China likely to seek explanation from India over terror sponsorship

[MilSpec]

The claim of 'Pakistani Deep State support' for these groups is laughably flawed given the fact that the primary enemy of these groups is the very same so called 'Pakistani Deep State'. They have carried out high profile and complex terrorist attacks inflicting significant casualties on ISI, Army, Air Force and Navy locations, and only deluded fools would argue that the the Deep State would be supporting and sponsoring attacks on itself that erode the very same Deep State's military and political influence and capabilities.

Deepstate empowered Mullahs, Mullahs engaged madrasas, Madrasas produced talibs to fight for Islam, ISI used islam to fight against invader,
Deepstate did a uturn and aided the invaders, some madrasas went autonomous, resultant you lost control of some factions -
Blaming India rather than introspecting deeproted flaws in your own social fabric is quite an easy idea.

although deepstate lost control of some factions it still retains a majority of them. Your own people (not our's) are bombing your own country- why blame us?

Simple question- why are you hosting haqqanis and hekymetyaar?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The point, very simply put is whether or not Pakistan is a diplomatically isolated country with zero cedibility in the world.

It is not, as illustrated earlier, reasons which you choose to cast as follows:

To which you posted generic homilies such as prospects of trade and investment and money "pouring" into Pakistan.

If improving trade, investment and increasingly warm relationships (including growing support for inclusion in global organizations such as the NSG) with Global Powers is not a yardstick for 'not being diplomatically isolated' then please do explain what exactly is?

 

[Lurch Adams]

It is not, as illustrated earlier, reasons which you choose to cast as follows:

If improving trade, investment and increasingly warm relationships (including growing support for inclusion in global organizations such as the NSG) with Global Powers is not a yardstick for 'not being diplomatically isolated' then please do explain what exactly is?

Let me propose a better yardstick. Merely stating that Pakistan is being engaged by foreign governments or such is easy. NSG membership will be relevant if and when it materializes. Instead, why don't we study foreign investment/net capital transfer/membership of economic and defence blocs/multilateral or bilateral economic and defence treaties instead? Let us compare Pakistan, both to countries with comparable population as well as comparable GDP to determine where it stands in this regard? Making clever arguments is easy....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Deepstate empowered Mullahs, Mullahs engaged madrasas, Madrasas produced talibs to fight for Islam, ISI used islam to fight against invader,
Deepstate did a uturn and aided the invaders, some madrasas went autonomous, resultant you lost control of some factions -

Which means the so called 'Deep State' is, as you yourself implicitly admit, no longer involved in 'supporting the TTP/LeJ etc'.

Blaming India rather than introspecting deeproted flaws in your own social fabric is quite an easy idea.

although deepstate lost control of some factions it still retains a majority of them. Your own people (not our's) are bombing your own country- why blame us?

Past support for groups like the Taliban by the 'Deep State' does not mean continued support, and if there is no continued support for these entities, and the State (Deep or otherwise) is involved in a vicious war with them, then the argument that India cannot possibly support these terrorist groups no longer applies, and India's past history of supporting terrorist groups in Junagadh, Hyderabad, Sri Lanka, East Pakistan etc. makes clear that such support for terrorism would be nothing new for India.

Simple question- why are you hosting haqqanis and hekymetyaar?

As long as the actual operational commanders, fighters and training camps have been dismantled and forced out of Pakistan, what does it matter?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Let me propose a better yardstick. Merely stating that Pakistan is being engaged by foreign governments or such is easy. NSG membership will be relevant if and when it materializes.

Increased engagement and negotiations are a critical part of the processes leading into membership of various 'blocs' or bilateral and multilateral treaties and agreements. Flippant disregard for these illustrates an extremely crude and shallow understanding on your part about how international politics functions.

Instead, why don't we study foreign investment/net capital transfer/membership of economic and defence blocs/multilateral or bilateral economic and defence treaties instead? Let us compare Pakistan, both to countries with comparable population as well as comparable GDP to determine where it stands in this regard? Making clever arguments is easy....

With respect to foreign investment/net capital transfer, I fail to see their relevance to the discussion on 'Global Standing'. At best these parameters will help provide insight, via a snapshot in time, of one aspect of the country's economy. And because it will be nothing more than a 'snapshot', the comparison will be meaningless in terms of the overall trends and direction of the country's economy, or at least those particular parameters. A more useful exercise would be to study trends over time, potentially with different reference points that take into account 'disruptive events' that may have influenced trend lines significantly.

The second set of parameters (membership of economic and defence blocs/multilateral or bilateral economic and defence treaties) would be more useful in understanding 'Global Standing' from a geo-political perspective, though even here the inclusion of 'economic blocs and treaties' is more a reflection on the domestic economy. Outside of 'economic blocs and treaties' Pakistan has made significant progress in the last decade or so (despite tremendous domestic challenges due to terrorism) with the SCO, CERN etc. and is, as mentioned earlier, now being openly engaged in negotiations regarding NSG membership. This is a far cry from the situation Pakistan faced in 1999, post nuclear tests, with all manner of economic and military sanctions applied against her, to now being courted for membership in an exclusive nuclear club.

 

[Lurch Adams]

Increased engagement and negotiations are a critical part of the processes leading into membership of various 'blocs' or bilateral and multilateral treaties and agreements. Flippant disregard for these illustrates an extremely crude and shallow understanding on your part about how international politics functions.

Duly noted. Now set aside NSG till Pakistan gets entry.

With respect to foreign investment/net capital transfer, I fail to see their relevance to the discussion on 'Global Standing'.

Foreign investment flow from trust in financial systems that are integrated into the global financial/economic system. Also, companies and FIIs seldom invest in countries that are deemed as unstable or with whom Western governments/Bretton Woods Institutions have a strained relationship.

A more useful exercise would be to study trends over time, potentially with different reference points that take into account 'disruptive events' that may have influenced trend lines significantly.

By all means. That may be useful. But one should refrain from delving into data from pre-1990s. Western engagement with Pakistan prior to that period as a bulwark against the Soviets is a well established fact.

The second set of parameters (membership of economic and defence blocs/multilateral or bilateral economic and defence treaties) would be more useful in understanding 'Global Standing' from a geo-political perspective, though even here the inclusion of 'economic blocs and treaties' is more a reflection on the domestic economy. Outside of 'economic blocs and treaties' Pakistan has made significant progress in the last decade or so (despite tremendous domestic challenges due to terrorism) with the SCO, CERN etc. and is, as mentioned earlier, now being openly engaged in negotiations regarding NSG membership. This is a far cry from the situation Pakistan faced in 1999, post nuclear tests, with all manner of economic and military sanctions applied against her, to now being courted for membership in an exclusive nuclear club.

One must not value convenience over substance. Even the fact that foreign governments do not allow their sports contingents to travel to Pakistan counts. I have only suggested yardsticks that reflect the willingness of the world to engage with Pakistan.

 

[MilSpec]

Which means the so called 'Deep State' is, as you yourself implicitly admit, no longer involved in 'supporting the TTP/LeJ etc'.

read again and thistime try to understand what is written.

and the State (Deep or otherwise) is involved in a vicious war with them, then the argument that India cannot possibly support these terrorist groups no longer applies,

By the same logic, it applies that ISI still maintains some ties to some of it's assets which still haven't gone solo.

As long as the actual operational commanders, fighters and training camps have been dismantled and forced out of Pakistan, what does it matter?

strong logic, even OBL's network was destroyed, why was it a big deal in his discovery then? as far as what has been dismantled, is more or less optics, with their tentacles still quite virile.