Kashmir unrest 2016

[Oracle]

Actually, my point is that the Pakistani population don't know what's good for them. Who did they voted for? Bhutto (2 of them) and Sharif? Not exactly prime examples of leadership. Then what happened? The Pakistani population cheered when the Army rescued them from their votes. Both Zia and Musharraf enjoyed popular support when they pulled their coups.

Only 7% of Pakistanis use a bank, an untapped wealth of finance. So, not exactly an educated population who can do what's right for themselves.

Actually the Pak Army should have been reduced to a Police force, and that too ill-equipped. But you're right, give them a $100 billion for development, and they would still buy death, and fund more Jihadis. The best thing is for the US/West to leave and sort of quarantine the landmass, let the Paks decide themselves. They're already killing themselves. Cut off aid, of all sorts, remittances and everything, and the Aces of the Pak Army, ISI and the Jihadis would wither away. This is damn good business that the West has been funding as civilian/military aid.

[Oracle]

Firestorm,

Actually we were and nearly there. If you google a bit you will know what stopped Lahore from falling. It wasn't the Paks, it was the IA that got bluffed into believing the existence of some kind of trap, in absence of any credible opposition from the PA to defend Lahore.


Technically they were treaty bound. Anyways, the politicos developed feets of clay.


Even if the USN could pound the Indian formations, as much as it could in the east, there was squat they could do prevent East Pakistan from falling without putting boots on ground. There was no stopping for the IA.

Yes, the Indian Commanders had anticipated and acknowledged losing some ships, including the Vikrant too, if shit hit the fans. The IAF and IN were rather expected to hit Diego Garcia.

Post No. 98

The 1971 treaty with USSR was not a defense pact. Which treaty are you talking about?

[Doktor]

Actually, my point is that the Pakistani population don't know what's good for them. Who did they voted for? Bhutto (2 of them) and Sharif? Not exactly prime examples of leadership. Then what happened? The Pakistani population cheered when the Army rescued them from their votes. Both Zia and Musharraf enjoyed popular support when they pulled their coups.

Only 7% of Pakistanis use a bank, an untapped wealth of finance. So, not exactly an educated population who can do what's right for themselves.

Heck, the Americans voted LBJ, two Bush's, are about to vote second Clinton or Trump. Would you label them uneducated?

Col Delta's point is they would have 40+ years to turn into something else.

[Officer of Engineers]

Heck, the Americans voted LBJ, two Bush's, are about to vote second Clinton or Trump. Would you label them uneducated?

They've got the best available at the time. Best decision possible based upon best information available.

Col Delta's point is they would have 40+ years to turn into something else.

My point is that the Pakistanis are still making dumb decisions when information is available for them to make better decisions. 7% of Pakistanis make use of banks. Even something as mundane as a student loan can achieve wonders.

[Oracle]

Dok, I believe the Colonel's assertion to be true. Even if Pak was de-fanged, in 40 years a new breed of dictators would have emerged. This probably is the norm for Islamic countries. Look at Turkey. As of today, even US doesn't want to get in that mess.

[Deltacamelately]

The 1971 treaty with USSR was not a defense pact. Which treaty are you talking about?

Oracle,

Article IX of the Indo Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation, reads like - "Each High Contracting Party undertakes to abstain from providing any assistance to any third country that engages in armed conflict with the other Party. In the event of either being subjected to an attack or a threat thereof, the High Contracting Parties shall immediately enter into mutual consultations in order to remove such threat and to take appropriate effective measures to ensure peace and the security of their countries."

Did you expect more from a country and regime that was officially knee deep in what was called "Non Aligned Movement"? ;)

Both were actually treaty bound.

[Officer of Engineers]

Both were actually treaty bound.

Give Soviet lawyers 5 minutes and they will mouse their way out of it. What obligated the US to NATO defence is that they were in command and they were on the front lines, meaning American units were more likely to be nuked before any other country, therefore obligating an American response.

In this scenaro, Soviet units were not likely to be attacked first. "appropriate effective measures" could mean anything, from sending a diplomatic note to an armed response. It is certainly nowhere near the language of NATO's article V.

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security "

[Oracle]

Oracle,

Article IX of the Indo Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation, reads like - "Each High Contracting Party undertakes to abstain from providing any assistance to any third country that engages in armed conflict with the other Party. In the event of either being subjected to an attack or a threat thereof, the High Contracting Parties shall immediately enter into mutual consultations in order to remove such threat and to take appropriate effective measures to ensure peace and the security of their countries."

Did you expect more from a country and regime that was officially knee deep in what was called "Non Aligned Movement"? ;)

Both were actually treaty bound.

Yes, I have read it. And no, I did not expect anything from Nehru-Gandhi clan or from the Congress. Is the treaty still effective(?), considering it was for a period of 20 years.
India in 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and even now is in no position to enforce the treaty if the Soviets/Russia comes under attack from US/NATO forces.

[Deltacamelately]

Give Soviet lawyers 5 minutes and they will mouse their way out of it. What obligated the US to NATO defence is that they were in command and they were on the front lines, meaning American units were more likely to be nuked before any other country, therefore obligating an American response.

In this scenaro, Soviet units were not likely to be attacked first. "appropriate effective measures" could mean anything, from sending a diplomatic note to an armed response. It is certainly nowhere near the language of NATO's article V.

Sir,

No comparisons here. This was the most that both could get out of each other and deliberately kept vague and non-committal.

[Deltacamelately]

Yes, I have read it. And no, I did not expect anything from Nehru-Gandhi clan or from the Congress. Is the treaty still effective(?), considering it was for a period of 20 years.
India in 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and even now is in no position to enforce the treaty if the Soviets/Russia comes under attack from US/NATO forces.

True. Was just pointing out that, whatever it could mean, but it was indeed a duly signed treaty nonetheless and gave India a certain degree of confidence in conducting geopolitics of that era.

[Oracle]

LeT terrorist caught confesses.

Lashkar-e-Taiba fuelling large scale protests in Kashmir: India

The NIA said this was one of many revelations made by Bahadur Ali, a LeT terrorist who was caught by security officers on July 25. The NIA also released a video of Ali's confession.

Ali, aka Abu Saifullah, was captured in Kashmir. The NIA said he was recruited by Pakistan-based terrorist outfit Jamaat-ud-Dawa and was subsequently radicalised by the LeT . After that, Ali underwent three rounds of training with the LeT at Manshera, Aksa and Muzaffarabad.

Ali confessed that there were 30-50 trainees from different parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan at the LeT's training camps. He claimed that Pakistani military officers came to meet him while he was leaving for India. They were referred to as Major Saab and Captain Saab.

Pakistani military and other forces were also running a command centre called Alpha 3 in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, to run terrorist operations in India.

[Oracle]

True. Was just pointing out that, whatever it could mean, but it was indeed a duly signed treaty nonetheless and gave India a certain degree of confidence in conducting geopolitics of that era.

It also helped India win the psyops in the 1971 liberation war I guess, by keeping the Americans guessing. It was a brilliant move.

[Oracle]

Pakistan terrorist Bahadur Ali makes important revelations before the NIA: What has he confessed

Afghanistan needs more Indian military aid: US

LeT terrorist Bahadur Ali got radicalized watching videos of Kashmiri separatist Asiya Andrabi

Why is Asiya Andrabi not in jail? If Kashmir is special, so is NE. I don't see any special treatment meted out to the terrorists operating in the NE.

[Oracle]

Pakistan's 'trademark' exports are 'international terrorism, cross border infiltrators, weapons and narcotics', India says

[Oracle]

A Proxy War Between India And Pakistan Is Under Way In Afghanistan