminence and could also lead to unravelling of the state since the ideology of its foundations (nazariya-e-Pakistan - the two nation theory) demands that Kashmir state just because it is muslim majority has to be a part of Pakistan.

Giving up the claim would invalidate two nation theory and would seriously undermine the ideological foundations of Pakistan.

But they cannot also sustain the hostilities as they used to in the 90s. Kargil was an attempt to change the status quo and it failed miserably. So they have to scale down their bellligerent position for now. The US would not allow India to go to war with Pakistan. So India also cannot be belligerent now.

So the US, India and Pakistan has put up a drama called peace process where people just act and make some nice warm and fuzzy speeches and nothing meaningful happens because both the sides won't budge an inch from their position.

If you are going to push your own politically-coloured opinion of the people of Pakistan, could you please not refer to them as Pakis? You have been told on numerous occasions that the term is racist.

I cannot be racist because I am of the same race as of Pakistanis (that is if there is such a thing called race in the first place). I speak against the state of Pakistan and its establisment, not against the people who are my brothers and cousins. You are once again showing your ignorance.

I can use that term just how blacks can use the N word.

Heres my question concerning all of this.

Why hasnt America even confronted Pakistan about this, at all?

Why should they?

The current arrangement has more benefits than costs.

The only cost of this support to the Pak army is the blood of Afghans and Indians and the Bush admin could care less about that. Heck even the Afghan and Indian admin care less about that.

Like I said earlier, handful of American GIs dying now and then in Afghanistan is no political cost to the Bush admin, what with all the spotlight on Iraq etc...

I can use that term just how blacks can use the N word.
And I can forum ban you. :cool:

And I can forum ban you. :cool:

I almost typed "go ahead":p

Alright, If that is the policy (no members to use any alleged racist word, even if they are not racist and even if the claim that the word is racist is ludicrous), then I will comply to this ridiculous thing.:headbang:

added later: FYI.
Pak = Pure in Urdu. Pak-e-stan / land of the pure. From that "Paki" = Pure person.

Why should they?

The current arrangement has more benefits than costs.

The only cost of this support to the Pak army is the blood of Afghans and Indians and the Bush admin could care less about that. Heck even the Afghan and Indian admin care less about that.

Like I said earlier, handful of American GIs dying now and then in Afghanistan is no political cost to the Bush admin, what with all the spotlight on Iraq etc...


But I dont understand what the benefit is of turning a blind eye to all of this madness?

Bitter. Both sides are talking peace at the behest of American pressure but both the public and the officials themselves are cynical of any meaningful progress in the peace talks.

The problem is that there cannot be peace without Pakistan giving up its ambition to acquire Kashmir. Giving it up would mean that the army would lose its preeminence and could also lead to unravelling of the state since the ideology of its foundations (nazariya-e-Pakistan - the two nation theory) demands that Kashmir state just because it is muslim majority has to be a part of Pakistan.

Giving up the claim would invalidate two nation theory and would seriously undermine the ideological foundations of Pakistan.

But they cannot also sustain the hostilities as they used to in the 90s. Kargil was an attempt to change the status quo and it failed miserably. So they have to scale down their bellligerent position for now. The US would not allow India to go to war with Pakistan. So India also cannot be belligerent now.

So the US, India and Pakistan has put up a drama called peace process where people just act and make some nice warm and fuzzy speeches and nothing meaningful happens because both the sides won't budge an inch from their position.

So basically, Pakistans foreign policy is that of annexing an area of India, while Indias foreign policy is that of defending itself against the forceful annexation of the Kashmir state?

From reading this, it seems like I would support India any day over Pakistan. I know there are Muslim Indians, but are there any Hindu Pakis?

So the US, India and Pakistan has put up a drama called peace process where people just act and make some nice warm and fuzzy speeches and nothing meaningful happens because both the sides won't budge an inch from their position.

Still, isnt this better than actual conflict?

It's a military dictatorship led by an officer who led a coup, and they cite election results as proof that the government is politically strong enough to attempt a serious offensive.

They really need to make their minds up.

I just don't buy the idea that the Pakistani political establishment is resilient enough to deliberately embark on a full-scale civil war in the West of the country, to please someone on another continent.

Sooner or later, the people in the untamed areas of Pakistan are going to kill Musharraf and take over. He just doesn't have the balls to admit it.

Sooner or later, the people in the untamed areas of Pakistan are going to kill Musharraf and take over. He just doesn't have the balls to admit it.

If that happens...serious problems will follow. And I will support America/The West and India in any action against Pakistan. Because the picture Aryavartha paints of Pakistan and its Muslims is a very scary one indeed.

If that happens...serious problems will follow. And I will support America/The West and India in any action against Pakistan. Because the picture Aryavartha paints of Pakistan and its Muslims is a very scary one indeed.
It's only a matter of time. Those sympathetic to the extremist Muslims work within the Army and Pakistani intelligence. They've tried to kill Musharraf before.

Keep trying, and sooner or later they're going to get him.

Then al-Qaeda will have nuclear weapons on demand.

It's only a matter of time. Those sympathetic to the extremist Muslims work within the Army and Pakistani intelligence. They've tried to kill Musharraf before.

Keep trying, and sooner or later they're going to get him.

Then al-Qaeda will have nuclear weapons on demand.

It is a very pants-shitting scenario.

I really dont know what to do in this situation....maybe Ary can help us out in this.

What would happen if Musharraf was killed and extreme Muslims took over?

But I dont understand what the benefit is of turning a blind eye to all of this madness?

It is like the relationship of a mafia boss with a street thug. The street thug (Pak army) has its uses and in return for the services rendered by the thug, the mafia boss turns a blind eye to the actions of the street thug in his street.

If you have a base in Pakistan, you can reach India, China, CAR and Iran. It is an exellent geo-strategic location. Besides the Pak army has served American well in the past (Afghan jihad, conduit to China, spying on Iran etc and as many Indians like to think - contain India).

So basically, Pakistans foreign policy is that of annexing an area of India, while Indias foreign policy is that of defending itself against the forceful annexation of the Kashmir state?

Kinda, but Pakes (can't use the "i" in that word because somehow that would make me a racist:rolleyes: ) would vehemently argue that since Kashmir is morally theirs, their act of trying to annex Kashmir is not aggression....

The problem started with the partition.

There were two administrative types of British India - the British dominion and the princely states (they still owed loyalty to the British crown).

The partition plan was for the British dominion and where the princely states would go was to be decided by the ruler of the princely state.

There were more than 500 such princely states and by 15th Aug, 1947 other than a handful, all the princely states acceded to either India or Pakistan.

The ruler of Kashmir, a hindu, Hari Singh, rather liked to keep his kingdom independant from both India and Pakistan and dragged his feet on deciding which country to accede to. He was hoping that he can somehow project his state to be a buffer state between India and Pak and get international support and preserve his kingdom.

But the "two nation theory" (TNT) which is the basis on which Pakistan was claimed and formed states that "hindus and muslims are seperate people and a muslim cannot be a muslim if he does not live in a muslim state and hence a muslim sate is needed for the muslims" - kinda how the Jews claimed Israel but atleast the Jews could show the genocide as excuse...the muslim leaders claimed that in the future the hindus would oppress the muslims if the British go away...

anyhoo, according to the TNT, Pakes see Kashmir as theirs because it is muslim majority. So when Hari Singh was undecided on Kashmir's fate, they sent in the tribal army to force his hand. Ofcourse Paks claim that the tribals went there spontaneously and the Pak army had nothing to do with it. All their arms and maps and logistical support came magically.

If you can, get a hold of the book "Raiders in Kashmir" by Maj Akbar Khan, the guy who was involved in the operation Gulmarg (the operation mounted by Pak to capture Kashmir), where he quite explicitly details the involvement of Pake army in that operation in terms of arms, logistics, intel and even the leadership of regular officers.

Hari Singh was panicked by this invasion by Pakistan and he signed the instrument of accession and acceded to India. India airlifted troops to Kashmir after some dilly-dallying and machinations by the British commander in Chief (yeah the British were still chief of the Indian army at that time) and the Indian troops started beating back the tribal army. At this point the Pakistani army directly entered the fray and full fledged war started. The Pakistani army was also commanded by a Brit and for the first time in history, two British officers were fighting against each other. Of course, it set alarm bells and after severe pressure, India and Pak agreed for ceasefire and Nehru, the then Prime Minister, took the case to UN.

UN proposed Pakistan to vacate from the place and withdraw its troops to pre-1947 borders and proposed that India should hold a plebiscite in Kashmir to let the people decide.

Well Pakistan never withdrew and held on to their lines and mounted another war in 1965 (Operation Gibralatar) and announced a 1000 year war against India (no kidding, the Pak PM Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto announced this) after their failure in another war in 1971 (this one in the Bangladesh issue). And when it was clear that they cannot wrest away Kashmir by conventional military means, they resorted to proxy war using jihadis (emboldened by the success of that strategy in Afghanistan). When that failed to change the status quo, they mounted another attack in 1998 in Kargil. So that failed too, and now we are back to status quo with both parties not budging an inch.


I know there are Muslim Indians, but are there any Hindu Pakis?

There were. Minorities (Hindus and Sikhs) made up around 21% of west Pakistan (1941 census) and it is now less than 3%. Link on ethnic cleansing (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE6-2/sridhar.html)



Still, isnt this better than actual conflict?

Depends.

The so-called low intensity proxy jihad war has killed more than 50,000 and displaced 200,000 and cost us more than the 3.5 wars (1947, 1965, 1971, 1998) put together in all that criterion.

And there is no end in sight to the jihad.

You have NO IDEA of how it is to have your country bombed every week with your fellow countrymen dying every day and with the prospect of having your city serial bombed. Despite 9/11, you would still have no idea of living in terror. Given a choice I would take a you-or-me war and be done with it than this proxy war of attrition with no end in sight.

What would happen if Musharraf was killed and extreme Muslims took over?

Well, for starters it won't happen.

In the heights of the Kargil conflict, in an intercepted radio transcript between Musharraf and Lt.Gen Aziz, Aziz said "we have the jehadis by the scruff of the neck".

That is still true.

The jihadis are the armies dogs. Sometimes they do bark on their owners and that is because the owner is not letting go of the leash. Sometimes the owner lets the dog go on a longer leash just to remind the neighbors what his dogs are capable of [added later: and to remind what would happen if he is not there]. And sometimes he pretends that he himself is helpless against the dogs.

But both the dog and the owner (and the neighbors) know who gives food and shelter to the dogs and more importantly who has the big gun.

Pak = Pure in Urdu. Pak-e-stan / land of the pure. From that "Paki" = Pure person.
Yeah, and swastikas are an ancient Buddhist peace symbol. :rolleyes:

I'm not that bothered what race anyone on here says they are. They can be anything.

Yeah, and swastikas are an ancient Buddhist peace symbol.

IT IS. :headbang:

It is a sacred symbol to hindus and buddhist. And according to you, any hindu/buddhist using it is a Nazi just because you westerners fucked up with that symbol.

IT IS. :headbang:

It is a sacred symbol to hindus and buddhist. And according to you, any hindu/buddhist using it is a Nazi just because you westerners fucked up with that symbol.
According to the rules I am sworn to uphold with all these cool menus, yes. :cool:

I'm not that bothered what race anyone on here says they are. They can be anything.

Yes yes...I am obviously a white neo-nazi because I call Pakistanis as Pakis and I like the swastika :rolleyes:

Yes yes...I am obviously a white neo-nazi because I call Pakistanis as Pakis and I like the swastika :rolleyes:
Yup. Could be. I mean come on. All I have to go on is plain text.

Yup. Could be. I mean come on. All I have to go on is plain text.

yea yea..whatever...

*SNIP*

Ok, so now that I understand the problem, what solutions, if any, are there to this scenario?


You have NO IDEA of how it is to have your country bombed every week with your fellow countrymen dying every day and with the prospect of having your city serial bombed. Despite 9/11, you would still have no idea of living in terror. Given a choice I would take a you-or-me war and be done with it than this proxy war of attrition with no end in sight.

Actually, my uncle moved from Southern California to Jerusalem, so he knows EXACTLY what your talking about. But yeah, I get where your coming from and I see this a HUGE problem. Its strange, while the media portrays the Muslim threat to the West, the Muslim threat in Israel and the Muslim threat in Russia, we get NOTHING about the Muslim threat in your area of the world.

Ok, so now that I understand the problem

Well there is a lot more to that than what I wrote. It is much more complex and nuanced than that.

what solutions, if any, are there to this scenario?

There is no easy solution.

The maximum that India will settle for is conversion of the LoC (line of control, which divides Kashmir into Indian-adminsitered and Pak-occupied) into the international border. That is making the de facto border as de jure.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/img/maps/kashmir_intro_350.gif

After the 1947 war, Pak occupied 1/3 of the original area of the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir of 1947.

It has split its part into two parts - "the northern areas" (Gilgit and Baltistan) and has absorbed this into their federal structure already. The other part, they call Azad Jammu & Kashmir (Azad = Free). They practically run the place but just call it as a free area for propoganda purposes.

After the Indo-China war in 1962, China occupied the Aksai Chin plateau (the north-east Kashmir greyed part).

Sometime in 1963, by the Sino-Pak border agreement, Pakistan ceded some 5000 sq.Km area called Shaksgam valley (the other greyed part that is indicated as Chinese controlled) to China. That enabled the Chinese to construct the Karakoram highway which connects China to Pakistan by road.

The rest (Jammu, Kashmir valley and Ladakh) is administered by India as a state within the Indian union.

The issue is compounded the multi-religious, multi-ethnic and very diverse population in the area who have very diverse opinions and even rivalries amongst themselves.

Jammu hindu, Jammu muslim, Ladakhi Budhist, Ladakhi muslim (shia), Kashmiri muslim (sunni), kashmiri pandit (hindu), the Gujjars, the gilgit-baltistani shias and ismailis, the mirpuris etc don't see eye to eye and it is very difficult to come to a solution that will satisfy all these parties AND the Indians and Pakistanis.

The only solution is status quo (converting LoC as international border with increased autonomy from both sides, free movement etc), which again is not a real solution (because it divides the state permanently) and some groups will definitely be aggrieved by this arrangement.

India will settle for this because well...we don't really want to include the Azad Kashmir population within the union what with them being thoroughly jihadized by now.

I don't think Pakistan will settle for this because as I mentioned earlier, the army will lose its preeminence. The army practically owns Pakistan. There is a saying that "everywhere else countries have army, in Pakistan, army has a country". People in the US crib about the military-industry complex. They ain't seen nothing. In Pakistan the military RUNS industries (fauji foundation). They make stuff from cereals to whatnot (not kidding, look up fauji foundation). Apart from this the army can literally take over prime slots and give it as bonus to the officers, plus the hefty paychecks and not to mention the side money from drug-running etc. The generals get a hefty cut from the opium business.

As long as the Pak army is in power, the issue will never get resolved. There has to be a free and fair elections and only then can we really know what the heck do the people of Pakistan want. Until then there can be no real peace. No solution will be lasting. The moment Musharraf is seen to be compromising, his deputy will call him a sell out and hang him and take over. This sort of thing is not beyond reality there. In all 60 years of existence, Pakistan has seldom had a peaceful transfer of power.


Its strange, while the media portrays the Muslim threat to the West, the Muslim threat in Israel and the Muslim threat in Russia, we get NOTHING about the Muslim threat in your area of the world.

There are a billion Indians. Who cares if a few dies?

I used to be very bitter about this, but then I realised that the Indian govt itself is very apathetic to this so there is no point in being bitter the indifference in western countries.

I am ashamed to say that a large section of the Indian public themselves are becoming indifferent to the continued deaths in Kashmir. Only when there is a bomb in Delhi or Mumbai or a big city, then people sound shocked and make some noises and within a week, everything is back to normal.

I would make a clarification to the word "muslim threat". There is no muslim threat as such. There is a Pakistani threat without which there would be no muslim threat. Almost all of the terror attacks carried out by muslims in India can be traced to Pakistan.

A bunch of scenarios

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/default.stm

India would settle for scenario 1.