The time to trust Pakistan is long gone - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in India.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14275879
Maybe India should just sit there and be attacked by Pakistan at least 25 more times then, and never hit Pakistan back, because Pakistan might destroy the whole world.

No, it's easy to see whose side you are actually on. Your intent is only to restrain India. That's why you portray an Indian attack as being 'like a comic book', but a Pakistani attack is like some kind of pedestrian every day happening that doesn't even bear mentioning.
#14275882
I checking out for a couple of days after posting in the mythos so I'll say this for the last time;

Rei, what you're are spouting is abysmally ridiculous. The Joker has a better end game than that; at least he would laugh as the world goes up in smoke. You just want to stare.

ps: pAKISTANI terrorists kill more Pakistanis than they do Indians. Common fucking sense is logging off.
#14275885
Rainbow Crow wrote:I'm passed trying to convince you to have a heart Rei, I was just asking why you thought the US would be asking India to do something about Bin Laden being in Pakistan.

Muslim fundamentalism is of course a serious problem for India, and most of the Sunni Muslim fundamentalist groups are interlinked, so it would have been quite important for India to have been given intelligence on what was going on.

Regarding 'having a heart', does anyone around here think I'm being mean to the Muslim fundamentalists and their Pakistani business backers? Should I say sorry to them? On a humorous note, I am reminded of this video that Natalie Tran has:

Say You're Sorry (31 Mar 2013)
[youtube]ixq8VvNTTRQ[/youtube]

After 1:01, "She didn't say she was sorry, she didn't say---"

Yeah.

Sithsaber wrote:ps: pAKISTANI terrorists kill more Pakistanis than they do Indians.

What the fuck. Do you understand that concept of 'security threat'? I'm pretty sure that Bin Laden also killed more Arabs and South Asians than he killed Americans, but he was still a national security threat to your ass, wasn't he?
#14275895
There is really no reason to say to India, hey guys, we are making an illegal night raid into Pakistan, we don't need you to do anything about it, we just wanted someone to know because if no one knows what fun is it, amirite?

And then India can be like, this gives me an idea for a movie bro.
#14275898
Rei Murasame wrote:
Regarding 'having a heart', does anyone around here think I'm being mean to the Muslim fundamentalists and their Pakistani business backers? Should I say sorry to them? On a humorous note, I am reminded of this video that Natalie Tran has:

Say You're Sorry (31 Mar 2013)
[youtube]ixq8VvNTTRQ[/youtube]

After 1:01, "She didn't say she was sorry, she didn't say---"

Yeah.






That girl sounds very Australian. I googled the name and apparently she is quite famous. Just goes to show how out of touch I am.
#14275900
Sithsaber and Rainbow Crow, you are asking India to accept things like this:

Pakistan linked with Mumbai Attack Nov 2008 - Terrorist Confession
[youtube]aQi5AnmJztw[/youtube]

26/11 Mumbai Attacks: Orders phoned in to terrorists from Pakistan
[youtube]ONSfGxOLzdk[/youtube]

BBC News, 'David Headley alleges Pakistan role in Mumbai attacks', 23 May 2011 wrote:A man who scouted sites for the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks has testified in a Chicago trial that the Pakistani intelligence service had links to the group that carried out the attacks.

David Headley was testifying against Tahawwur Rana, a Chicago businessman accused of helping plan the attacks.

Mr Rana is accused of providing Headley with a cover to scout attack locations.

Mr Rana has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers say he was tricked by Headley, a former friend.

More than 160 people were killed in November 2008 when a group of 10 men stormed a train station, hotels and cafes and a Jewish centre, shooting and throwing bombs.

At the opening on Monday of Mr Rana's trial, Headley testified that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) and militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) coordinated with each other.

The ISI provided military and moral support to the group, he said.

He said a Pakistani agent paid him $25,000 (£15,500) for the operation. Headley has separately said he was trained by LeT.

Now, if that sort of thing was going on in America, you all would be looking for someone to drop munitions on.

But since it's India, I guess it's like "fuck them", right? How dare they even think about actually harming the Pakistani regime in any way, right?
Last edited by Rei Murasame on 22 Jul 2013 05:19, edited 1 time in total.
#14275904
The ISI's Kashmire agenda is somewhat symbiotic with its Afghan agenda, in that the sub-groups of unbalanced zealots it supports on both sides train with each other and interchange various aspects of their operations with each other.

I haven't read the whole article or actually the whole thread, but trust of Pakistan in a western security context, has never been there ... it only shifts in degrees from almost none to a bit more than previously, then back again. Pakistan, in relation to both India and those to the west of its borders (who have an agenda against the 'far enemy'), is an intricate game based in political Islam ... with the Zia-ul-Haq era being an example of where things go when Jamaat-e-Islami (who also has a tangent in Bangladesh) get a strong hand. Military attacks against Pakistan strengthen that hand that push in a lot of problematic directions from behind. Santrification of Indonesia, The MB in Egypt, etc are all similar-ish dynamics that the intelligence agencies of the western world traditionally try to extert some management upon as best they can (unlike Iran which they just plain lost bigtime in 1979).

To me this is one of those cases on this forum where people often post stuff like ... our superior military should show Pakistan/North Korea/other country who's boss with a limited strike against them. Israel striking an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 was an example of a good move in this sense, anyone taking any action beyond precisely targetted drone strikes in Pakistan is not a good move at all IMO.

Pakistan is an incremental pragmatic game for the west (predominatly the US), and probably has to be for India too. It's probably more an economic game than a military one too. North Korea is pretty much the same kind of gameplan at this point in time also.
#14276211
Dr. Armarjit Singh is an interesting character. He recognizes that both sides could resort to nuclear weapons but argues that India should go for it any way even at the cost of millions of deaths.

Here's an earlier article by him about the Pakistani problem.

Why the existence of Pakistan is not in India’s interest


Image

Pakistan has been a thorn in India’s left side for 65 years, and amazingly, India has tolerated its pain and irritation, against most odds of human nature. After four wars and multiple proxy wars waged by Pakistan, it still doesn’t count as much for India – a big elephant that is difficult to move. India’s Pakistan policy practices restraint and constraint against an enemy that hates it, that was born in conflict against India in brutal bloodshed, and even now hopes one day to overcome a weak India.


Despite all the difficulties that Pakistan has faced and faces – internal political turmoil and terrorist threats, external issues in Afghanistan, an economy that is on the verge of collapse, and being condemned around the world for its export of terrorism – Pakistan still has the energy and gumption to promote proxy wars in India via Nepal, Bangladesh, and, of course, Kashmir. Which concept of rationality in the modern world can accept Pakistan’s belligerent and incongruent worldview, at a time when the civilized world wishes peace and economic prosperity against a threatening climate, growing population, an oncoming oil crisis, and worldwide economic woes?

By all facts and accounts, Pakistan has been sapping India’s productive and psychic energy every day for 65 years. It is somewhat true that Pakistan has been bleeding India by a thousand cuts. Look at the billions of hours of productive time and newspaper print and headlines wasted on a Pakistan that is an affliction for India and perhaps the world. None of the energy spent on Pakistan counts towards India’s GDP or improved industrial productivity, nor does it improve the economic position of India. The industrial production of India, creativeness of its engineers and thinkers, and ability to gain a foothold in the world has been compromised because a Pakistan exists that threatens war on the subcontinent, distracts national pursuits for excellence, and thereby diminishes foreign investment and confidence in India. For India to grow and have peace and confidence, it must get rid of the Pakistan that obstructs it in many ways, even standing against it in its quest for a rightful position on the permanent Security Council, and one that tried vehemently to oppose the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Pakistan is more dangerous as an independent state positioned to be taken over by terrorist elements supported by a manipulative ISI than under Indian control. In fact, the USA must find merit in the argument that it can better contain the terrorists and Taliban with India controlling them than they themselves. While the USA realizes that Pakistan is duplicitous with its terrorists, the USA is unable to see through the haze that can only be seen by those who have lived with Pakistan and in Pakistan’s neighborhood forever, such as India. Neither does Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai trust Pakistan, nor do the Iranian Shia’s have much love for Pakistan’s Sunnis, even though the Iranians acquired nuclear technology from A Q Khan. A Pakistan that doesn’t exist is safer for the world than a Pakistan that does.


Once every few years, Pakistan feigns interest for diplomacy and negotiations (cricket diplomacy, bus diplomacy, this or that) and often brings up ethnic and language similarity with India to suit its temporary interests – only to back off at the last minute and plot new proxy wars or battles against India. This is of no use to India; in fact, it is a hindrance in India’s quest to be a self-confident power in and of itself. Pakistan presumably hates India and starts an anxiety disorder each time it realizes that Kashmir may slip from it is grip. Now, in another deceptive move, Pakistan recommends that India withdraw from Siachen – a mistake India can ill afford to make after the mistakes of Haji Pir and the return of 93,000 POW’s. Withdraw from Siachen for what? Only for Pakistan and China to occupy it in a sudden move before the onset of a future China-Pakistan joint invasion of Ladakh? None of the satellite monitoring or UN observation systems will be effective at that time, and China and Pakistan will be staring down at Leh and the valley of Ladakh in free sport. The sooner that India can realize it cannot ever trust Pakistan on anything, the healthier it is for India. In that vein, the dialogue and negotiation with Pakistan that is thrust on India by the USA, only helps to prolong the inevitable and the burning pain. The only way to put Pakistan in its place is to possibly have no truck with it, perhaps even not trade with it. One reason that India often enters into negotiations with Pakistan is because its diplomats need to generate work for themselves to justify their existence; also, the USA quite often exerts pressure on India in its usual patronizing attitude to negotiate with Pakistan. This is not healthy.

Among the most feared aspects of a war with Pakistan is the nuclear element. Now that India has allowed Pakistan to move ahead in this department in the 1970s and 1980s, and failed to implement Operation Brasstacks into a fully fledged invasion of Pakistan, India has to bite the bullet on this score. Though Pakistan threatens India with nuclear retaliation in an all-out war, that too must not hold India back against trashing Pakistan. Whatever others may believe, my opinion is simply that it is better for India to brave a costly nuclear attack by Pakistan, and get it over with even at the cost of tens of millions of deaths, than suffer ignominy and pain day in and day out through a thousand cuts and wasted energy in unrealized potential. This is not to say that the objective can’t be achieved without a nuclear war. In this respect, India’s no-first strike policy stands it in very good stead. In fact the process objective must be to achieve the strategic objective through conventional war. Without the elimination of Pakistan, India may never become a secure nation where the mind is held high without fear, and cannot ever hope to attract the type of foreign investment it needs for its economic growth. In addition, the psychological boost that India will get by eliminating Pakistan is unequal in and of itself—one which can propel India into the status of a future, stable, democratic, competitive, responsible, and secular nation.


Analysts tend to ask what will happen to a Pakistan if India defeats it in battle. The answer is not complicated at all: Baluchistan will become independent, but under Indian security arrangements; Kashmir will revert to India; Sindh and West Punjab will be de-weaponized and become special states under Indian protection; and the entire NWFP handed over to the Pathans for a Pakhtoonistan that includes Southern Afghanistan and Kandahar. This will have ramifications on Afghanistan, as well, which may then naturally divide into two for its own peace and stability; Afghanistan’s northern areas consisting of the Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Hazaras, need to form their own country because they have little in emotional and filial bond with the Pathans. This whole reorganization will change the boundaries of the region, but one that has to be undertaken which will be a welcome change to the current bloodshed, turmoil, and export of terrorism. Very often, major change is needed to change the status quo when minor changes don’t succeed.
Much of this is against formal Indian foreign and security policy. The United Nations might also tend to balk at the destruction of a nation member, though it is likely that the West may not shed tears at this. But, this article is not being written to agree with Indian policies, or to present a framework within those policies, or to appease those who worship the Indian mentality. Quite to the contrary, a reformation in Indian policies is presented, and perhaps indicated, one that can give confidence and bring esteem to its people. It is in this light that a new paradigm is advanced. For instance, for long, the Indian policy has been to not engage in cross-border attacks, especially since Prime Minister Inder Gujral passed an ordinance to that effect in the late 1990s. But, such instructions are counter-productive, and Pakistan has taken full advantage of that policy by increasing its own cross-border infiltration. It is to be pointed out that Indian security policies are nothing to be proud of simply for the sake of pride in government. Policies that trample on sustainable Indian pride must be dismantled. The writer feels that the implementation of this new paradigm is ripe for action at this current time where Pakistan is reeling under internal imbalances. If a boxer will not knock out his opponent when the opponent is dizzy and imbalanced, then other opportunities are only guesswork.


Subsequently, India must realize that it has deep religious and philosophical opposition in countries beyond Pakistan to the West. Saudi Arabia finances and supports Pakistan in every way possible and depends on Pakistan for its nuclear shield; the Arab nations have deep links to Pakistan. Discussion on what India needs to do in countries west of Pakistan is best left to another article. However, it can be well understood that India needs to fully secure its western flank and neutralize all threats from the west in order to concentrate better on China and Tibet, and thus strengthen its hand on the eastern flank. Thus, India needs to confront the uncertain future boldly, be a force in the region, spread the message of humanitarian rights and equal opportunity, project itself in the interests of peace and equanimity in the region, and avail of opportunities long before it is itself divided and dismembered.
Thus, the ideal planning option for India is to invest heavily on liberating Pakistan, invest massively in engineering enterprise and education that can advance indigenous armament production, and double or triple its ship building programs and shipyards in which it has exceptional expertise and capability; and it must plan this in ten years, for the plan to be effective to carry a punch. These actions will ipso facto stimulate Indian industry, GDP growth, and bring employment and happiness to its people. Very few educated people understand that money printed but used for stimulating indigenous manufacturing industries actually stimulates the economy, while inflation is checked by means such as control of interest rates and free trade with South East Asian nations. For India to throw its money into foreign nations for expensive defense procurement does not sound like wisdom in action, though one cannot deny that importing defense equipment may be necessary on occasion. India actually begs for enlightened leadership that has moral fiber and a spine to go with it. It is time for the politicians to stop squabbling, for the generals to relearn service in the name of the nation rather than being involved in corruption scandals, and for the nation to get its priorities right and initiate industrial, agricultural, and trade reform. Eventually, for India to succeed, Pakistan must be out of the picture and cease to exist for peace on earth, and India must actively work towards that objective rather than waiting passively in spectator stands.


http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... -interest/

So...is the benefit of eliminating Pakistan greater than the risk of 80 or so nuclear weapons falling on Indian cities? India could theoretically conduct a limited, fast, and overwhelming war against Pakistan and seize Azad Kashmir and Gilgit–Baltistan from the Pakistani's for example. The risks of nuclear retaliation would be lower in that case than an all out war against Pakistan.
#14276236
Dr. Singh seems to represent a particularly hawkish and undesirable element, he sums himself up best in his own words:

the Pakistani army justifies its existence to the Pakistani public because of an Indian military threat at their border.


He is a novelty feature and by the end hysterical. India has a huge military superiority over Pakistan, nothing Pakistan can do short of massive US or Chinese intervention can change that and the results would be doubtful due to Pakistan's internal problems. The major threat to India from Pakistan now is that it collapses, military incursions into Pakistan which would weaken the state further (not to mention risk nuclear war) would only deteriorate the situation.

On the contrary India should help sure up Pakistan and undo some of the damage that the west has done to Pakistan's integrity through the war in Afghanistan or at least start building a buffer for the fall-out that could occur on the Pakistani front when the Afghan government collapses after the western withdrawal.
#14286428
On a related note, the latest news out of Srinagar is that Indian security forces have imposed a curfew on large swaths of Kashmir as Islamists and other pro-Pakistan entities waged violent demonstrations and attacked Indian personnel.

I would say that India's worst nightmare is certainly not facing the Pakistani Army in conventional terms, nor is it even waging an Afghan-esque struggle on Pakistan's territory. It is having to wage an Afghan-esque struggle on Pakistani territory resupplied and fueled by militant jihadists from the Caucasus and Central Asia all the way to the Gulf and Algeria. Furthermore, it is having those Mujahideen of the new era assisted internationally, if not by a Pakistani state which theoretically collapses, then by China (Which of course would be a lethal game for them which could backfire massively in Xinjiang). It's another reason why even the more nationalist elements in the BJP want to continue India's cooperation with the U.S. (this seems to have been their position ever since the U.S. lifted sanctions on India in the late 90's over their nuclear program, and Manmohan Singh positioned himself as a partner with the Bush administration) for the time being even though they recognize the last thing the U.S. wants to see is a dominant independent power arise in Asia. I suspect many Indians recognize that current powerhouse is more China than them as a result of many factors, and so if the U.S. can be used to chip away at Chinese influence and China faces the brunt of its ire, all the better and the more time for India to continue and accelerate its development and strengthen itself.

People tend to forget that the French now have a s[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]