Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jaish terrorists attack CRPF convoy in Kashmir, 40 killed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Click image for larger version

Name:	UN.png
Views:	2
Size:	31.0 KB
ID:	1477864

    Lol. Source

    "I condemn Pulwama attack," says Pakistani women on social media's #WeStandWithIndia & #AntiHateChallenge

    The non-Jihadi Pak crowd. Nice to see good people from the other side condemning this attack - courtesy their Shalwar Kameez Pak Army.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

    Comment


    • #77
      What the F is wrong with A S Dulat, and he's former R&AW Chief - 'The Kashmiri has had enough of Pakistan'

      Peaceniks like him should not be in intelligence agencies. He's the voice of Pakistan Army.

      India needs to do away with its take-it easy Pakistan policy

      CRPF's 'Madadgaar' helps 250 Kashmiri students return home

      This is what Indian security forces are. 40 of their mates were killed, yet they've shown selfless service to the Kashmiris.

      Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2019-02-20 at 17.40.22.png
Views:	2
Size:	60.1 KB
ID:	1477865

      Source
      Last edited by Oracle; 20 Feb 19,, 13:11.
      Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

      Comment


      • #78
        Imran Khan is sitting on a Jihadi time bomb, demanding evidence over Pulwama a mere excuse

        DE, pertaining to the last PM from you about Saudi 20B$ in loans to Pak - India has been squeezing Pakistan economically even before Pulwama. As also, CFair's comments about PA's strategic military culture at the end of the article.

        China’s culpability in Pulwama massacre is unmistakable

        Why the Pakistani deep state sponsors terrorism in India
        Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

        Comment


        • #79
          Peshawar to Pulwama, how Pakistan differentiates snakes in its backyard & front yard

          There was much disagreement in the commentariat in the winter of 2014. In the week of the massacre of Pakistani Army officers’ children in their school in Peshawar, I disagreed with the dominant view that it will be a turning point and the Pakistani establishment will be jolted into giving up on all terrorists. If Samba, Gurdaspur, Pathankot and Uri weren’t yet convincing enough evidence, this Pulwama carnage once again shows that our pessimism was, regrettably, realistic.

          I had said then that the Pakistani establishment will surely squash snakes in its backyard. But it believes the snakes it rears in its front yard will only bite its neighbour. This deadly delusion even Peshawar will not demolish. This has been vindicated many times over since. When it comes to India and Afghanistan, the Pakistani establishment is addicted to terror.

          This is what I had then written:

          There is much revulsion in India over that mass slaughter in Peshawar. There is sympathy for Pakistan. But it is also laced with some serves-you-right schadenfreude, a little bit of I-told-you-so and the inevitable: Will you still keep rearing snakes in your backyard hoping they will bite only your neighbours?

          This complex reaction is entirely in the nature of how estranged cousins in a subcontinental family relate to each other. We feel a fraternal, even filial connect. But also with a patronising sense of let-down and grievance. You know me so well, we are brothers, why don’t you ever listen to me?

          Some of this has been on display this week. Within 24 hours of this most shattering massacre, and not long after schoolchildren elsewhere had observed their two-minute silence, we were returning to “normal”. On the Pakistani side there were the expected blame-India noises, led by a terrorist with a $10-million global bounty on his head, and every public appearance of his is like running a finger in India’s eye. His prime-time Sancho Panza is the subcontinent’s most prized and delinquent idiot to hold high public office. Even if we parade our worst, we Indians can’t rival Hafiz Saeed and Pervez Musharraf. But we can certainly be equals in the game of competitive cussedness.

          I have written often that the media, particularly 24×7 TV, is no longer a force for liberal moderation on either side, and true to form, warrior anchors had locked horns again, barracking “guests” from the other side. Sure enough, while grieving families were still not done with funeral prayers, we were already at the pickets, asking them how long will they keep nurturing Hafiz Saeed and his Lashkars, as they accused us of complicity and crediting our RAW with mythical prowess so formidable as to greatly embarrass it.

          None of this us-versus-them-versus-us business is funny. These chronic prejudices cloud our judgment, influence our responses. As the extent of the tragedy unfolded, even my immediate reaction was that this, finally, was the turning point. Only an utterly suicidal terror group would target the children of its own country’s army. Even the old mafia refrained from attacking policemen and almost never hit their families. Now, I thought at once, this will remove all old notions like equivocation, good/bad terrorist finessing, militias in the west (of Pakistan) are my enemies and those in the east my force-multipliers. That it will make the Pakistani establishment see the light, that one set of terrorists is as bad as the other and that you can’t be fighting one while feeding the other. Within 24 hours, I was eating my words.

          There was plenty of fight-to-the-finish talk against terror, also that there are no good or bad Taliban, but not a line to suggest the Lashkars were also to be put in the same basket. If anything, the establishment was probably complicit in letting Saeed come out vocally and re-state his jihad threat against India. Saeed would not do this in defiance of his patrons.

          Further, the one line we never heard from anybody in authority in Pakistan was: There is no place for any armed non-state actor, Taliban or Lashkars, Pathan or Punjabi, foreign or indigenous, on our soil. All attack was confined to terrorists of the Taliban, there was even sympathy for Afghanistan and appreciation for its President Ashraf Ghani’s promise of cooperation. It was so cynically nuanced that you couldn’t help believing that even in this moment of its country’s worst terror tragedy, weeks after another shattering outrage at Wagah, the establishment was not going to change the way it defined friend and foe. Or that it would get Saeed to shut up.

          Surely, the Pakistan Army’s campaign against the Taliban is for real. It is a counter-insurgency of an intensity never seen in the subcontinent with generous use of air power, including assault helicopters. The Pakistan Army doesn’t always make its casualties public, but if you trawl its military blogs and discussion groups carefully, you find evidence that it is taking severe casualties, including many young officers, in its sizeable special forces. This is real war, and it is because the army is doing serious damage that the Taliban have now hit their children. You can be quite safe in concluding that if there is a point of inflexion in any insurgency, organised armed challenge to state power, it must be this. Even on our side of Punjab, the turning point came in 1992 when Sikh terrorists had carried out widespread killings of policemen’s families overnight. That is when Punjab Police decided that the fight against terror was theirs and accomplished in months what the army and paramilitary forces had failed to do in a decade. For the Pakistan Army, the killing of their schoolchildren in Peshawar is a similar turning point.

          At the same time, I am not yet buying the argument that this is the turning point to change the course of the future. The Pakistani establishment remains umbilically connected to the Islamist ideology of nation-building, way to the Right of the ideals of its founding fathers. This discourse is rooted in fearful insecurity and suspicion, particularly, though not only, of the bigger brother, with what you see as a conflicting ideology of nation-building.

          If Pakistan is being redefined from the mid-fifties onwards as anything but India, permanent hostility must substitute any residual kinship. Then comes the reality check: The size of India’s economy, military, the strength and stability of its society. To the simplistic, tactical military mind, this creates an “asymmetry”, so what better way to fight it than with “asymmetric” warfare. That’s how India-centric jihadis become force-multipliers, a strategic asset.

          This, I dare say regretfully, is not about to change.

          The only way to reverse this is to persuade Pakistani public opinion to embrace the truth that the existentialist Indian threat they have been fed on is a cynical, self-destructive mythology which does no more than protect their army’s pre-eminence in the power structure, undermines their economy, and diminishes them into a global migraine rather than the largest Muslim population with modern democracy, and thereby a model for the rest of the Islamic world. Indonesia had got there much earlier, and now is Bangladesh catching up. Pakistan has brought this curse upon itself, that while Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded and Palestinians were dispossessed of their lands, the world’s angriest Muslims live in Pakistan. Which is also today the second biggest victim of terrorism, all of it home-grown.

          American public figures are masters of the sound bite. If Madeleine Albright imprinted her TM on her description of Pakistan as a global migraine and Bill Clinton wagged his finger at Islamabad saying the map of the subcontinent could no longer be redrawn with blood, the current favourite is Hillary. Her warning as Secretary of State, that you can’t rear snakes in your backyard and hope they will only bite your neighbours, will be repeated often after the Peshawar outrage. There is, however, a vital flaw in her argument. The way the Pakistani establishment looks out, it has a backyard, but also a front yard. The snakes it rears in its front yard still only bite the neighbour. That deadly delusion even Peshawar will not fray.
          Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

          Comment


          • #80
            Suicidal Pakistan should know Modi may not be scared of its nuclear button

            Noted American scholar on South Asia, Stephen P. Cohen, has a genius description for Pakistani strategic thought. Pakistan, he says, negotiates with the world by holding the gun to its own head: Give me what I want, or I will blow my brains out. You then handle the mess. Has Pakistan pulled that trigger in Pulwama?

            First, get any notion that this was a purely indigenous act of terror out of the way. The suicide terrorist was a radicalised Indian Kashmiri. But count the reasons why this couldn’t be an entirely Indian planned and executed operation:

            *Jaish-e-Mohammed has claimed responsibility. It is purely a Pakistan-based and ISI-controlled organisation.

            *While radicalisation and motivation can be local, there is zero evidence that this volume of high explosive (most likely RDX or RDX-mixed) is available with usually amateurish local groups, along with skills to rig the trigger-timer mechanism.

            *See that last video the bomber recorded. He is reading pre-written text from a board placed in front, or cards held by someone. The language isn’t so much about Kashmiri grievances or revenge, as to instigate Muslims in the rest of India. Babri Masjid and Gujarat are invoked, and “all our Muslims” exhorted to rise in revolt against “cow-urine drinkers”. This is precisely how Jaish, even more than Lashkar-e-Taiba, thinks. Not local Kashmiris.

            This action fits perfectly the pattern set by Jaish in the past. The suicide bombing of the state assembly in Srinagar in 2001, the attack on Parliament later the same year, raids on Pathankot and Gurdaspur, have all had the same objective: To somehow take the terror fallout beyond Kashmir. Lashkar did so in Mumbai (26/11) too, but much of its energy and manpower is still used in fighting in Kashmir. Under global pressure, it is also being mainstreamed by its GHQ patrons into Pakistani politics. Jaish, much smaller but enormously more vicious, resourceful and an ISI favourite, is more selective with “impact” attacks.

            How resourceful Jaish is, we know from the IC-814 hijack. It could get an Indian plane hijacked from Kathmandu and taken to safe harbour in Kandahar to trade hostages for its key leaders jailed in India. It’s been established repeatedly in subsequent research that every step in that hijack, from facilitation in Kathmandu to negotiations in Kandahar using the Taliban, and then safe “recovery” of released Jaish chief Masood Azhar and others, was overseen by the ISI.

            To the Pakistani establishment and ISI, Azhar and Jaish are much bigger assets than even Lashkar and Hafiz Saeed. Jaish is their main force-multiplier. The Chinese also acknowledge it, which is the reason they are shamelessly complicit in protecting him.

            That this terrorist was a local Kashmiri is no surprise. In each of its actions so far, including IC-814, Parliament and other attacks, Jaish has had key participation of Indian Kashmiris. Afzal Guru, remember, was Indian. Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar, one of the other two jailed terrorists traded for IC-814 passengers, was Kashmiri. We have enough evidence, therefore, to stop wasting time in local, root-cause theories and giving Pakistan any deniability, however implausible.

            Why do we raise that question: Has Pakistan finally pulled that trigger on its own head? Because, all the earlier Jaish and Lashkar attacks passed without a publicised retaliation, although we know about some secret “surgical strikes” in the past. Between Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh, India was able to ride out the moments of anger with coercive diplomacy, global pressure on Pakistan and a strategic mindset that was fundamentally pacifist, and believed in responding no more than proportionately to any provocation.

            The Modi government has no such pretence. It holds both Manmohan and Vajpayee and other governments of the past in contempt for what it sees as their “pusillanimity”. Further, having made such noise and political capital from the post-Uri surgical strikes, there is no way it is going to be able to hold fire or restrain itself for long. Pakistan has it coming. Where, how, when, nobody knows. But it can’t be long.

            A retaliatory response could come soon. It will also be visible, high-decibel and wrapped in claims of victorious retribution. India is in the early days of its most vicious election campaign yet. Narendra Modi will not go seeking a second term with the taint of Pulwama.

            It will then be for Pakistan to decide whether to leave it there, or respond to its own popular compulsions to begin a retaliatory cycle. It could, besides whatever happens militarily, end this tenure of Imran Khan. History tells us no Pakistani leader can go to war, big or small, with India and survive. Ayub Khan (1965), Yahya Khan (1971) and Nawaz Sharif (Kargil, 1999) tell us that. Three instances, as we say in journalism, is a straight line.

            There can’t be much argument over the essential reality of Pakistan: That Imran will not have a decisive say in what happens next. He might ultimately pay for the army/ISI bullheadedness as Nawaz did for Kargil, and he will need enormous skill and luck not to become that scapegoat. No elected prime minister has the final word on such issues in Pakistan and Imran, if anything, is among the weakest in some time. The call to engage in an immediate escalatory cycle or not, will be his army’s. Could he even counsel them against it, we can’t be sure. They will decide whether to blow their brains out or not. He’s a loser either way.

            Besides the difference between Modi and his predecessors, there are two other important distinctions now. One, that it is a world radically different from what we left behind in 2008 (26/11) or 2001-02 (J&K assembly and Parliament attacks). Then, top American and European leaders would come flying in, heads of states would make phone calls, Russia and China would all weigh in to calm things down, calm and reassure Indian public opinion by expressing solidarity with us and condemning Pakistan.

            That world doesn’t exist anymore. It unravelled the day Donald Trump was elected and kept his promise of making America great again by withdrawing and leaving the rest of the world to its own devices. If stuff hits the fan in the subcontinent now, he may not even bother tweeting restraint immediately. The modern world’s oldest antagonists can set their region on fire now, without the comfort of the American/global fire truck waiting at our door.

            This has also diminished, if not eliminated the subcontinent’s old leverage with the world: Come and stop us or we will nuke each other. Trump may be the one we blame, but there is generally a wariness about the region holding the world to ransom after claiming to be responsible nuclear weapons powers.

            Of course, it applies much more to Pakistan than India. Because, in the subcontinent, the nukes are the preferred weapon of the weaker power, the likely loser. Beginning with V.P. Singh’s spineless year in 1990, Pakistan has used the nuclear deterrent entirely to its own advantage, keeping its provocations within that threshold, ruling out any sizeable retaliation from India. Obsession with tactical nukes tells us that the Pakistanis have probably not reviewed that position. If they haven’t, they will get a disastrous surprise. This Indian establishment no longer sees nukes as only one side’s deterrence. If you take chances with it, and that too in election weeks, you might as well have pulled that trigger.
            Last edited by Oracle; 20 Feb 19,, 14:26.
            Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

            Comment


            • #81
              I think i'm slowly coming around to the Chinese pov about not giving support for designating Azhar. Their reason mentioned is it allows India to apply military pressure and this will lead to instability in the region. If the Americans have given us a green light then for the Chinese to also agree becomes a second green light. Who else is left ? Russia. They're not necessary. Only US & China matter for Pak support at the UNSC.

              The Americans can give us a green light as they know full well the Chinese will refuse.
              Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Feb 19,, 23:27.

              Comment


              • #82
                Another green light

                Click image for larger version

Name:	pak blackmail.JPG
Views:	2
Size:	81.3 KB
ID:	1477867

                The reuters article in question
                Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Feb 19,, 02:28.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Instead of talking peace with the Taliban, through Pakistan, Saleh should be made the President of Afghanistan for a period of 10 years. He should then be given a free hand, and a well oiled military machine for hot pursuits into Pakistan.
                  Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                    I think i'm slowly coming around to the Chinese pov about not giving support for designating Azhar. Their reason mentioned is it allows India to apply military pressure and this will lead to instability in the region. If the Americans have given us a green light then for the Chinese to also agree becomes a second green light. Who else is left ? Russia. They're not necessary. Only US & China matter for Pak support at the UNSC.
                    What military pressure? Killing terrorists will lead to instability? You fell for Chinese BS. It was a propaganda article meant for propaganda.

                    If you mean the nuke armageddon scenario comes into play, then US administration needs to have better people in their ranks who have a first hand knowledge of the region. As it is, American pressure has not done anything for the Paks to change behaviour. The PA, laughing at the Americans, went straight to the bank and encashed billions.

                    Right now, emboldened by US' decision to talk to the Taliban (snake oil, which the PA has been trying to sell to the Americans from day 1), the Paks are spreading terrorism everywhere. This is as clear as chalk and cheese. One'd wonder, the Ivy League educated Americans who flood the State Department and the intelligence agencies, with all means at their disposal, is ready for a comic defeat, whose script the Pak Army has prepared. This is lack of strategic thought at the highest levels.

                    When it comes to south-asia, America has been visionless for 70+ years, as we have been. America likes to be robbed of billions of dollars of their tax-payers money, while they lob a grenade now and then, and we get robbed of a precious future for our children with every passing day.

                    The Americans can give us a green light as they know full well the Chinese will refuse.
                    Could be. My point is why do we need someone else' green light to defend ourselves? We should always be concerned about our interest, not what the world think of us.

                    "The Indians are bastards anyway. They are the most aggressive goddamn people around." - what has happened to us. :(
                    Last edited by Oracle; 21 Feb 19,, 05:42.
                    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      In other news, Jaish planning even bigger strike, warn intel inputs

                      Security cover of 18 separatists, 155 political persons withdrawn

                      The Muftis and the Abdullahs should have been in this list. I don't understand why we treat these people with kid gloves?

                      Myanmar cracks down on NE militants holed up in its territory

                      Another 10 years, and all remnants of terrorism in the North-East will be gone.
                      Last edited by Oracle; 21 Feb 19,, 05:37.
                      Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                        What military pressure? Killing terrorists will lead to instability?
                        This is the question. What form will that military pressure take. China does not get a say in what we will do.

                        If it is soley targeting militants as the raid in 2016 that is one thing. The PA wasn't the target in that raid.

                        But if it takes the form of punishing the PA for their support of said militants then its another.

                        Here, i'm assuming that listing a terrorist allows us to treat them as enemy combatants.

                        Is this the case ? i don't even know whether it follows that once a terrorist is listed then we can do whatever.

                        Enemy combatants is an American term, i don't know if India uses that same reasoning.

                        You fell for Chinese BS. It was a propaganda article meant for propaganda.
                        It's not propaganda. Article didn't parrot out the reason China gives for not listing him. And what is that reason ? China says there is no consensus.That is the reason quoted in the Indian media. I've yet to look up Song Zhang's reason mentioned in that CGTN show. A classifications issue.

                        Instead the GT article says analysts think the reason is India can subsequently apply military pressure which will lead to instability.

                        When i asked the question elsewhere i got two answers
                        - we get a green light to do whatever

                        - it shows the world who these people are and then we can say already one is listed and lives in Pakistan. Now here is the second who btw also lives in Pakistan. Strengthens our narrative to the world that the Paks harbour terrorists and use them against neighbours as an instrument of state policy for political gain. There is no military intent implied here. Nothing more than a bullet point supporting our case.

                        Could be. My point is why do we need someone else' green light to defend ourselves? We should always be concerned about our interest, not what the world think of us.
                        This is a more important question. At times i wonder if this charade is because we don't have a clear policy as yet how to respond to these attacks. So in the meantime we blame China.

                        Why does Bolton have to say India has a right to self-defence. Why isn't the PM saying we reserve the right to respond. Maybe its implied but no such explicit statement was made by the govt.

                        This listing is entirely symbolic. Taliban have been on it since day 1. What difference did it make. Their attacks in Afghanistan continue to this very day. Then again the Taliban are targets for ISAF as well.
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Feb 19,, 12:21.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Surgical strike not an answer to Pak terror

                          Every time a Pakistan-sponsored terror strike happens in India a demand arises for strong action against that country.

                          The same is the case after the Pulwama terror attack in which more than 40 CRPF personnel lost their lives.

                          Under intense pressure to act after the Uri attack, the Indian government went for a surgical strike.

                          After the Pulwama attack, once again there is widespread anger in the country against Pakistan.

                          People are demanding that the government should ask the security forces to carry out a repeat surgical strike.

                          But is a surgical strike the answer to incessant terror attacks emanating from the soil of Pakistan.

                          The terrorist attack in Pulwama occurred at a very crucial time when elections are approaching in India.

                          This attack is now bound to have its impact on the way people are going to vote.

                          At first sight, it appears that the terrorist attack has aroused nationalist feelings in large parts of the country which might benefit the ruling National Democratic Alliance.

                          But it is also a double edged sword in the sense that the Bharatiya Janata Party-led NDA government would have to come up with a solid response to this attack.

                          If the government fails to do that in a convincing manner, it will affect its credibility.

                          The government is probably aware of that and is trying to isolate Pakistan diplomatically before going in for retaliation.

                          In this effort, the Indian government has been largely successful and has the support of the European Union, Russia, France and, most importantly, the United States.

                          However, Pakistan may not be completely isolated as it has its sympathisers in the Muslim world.

                          Many of these countries support Pakistan, unmindful of what it does taking it as a co-religionist.

                          Similarly, it is futile to expect China's support on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and on Jaish e Mohammad terrorist Masood Azhar.

                          China buys the Muslim world's silence over what it is doing in its Xinjiang province by scuttling India's attempt to get Masood Azhar branded an international terrorist.

                          Countries like the United States say India has the right of self-defence.

                          This is the best one can get from the international community.

                          Nobody is going to fight India's war.

                          India has to fight its own war against the rogue State and the evil forces nurtured by it.

                          The Indian government so far has not been able to act decisively against Pakistan because of the nuclear parity achieved by that country.

                          It is often argued that India cannot act like the United States as the power asymmetry between India and Pakistan is not that great.

                          But should India go on taking these terror strikes until it becomes militarily as powerful as the United States?

                          The obvious answer is no.

                          There is no peace for India with Pakistan as it exists today.

                          Kashmir is just a smokescreen for the larger Pakistani agenda to harm India.

                          Its main policy is to bleed India through a thousand cuts.

                          If this is so, then what is India's Pakistan policy?

                          Do we have a policy for Pakistan at all?

                          Border firings or surgical strikes cannot be an answer to Pakistan's incessant flow of terrorists to India.

                          We can't let Pakistan hold our security and prosperity hostage to its nefarious acts.

                          If Pakistan wants to bleed India through a thousand cuts, then shouldn't India also try to cut it in a few pieces? This will take care of its nuclear parity to a great extent.

                          It is time India starts following a pro-active policy on Pakistan instead of indulging in reactive surgical strikes.

                          Pakistan is shamelessly denying its involvement in the Pulwama terror attack while Jaish e Mohammad chief Masood Azhar enjoys the Pakistani State's hospitality.

                          This terror attack will boost the morale of terrorists who have suffered great losses due to the counter terrorist operations launched by the security forces in Kashmir.

                          This will also bring wider publicity to Jaish e Mohammad and help it get new recruits, both in Pakistan and from Kashmir.

                          Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan made some fake peace overtures after taking over.

                          India was right in rejecting his offers for talks given his radical Islamist credentials.

                          He is a known Taliban supporter.

                          The suicide bomber involved in the February 14 terror attack claimed to be an admirer of the Taliban.

                          There is a seamless relationship between the State and non-State actors in Pakistan.

                          Pakistan can't shun responsibility for the terror attack while nurturing Jaish e Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Tayiba.

                          The terror attack has pointed out the grave security situation prevailing in South Asia where a number of Islamist terror organisations are running amuck with the support of the rogue Pakistani State.

                          This situation has been made worse by the US decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

                          This has boosted the morale of the Taliban and other Islamist terrorist groups.

                          Pakistan has largely emerged unharmed from the US war on terror despite having close alliance with the Taliban, al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups.

                          Under threat from President George W Bush Pakistan pretended it was changing sides, but in reality remained closely allied with these groups.

                          This strategy helped Pakistan avoid the United States's wrath.

                          Moreover, it extracted military assistance from the United States in the name of helping Washington in its war on terror.

                          By the time the United States saw through Pakistan's double game, fatigue had already set in and American leaders had started talking of withdrawal from Afghanistan.

                          The United States is located far from the terror hub of the Af-Pak region.

                          India unfortunately shares its border with the rogue State called Pakistan.

                          India must realise that there is no peace for this country as long as the present political and military structure continue in Pakistan.

                          In the present set-up in Pakistan, the military calls the shots and India is its avowed enemy.

                          The liberal approach of giving Pakistan the status of most favoured nation has only invited more terror attacks on this country.

                          Though that MFN status has now been withdrawn, it is time India takes a relook at its Pakistan policy which is mostly reactive.

                          The creation of Bangladesh in 1971 changed the dynamics of the India-Pakistan relationship.

                          Only a similar development can once again change the status quo in the India Pakistan relationship.


                          This would dent Pakistani nuclear parity with India to a great extent and make its policy of strategic depth in Afghanistan less desirable.

                          Until that happens, there is no permanent peace for India.

                          Anand Kumar is an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.
                          Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                            This is the question. What form will that military pressure take. China does not get a say in what we will do.

                            If it is soley targeting militants as the raid in 2016 that is one thing. The PA wasn't the target in that raid.

                            But if it takes the form of punishing the PA for their support of said militants then its another.

                            Here, i'm assuming that listing a terrorist allows us to treat them as enemy combatants.

                            Is this the case ? i don't even know whether it follows that once a terrorist is listed then we can do whatever.

                            Enemy combatants is an American term, i don't know if India uses that same reasoning.
                            Special Ops across the border kills tangos with and without uniform. That has been the norm. Kill all. Hafiz Saeed is listed, what have we done? Getting Masood Azhar listed changes nothing on the ground. It's keeping up diplomatic pressure.

                            To do whatever we have to get the 'go-ahead' from the Americans, even then, doing stuff that harms the PA will have to be very thought out and strategies broken down to tactical levels to ensure OPOBJs are met, before actually going in. To actually employ cold start, we first need to buy/build NBC vehicles on a war-footing. I don't know the numbers needed for infantry, but we have to get 1.5 times of that number. Support of conventional missiles, CAS, more AWACS, minesweepers, fighter jets, and many more defence purchases have to be made.

                            Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection Troops

                            It's not propaganda. Article didn't parrot out the reason China gives for not listing him. And what is that reason ? China says there is no consensus.That is the reason quoted in the Indian media. I've yet to look up Song Zhang's reason mentioned in that CGTN show. A classifications issue.

                            Instead the GT article says analysts think the reason is India can subsequently apply military pressure which will lead to instability.

                            When i asked the question elsewhere i got two answers
                            - we get a green light to do whatever

                            - it shows the world who these people are and then we can say already one is listed and lives in Pakistan. Now here is the second who btw also lives in Pakistan. Strengthens our narrative to the world that the Paks harbour terrorists and use them against neighbours as an instrument of state policy for political gain. There is no military intent implied here. Nothing more than a bullet point supporting our case.
                            It's a propaganda article that blames India. That article is meant for gullible abduls.

                            As about your asking the question elsewhere:
                            #1. Even if we get the green light, we are not crossing the border for a war. The simple reason is we're short of adequate hardware, ammunition, and a coherent plan to fight Pak inside Pak, over a nuclear overhang. Pak says they will use nukes over their own land, if they sense defeat. NBC vehicles ensures survival of most of our troops even if nukes are used. So, we have to prepare for the China threat, and that takes care of Pak automatically.

                            #2. Who is your source? Prashant Bhushan? Rahul Gandhi maybe? IT DOESN'T CHANGE A DAMN THING.

                            This is a more important question. At times i wonder if this charade is because we don't have a clear policy as yet how to respond to these attacks. So in the meantime we blame China.
                            China keeps supporting Pak, and we keep beating China with the diplomatic stick. This is as good, and as far as it gets. Moral victory to show 99.9% Indians, that the Government did something.

                            Why does Bolton have to say India has a right to self-defence. Why isn't the PM saying we reserve the right to respond. Maybe its implied but no such explicit statement was made by the govt.
                            Modi did say the attack on our forces will be avenged.

                            As far as Bolton is considered, what do you expect him to say when the mood in India is charged. He meant - 'ok, do special forces ops, but don't start a war'.

                            This listing is entirely symbolic. Taliban have been on it since day 1. What difference did it make. Their attacks in Afghanistan continue to this very day. Then again the Taliban are targets for ISAF as well.
                            If you understand this so well, why are you and your sources singing a different tune in the whole post.

                            Build up, prepare, and plan for the next war as the last war.
                            Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                              It's a propaganda article that blames India. That article is meant for gullible abduls.
                              It's not blaming India. How can they blame India when we haven't done anything ?

                              The article explains what analysts think is the reason China is blocking the move.

                              Now, if that is the reason China is blocking us, that we will cause instability then what is our response ?

                              Saying it is just propaganda is avoiding their point. Counter it.

                              Past record ? this is foreclosing on future options. So then China says ah, you want to do more then isn't it.


                              Next is, why block now and not for 26-11. If they agreed then why oppose now.

                              Until Suhasni mentioned China cooperated for 26-11 i wasn't even aware China agreed then.


                              2. Who is your source?
                              Other enthusiasts of world affairs. Those two points looked like good suggestions to explore further.

                              I'm not aware of any articles that have gone into depth on this question.

                              If you understand this so well, why are you and your sources singing a different tune in the whole post.
                              When all i keep hearing is harping on about how China is blocking us i started to question the premise.
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Feb 19,, 16:02.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                It's not blaming India. How can they blame India when we haven't done anything ?

                                The article explains what analysts think is the reason China is blocking the move.

                                Now, if that is the reason China is blocking us, that we will cause instability then what is our response ?

                                Saying it is just propaganda is avoiding their point. Counter it.

                                Past record ? this is foreclosing on future options. So then China says ah, you want to do more then isn't it.


                                Next is, why block now and not for 26-11. If they agreed then why oppose now.

                                Until Suhasni mentioned China cooperated for 26-11 i wasn't even aware China agreed then.
                                Posting the article again and highlighting parts of it. After that I am done with this argument. Put your glasses on. My answers are in RED.

                                A terror strike by Pakistan-based terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed killed at least 40 India paramilitary police and injured many others in the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir on Thursday, Indian media reported. Blind anger toward China was ignited after it. KEEP SUPPORTING TERRORISTS IN OUR NORTH-EAST, KEEP SUPPORTING PAKISTAN, WHAT DID CHINA EXPECT?

                                Some Indian analysts sought to link the deadly attack to "China's continued protection" of the perpetrators. By refusing to back India's appeal to list Masood Azhar, leader of terrorist outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed, as a global terrorist by the UN, they argued, China is supporting terrorism against India. WHICH IS TRUE.

                                Citing China's refusal to support the bid to have Azhar blacklisted by the UN, India in recent years has aggressively blamed China for allying with Pakistan in shielding terrorists. It disregards the fact that as a victim of terrorism itself, China has pledged to support the international community's anti-terrorism efforts and stands ready to work with India and all other countries to fight terrorism. CHINA IS NOT A VICTIM OF TERRORISM. THEY HAVE PUT 2.5 MILLION OF THEIR UIGHUR MUSLIMS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

                                As for the issue of listing Azhar, Beijing has reiterated its stand several times that New Delhi should provide solid facts and proofs for banning Azhar. China has reason to cautiously handle the issue. Observers worry that blacklisting Azhar could be used by India to increase its military pressure on Pakistan, thus risking exacerbating tensions between the two countries. WHAT MORE PROOF DO THE CHINESE WANT? PARLIAMENT ATTACK WASN'T ENOUGH? BLOODY HYPOCRITES!

                                With the proscription of Azhar becoming a contentious issue that impedes China-India relations, some Chinese scholars advise that China take India's concern more into account. But Liu Zongyi, a senior fellow of the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, told the Global Times that India should, first of all, mind its approach. Should New Delhi resort to quiet diplomacy instead of extensively directing aggressive rhetoric to pressure Beijing, the Azhar issue could have been better addressed. NEW DELHI HASN'T BLAMED CHINA EVEN ONCE. THINK TANKS AND CIVILIANS IN A FREE COUNTRY LIKE INDIA CAN TALK WHATEVER SHIT THEY LIKE. IT'S CALLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

                                Terrorism in India poses a significant threat to Indians. Without solid evidence, India has long accused Pakistan of sponsoring terrorist attacks by Jaish-e-Mohammed and other militant groups and China of providing uncritical support for Pakistan. Instead of simply blaming other countries, especially Pakistan and China, shouldn't the Indian government make more self-introspection on its anti-terrorism policy and dwell more on how to better administer the India-controlled part of Kashmir? WHAT SOLID EVIDENCE DOES THE CHINESE WANT? WE HAVE BEEN SENDING DOSSIERS THAT TRACES EVERY ATTACK BACK TO PAKISTAN SINCE THE LAST 2 DECADES WITH EVERY MEMBER OF THE P5, AS ALSO WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. BETTER ADMINISTER KASHMIR? REALLY? A THIEF OF A COUNTRY WHICH SITS ON STOLEN LAND SAYS THAT. F YOU!

                                China and Pakistan are not enemies of India in countering terrorism. Despite the India-Pakistan dispute, New Delhi has common interests in fighting terrorism with Islamabad and Beijing. It's suggested India abandon suspicions and the three countries enhance consultations on regional security and strengthen anti-terrorism cooperation. Last August for the first time the militaries of India and Pakistan took part in a mega anti-terror drill of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Russia aimed at expanding cooperation among member countries to deal with the growing menace of terrorism and extremism. Such momentum shouldn't be disrupted. F YOU AGAIN!

                                With the approaching general election in India, nationalism could be easily fanned and used by politicians to woo support. Blaming China and Pakistan for the terrorist attack will arouse Indians' anxieties over neighboring countries. A tough stance by the BJP government may help the ruling party win more support. But this will risk anti-terrorism cooperation being sabotaged for the political interests of parties in India.
                                Other entusiasts of world affairs. Those two points looked like good suggestions to explore further.

                                I'm not aware of any articles that have gone into depth on this question.

                                When all i keep hearing is harping on about how China is blocking us i started to question the premise.
                                Then request those enthusiasts to come here and present their views, and see those get shred into oblivion. You instead of understanding geopolitics, put your focus on trivial issues like why China doesn't put Masood on the list. I told you why. Anyone who reads news can question, try to look for answers. I didn't put up that article from GlobalTimes for you to unnecessarily waste your energy in looking for nothing. I wanted you to understand the Chinese psyche of what it does, and why it does so. And how it is done through propaganda.
                                Last edited by Oracle; 22 Feb 19,, 16:29.
                                Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X