What's new

Ahmed Rashid: "A real meltdown".

Except the defence geeks and netizens,99.99% indians doesn't care about pakistan,or its military or its internel affairs. Most aren't even aware what lca tejas or agni is!

All anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. Everything on the internet and real life experiences suggest otherwise. You can keep lying to yourself. 80% of your military is on our borders, and yet you keep calling us obsessed and whatnot. Quit lying yourself.

Never seen Indians who are obsessed with Pakistan. It's always the other way around. Try hanging out with a group of Indians and we talk about everything under the sun. Do the same with Pakistanis and the conversation revolves around India most of the time. This forum alone is evidence of that. Almost every other thread is about India and not Pakistan, mostly started by Pakistanis as well.:bounce:

:lol::lol:

How would you know what this? :lol: You're a bharati, and by definition if you're in the group, it's not a 'group of Pakistanis'. All my experiences suggest otherwise btw. Our media might talk about bharat but no Pakistani I see outside the interwebz gives 2 sh*ts about bharat.
 
india started nuke race not us, india is the biggest arm importer, now who is the lesser of two evils??

surly shining bharath

The blame goes back to America. America started the nuke race. The USSR responded (after unsuccessfully trying to persuade the US to give up nuclear weapons). France and England, which at the time were not as close to America, decided they would need nukes of their own to defend themselves form the USSR. Thanks to the Sino-Soviet split, China needed its own nukes. Which caused India to get its own nukes. Which caused Pakistan to get its own nukes. The only countries other than America that cannot justify getting nukes are North Korea and Israel. Given what happened to them during the Korean war though, it's somewhat understandable that they might want the security of their own nukes to avoid relying on China. Israel of course is an apartheid state, and like South Africa wanted nukes to defend this. Unlike South Africa, Israel didn't give up on nukes and continues to be an apartheid state.
 
Never seen Indians who are obsessed with Pakistan. It's always the other way around. Try hanging out with a group of Indians and we talk about everything under the sun. Do the same with Pakistanis and the conversation revolves around India most of the time. This forum alone is evidence of that. Almost every other thread is about India and not Pakistan, mostly started by Pakistanis as well.:bounce:

For me, it also looks other way around... most of the negitive threads about Pakistan here on PDF are started by Indians and not a few but some time even 3 or 4 in a single day. which give me instinct that indians are so obssesed with Pakistan.

Same here, when we Pakistanies talk to each other we just talk about our problems and our country but, when an indian comes in all the talk shifts around India and Pakistan relationships.
To be honest, whenever I get a chance to meet indians, I always avoid to discuss our countries politics and so do Indians because I knw they gonna put all blames on Pakistan and we on them. this is a fact, we can't come on any agreement so y to waste our time.
 
India being superious militarily can use its army to do the dirty work. So it doesn't have to use terror at this stage.

But in the past Indians used terrorists in E. Pakistan, Nizam's Hyderabad, and Junagar.

Please study your actions in the past and you will find plenty of examples.


My take on this whole fiasco is that Pakistan should not use militants anymore. It hurts Pakistan more than what it does India.

peace.

While I agree with your conclusion, some of your intermediate constructions are strange.

Neither Junagadh nor Hyderabad saw the use of terrorists by India; assigning the whole Mukti Bahini movement to India-backedtrrorism is an ostrich-like, revisionist view of history.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about events in Junagadh. The state had two subsidiary principalities, which had the right to decide for themselves. They did, for India, and the Nawab sent his troops in. The Indian Army moved to evict these States' Forces, and did so, the Junagadh troops withdrew, and disintegrated.

The Nawab contributed little positive to the situation, and departed for Pakistan, leaving the Dewan to grapple with the situation. The Dewan, on seeing the troops at his disposal fall apart, handed over authority to his subordinates, informed the Indian authorities and left for Karachi. He, like his son after him, had an unrealistic idea of what superior force could achieve.

I was very sorry to see Hyderabad being cited as an example of India achieving its aims through terrorism. It implies that the terrorists ini question were India-backed. Such an implication flies in the teeth of all the historical evidence available to us. It obscures the Gandhian methods of the population outside Hyderabad city, which rose against the Nizam. It obscures the brutality and ferocious, violent repression unleashed by the Razakars, and it obscures the questionable tactics of the Nizam and his advisors with regard to the question of accession. This was not only an incorrect example, it was also an unworthy one.

If any commentator wishes to ascribe the events in the-then East Pakistan to Indian animosity, it will deprive you of an opportunity to draw lessons from history. A desire to see developments as being due to enemy action may have a nice effect on an individual ego, but totally fails to reproduce the long political history of the province. It is not desirable to exacerbate painful memories, but it would be well to introspect, and to acknowledge that tying two such disparate groups together into one nation-state was an egregious blunder of the founding fathers of all persuasions. A proud and independent minded people, with no intention of giving up their unique cultural profile, and with a long history of political mobilisation, as well as a strong leadership, tormented by slights to their racial and linguistic pride, infuriated by the difference in treatment in terms of investment and development expenditure, already in a sullen and uncooperative mood, was cheated out of its opportunity to lead the nation.

What followed was spontaneous combustion. Calling it an act of arson is to throw away the lessons learnt at a high cost, and devalues the role of all concerned.

I believe that terrorism was NEVER Indian state policy, most definitely not in the period mentioned, and most unlikely to have been so after the intelligence framework was dismantled by that idiot Gujral.
 
We are not going to get Kashmir back. In our quest to take Kashmir, we managed to lose East Pakistan.

How much more territory should we lose for Kashmir?

Its time to realize that we won't get Kashmir back. Its an injustice, but its time to move on.

I totally respect your POV and your past posts which are the kind of sane thinking both sides need. However I wanted to correct 1 thing in your post here. Pakistan never had Kashmir so there is no question of getting it back. The Indian part of Kashmir was never under Pakistani control

No offence mate, but that's because there's so many Indians on this forum :)

And its because of that this forum is such a success.. OTher wise such defence forums are a dime a dozen. Why else do you think the admins tolerate anti Pakistan view points on this forum...

you mean india(electron) revolves around us(protons)?? :lol::lol::lol:

Yes.. Moving electrons with kinetic energy moving around lethargic and stationary protons :D

:lol::lol:

You're lying to yourself and you probably know that.

The amount of interest bharatis show in Pakistan's internal affairs -- from everything to economy, poverty, social issues, etc -- is mind boggling. Please quit lying.

You missed the word most in my post.. Dont take a couple hundred evil bhartis on this forum as a representative mindset of Indian population.. ;)
 
Thank you for a very balanced approach. Your post #537 on the linked thread "Era of wars over, ready to resolve all issues with India: Pakistan" is right on the money.

The problem with many of these discussions is that majority of Indians and Pak posters repeat the 3rd grade elementary school history books being taught in India and Pakistan. No one is willing to do an independent study of our history. And this is precisely why we are marooned on the island of ignorance and arrogance.

Thank you and peace to all.

I agree; it is a common habit of Indians and Pakistanis to parrot what they have been taught, in and out of text-books, on matters impinging on national self-image. Solomon2 wrote a post which was displeasing to read, but accurate.

Ah, I see I've exceeded the limits of Indian civility: when cornered by argument Tamizhan ultimately behaves just like the Pakistanis and resorts to attacking the messenger rather than re-evaluating the Indian position.

Is it any wonder, then, that unlike the U.S./Canada situation the conflict that began with India's partition continues into a seventh decade? There are no Indians. There are no Pakistanis. There are only South Indians and Muslim North Indians. Their minds work pretty much the same.

I think we have reached the stage of sweeping generalizations.

Unfortunately this is so true.

Many Indians behave like Arabs and strongly feel that tiny Pakistan (like tiny Israel) has no right to exist at its own terms right next mighty neighbor India. And if Pakistan has any right to exist, the terms must be dictated by India.


Case in point water issues where India took unilateral approach right from the get go.

Even when the Sindh TAS treaty (water sharing treaty) was signed in the 50s, the treaty is being constantly violated by India perhaps based on the principle of "might is right".

Where on earth have you gathered these extraordinary views?

The Indus Waters Treaty is kept most scrupulously. Are you referring to that or to some other agreement?

Can you point to a single instance of unilateral and violative action by India?
 
Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan and Afghanistan by Ahmed Rashid

Reviewed by Brian M Downing

With the United States ensnarled in the Afghan insurgency and Pakistan headed toward implosion, AfPak and the countries around it are in crisis.

Renowned journalist Ahmed Rashid offers a series of essays drawn from his connections to figures in the state, army, and insurgent groups which succinctly and engagingly analyze the regional troubles. His insights are remarkable, his candor and courage all the more so. As he notes more than once, the Pakistani army has been known to treat roughly, or even kill, turbulent journalists - including in all likelihood Asia Times Online Pakistan bureau chief Syed Saleem Shahzad last May.

Pakistani political and military elites, he argues, have failed their country in four interrelated regards. First, they have failed to build a national identity embracing the Pashtun, Punjabi, Sindhi, and Baloch ethnic groups. The military has instead only built an identity based on opposition to India, while militants have recently begun building an Islamist one.

Second, elites have fixated on national security and allocated exorbitant funds upon the military at the expense of education, healthcare, and infrastructure - a predilection that civilian leaders dare not challenge. Third, elites have encouraged or at least tolerated jihadi groups that strike targets in the region and occasionally turn on Pakistan as well.

Fourth, elites have allowed the country to fragment along ethnic lines. Punjabis are over-represented in the army and state to the resentment of other peoples. The Balochs have begun their fifth insurgency and many Pashtun tribes are at war with the government.

With its politicians drawn from corrupt family dynasties and its generals obsessed with their immense budgets, the country has failed to develop politically or economically. While India and other countries in the region have won places in the global market, Pakistan's belligerent policies in Afghanistan and Kashmir have cut the country off from commerce with Central Asia and India. Much of its industry remains state-owned and uncompetitive. The two foes could have benefited from trade. Instead, India has developed exports in manufactured goods and technology; Pakistan is still selling rice and cotton.


Rashid has long argued that the army supports the Afghan Taliban and he makes his strongest case here. Though nominally supportive of US/International Security Assistance Forces efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan's then ruler General Pervez Musharraf was dismayed by the Pashtun Taliban's ouster in late 2001 and the attendant rise of northern peoples tied to India. Musharraf was certain that India and its northern allies would seek to destabilize Pakistan's Pashtun and Baloch borderlands, endangering Pakistan's territorial integrity.

Musharraf reasoned that the US would soon tire of Afghanistan, all the more so once it had invaded Iraq (2003) and a bitter insurgency soon developed. Better to back the Taliban and guide them back to power. Pakistani intelligence (Inter-Services Intelligence - ISI) helped secure funding for the Taliban from wealthy Gulf donors and built camps for their fighters in northern Balochistan, not far from Quetta where Taliban leaders were safely ensconced.

Rashid is also sharply critical of the US, especially of President Barack Obama whom he sees as even less interested in AfPak than his predecessor. George W Bush, Rashid rather puzzlingly insists, showed considerable interest in Afghanistan; Obama handed off AfPak to others, especially the military, where artfulness in political development and diplomacy is limited and where reliance on force is not. Whether Afghanistan's lack of priority is true of the new administration as a whole or just the president, who after all faces pressing economic problems, is unclear - probably deliberately so.

The new administration began with high hopes of negotiating a broad regional settlement, including the decades-long conflict over Kashmir. But when India objected to linking Kashmir to the war in Afghanistan, the Obama administration backed down. This fueled a new wave of conspiratorial speculation inside Pakistan: Indians had become the Israelis of the region, lavished upon by gullible Americans, and Pakistanis were becoming the Palestinians of South Asia, innocent victims of foreign lobbies and nefarious intrigues.


Rashid argues that it was a bad idea for the US to insist on elections in Afghanistan back in 2009. As much as this goes against the faith in democratic processes, he makes strong points. The Afghan parliament was essentially functionless, the parties were weak and not well known, and the public was more attached to well established patronage networks than to newly-minted political processes.

United States pressure for candidates to run against President Hamid Karzai convinced him that Washington was determined to unseat him. He responded by rigging the election with the help of warlords, drug racketeers, and a legion of corrupt officials who wished to retain their jobs. Owing to the strength of the insurgency in the south, the Pashtun vote was low and the non-Pashtun northerners enjoyed disproportionate success, which had the adverse consequence of strengthening ethnic mistrust.

Rashid looks at attempts at counterinsurgency in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Although a Pakistani army study in 2000 saw serious internal dangers, the generals refused to reorient from conventional warfare with India to counterinsurgency efforts toward internal groups.

A few years later, the US pressed Pakistan to retrain two divisions (about 45,000 troops) of its 29 divisions to conduct counter-insurgency campaigns in Pashtun tribal regions against the Taliban. The army, however, refused, citing the need to defend against an Indian invasion, which of course is highly unlikely now that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

The US was only able to retrain Frontier Corps units - Pashtun tribal units that stretch along the Durand Line. This proved short-lived as the special forces advisers were ordered out of the country after the US raid on Osama bin Laden's home near an army compound in Pakistan in May of 2011.

The US was able to persuade the army to go after militant groups in the tribal areas of South Waziristan, but the operations did not use counterinsurgency techniques. They relied instead on heavy firepower, which caused large numbers of civilian casualties and turned more locals against them.

To the north in Afghanistan, American counter-insurgency efforts have not brought appreciable success. There is little economic activity unrelated to the war or foreign doles. The enclaves carved out of former Taliban areas aren't secure and locals are reluctant to cooperate with the US or Kabul officials. Indigenous military units are not effective.

The army and police have high desertion rates and exhibit no fighting spirit. General David Petraeus pressed hard for building up local militias and won, despite Karzai's opposition to what he thought would become more warlord bands. Thus far, these militias have accomplished nothing as they are viewed with suspicion by locals.

Karzai's state remains both corrupt and inept. Ten years after the Taliban's ouster, many districts do not have a government court. Taliban courts have established themselves there.

Rashid sees the Taliban leadership as war-weary, perhaps even more so than their opponents. It was the Taliban, after all, who approached the US for peace talks. ISI, however, opposes peace until its regional agenda on India and Kashmir is guaranteed to be a central part of negotiations. Last year, ISI arrested the Taliban's second in command, Mullah Baradar, as he was embarking on peace talks that the generals had not approved.

As a result of at least somewhat diverging interests with the Taliban, the generals may be placing more emphasis on the Haqqani network, an insurgent group which is only partially integrated into the Taliban and which has been close to ISI since the old days of the Soviet war. The Haqqanis are thought responsible for most of the assassinations, suicide bombings, and terrorist strikes into major cities - including the coordinated attacks in Kabul and other cities last week. (As an insurgent offensive has recently begun, it will be interesting to see if the Taliban send signals through relative inaction in the south, contrasting with Haqqani boldness in the east.)

The Taliban's war-weariness and their disagreements with ISI offer some prospects for negotiations in the near term. Rashid suggests that the Taliban and the US negotiate a confidence-building arrangement whereby the US foregoes the night raids on Taliban commanders and the Taliban forego the assassinations of government officials. In this respect, Rashid offers some hope in his bleak yet compelling account of the region.

Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan and Afghanistan by Ahmed Rashid. (New York: Viking, 2012). ISBN-10: 0670023469. Price US$26.95, 256 pages.


Asia Times Online :: Anti-India agenda costs Pakistan dearly

Ahmad Rashid is a lying brown nosing $$ making book seller. Do not believe 90% of the stuff he says. I heard him on NPR here in the US and many of his facts were lies. He does get support from some publishers and does get $$$s in his pocket from various sources.
 
yes many times...

But I think most of the indians have one sided approch. they just wanna look and discussed about Pakistan's mistakes but not their owns.
From last 6 to 7 years, I have seen a termendous change in common Pakistanies' approch towards India. This might be because Pakistanies have become more obssesed with their country Pakistan and just wanted to see her back on track. I never been to India thats y, I cant say about ground realities in India but by looking at indian's posts on PDF, CNN and the comments underneath of any Pakistan's related articles, m wondering how many more years Indians are going to take to come out of their past.

anyways, Its always a great pleasure to read the posts of balanced approched ppl from both side.

An interesting comment. Would you expand on it?

Perhaps PDF is NOT the best place to watch Indians agonize over what India herself is going through. Would you like to see such a forum?
 
To be honest, just look around Pakistan. News coming from Pakistan is overwhelmingly negative. Positive news hardly ever come out of it lately. And then there is India, just type India in google news, predominant news will be economic related. You will find hard it to locate negative news on most days. Indians are just posting news as they see it, Pakistanis post news that one has to search with key words to find. That's the difference.

I know this is easy to find bad news about Pakistan. everybody knows Pakistan is suffering now a days. thats y, we Pakistanies have become more obssesed with our country. We just want our country to be back on right track, want that missing peace which we used to enjoy a decade back.
We are aware about our problems and also discuss with each other. But when Pakistanies discuss about Pakistan's problem, our intentions are very sincere towards our country. This is a natural fact. We want to find out the solutions of our problems.

On the other hand, indian are not posting the news as they see it, they are posting it to make fun of Pakistan. If u check the numbers of negtive thread started by Indians or Pakistanies on each other countries, I am sure u will find more number of Indians than Pakistanies and y not, as it has become very easy task in present situation.

I accept, we also have some jerks among us who posts the anti-india stuff due to their hate for India, but a large number of Pakistanies are posting these in response to indian threads.

One more thing, when a country is growing and many countries have their stakes in there, than media usually ignor that country's weak points. On the other hand, if a country's economy is not in a good condition and she is in a continuous war state with World's super power. What do u expect from media around the world and other countries?
will they support World's super power or vice versa?

We are living in a world of interest and history is written by winners based on their perspective not on entir truth.
 
An interesting comment. Would you expand on it?

Perhaps PDF is NOT the best place to watch Indians agonize over what India herself is going through. Would you like to see such a forum?

No, my all interest lies in Pakistan. I never specifically visited Indian defence or indian forums. Even I only like to visit CNN or other renowned newspapers' sites if I found a news link about Pakistan during my google search. U can not find me bashing India for no reason. I said something in response to some indian friend.
 
No, my all interest lies in Pakistan. I never specifically visited Indian defence or indian forums. Even I only like to visit CNN or other renowned newspapers' sites if I found a news link about Pakistan during my google search. U can not find me bashing India for no reason. I said something in response to some indian friend.

I am not sure if your approach is correct especially in today's global world..but anyhow your life your decision...
 
Thank you for a very balanced approach. Your post #537 on the linked thread "Era of wars over, ready to resolve all issues with India: Pakistan" is right on the money.

The problem with many of these discussions is that majority of Indians and Pak posters repeat the 3rd grade elementary school history books being taught in India and Pakistan. No one is willing to do an independent study of our history. And this is precisely why we are marooned on the island of ignorance and arrogance.

Thank you and peace to all.

I respect your views...Actually i was the one of those who was discussing with Solomon on that particular post..i did reply to him on post number #557 (http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...enda-costs-pakistan-dearly-2.html#post2874686)...

I don't want to be the one of those majority of Indians and Pak posters repeat the 3rd grade elementary school history books being taught in India and Pakistan and would happily like to be in minority...If possible do share your thoughts and anything that can teach me the fact atleast on this particular topic...Otherwise kindly take back your comment...thanks...

@Joe ... i do see you have thanked Solomon post as well as one from "FaujHistorian"...So in case you can tell something then please do let me know...
 
I dont like to comment on india's internal matters but please dont use the word humanity or sympthy in Bangladesh case. India did it just bcz of her rivalery with Pakistan. It was nothing else.


I can assure you, having lived through those times, that the humanitarian and the sympathy elements were present. This sentiment was at its peak in West Bengal, but it was present throughout the country. As the refugees poured in, and as people started making dire predictions of mass deaths in the camps, hundreds of us went away from home to these camps, to do voluntary work. What we saw made us half-crazy with grief and anger.

The government at the state was then suspended, and we were under Governor's rule. The central government sent tents and food, but too little,too late. India went crying to every country in the world, and every country sympathised, but nobody did anything. In Kolkata, people talked loudly and in public how Nehru leaped to the defence of Kashmir when the tribals attacked, and how Kashmir was defended by that Kashmiri pandit, and how Indira Gandhi was doing nothing while Bengalis were being slaughtered in their hundreds and their thousands. We saw the whole Indian Army sitting around looking helpless. Arora and Jacob were family friends; I started staying away from home when they were expected to be present so that I would not say anything in a fit of emotion to a guest. The Bangladeshis clustered around their building in Theatre Road; we were kept far away by the cops, although many of us wanted to go to them and volunteer. Osmany was there, very occasionally, dressed in a Pakistani Army zipped sweater. I knew him because he had come home; my father had met him in Cox's Bazaar during the War. He was such a fierce-looking man, with piercing eyes, that we were scared to go up to him. The Pakistani Deputy High Commissioner was detained in a suite on the ground floor of the building where we lived; we could hear him every morning make his call to his High Commissioner in Delhi, always confident, always upbeat, all this while the camps kept swelling and swelling. We were not allowed within yards of him, of course, and he was guarded carefully all the time. Even our visitors were carefully vetted before being let in, although my father was such a senior officer.

Meanwhile the camps filled and filled. Those of us who sneaked away and worked there until we were chased away by the police saw men, women and children with wounds; we were told by the doctors that those were bullet wounds, and the anger and sense of helplessness grew. We knew some of them were slipping away, and there were rumours of camps where arms training was going on, but it was all kept under wraps, and curiousity was severely discouraged. There were spies swarming around, although at the time, there was very little talk about it. When the intelligence records in Dhaka came to light, there were many unpleasant discoveries.

To describe what those days were like would take volumes. I wish you could have been there. I hope you never have to be in some place like that.

Don't ever say that there was no humanitarian or sympathetic element in the Indian reaction. Please. It may make a good debating point, but those days, for those of us who lived through it, were too emotional, too draining, too cruel to bear. To hear that all that happened was based on realpolitik cannot be endured. I beg you, say anything else but that.
 
I can assure you, having lived through those times, that the humanitarian and the sympathy elements were present. This sentiment was at its peak in West Bengal, but it was present throughout the country. As the refugees poured in, and as people started making dire predictions of mass deaths in the camps, hundreds of us went away from home to these camps, to do voluntary work. What we saw made us half-crazy with grief and anger.

The government at the state was then suspended, and we were under Governor's rule. The central government sent tents and food, but too little,too late. India went crying to every country in the world, and every country sympathised, but nobody did anything. In Kolkata, people talked loudly and in public how Nehru leaped to the defence of Kashmir when the tribals attacked, and how Kashmir was defended by that Kashmiri pandit, and how Indira Gandhi was doing nothing while Bengalis were being slaughtered in their hundreds and their thousands. We saw the whole Indian Army sitting around looking helpless. Arora and Jacob were family friends; I started staying away from home when they were expected to be present so that I would not say anything in a fit of emotion to a guest. The Bangladeshis clustered around their building in Theatre Road; we were kept far away by the cops, although many of us wanted to go to them and volunteer. Osmany was there, very occasionally, dressed in a Pakistani Army zipped sweater. I knew him because he had come home; my father had met him in Cox's Bazaar during the War. He was such a fierce-looking man, with piercing eyes, that we were scared to go up to him. The Pakistani Deputy High Commissioner was detained in a suite on the ground floor of the building where we lived; we could hear him every morning make his call to his High Commissioner in Delhi, always confident, always upbeat, all this while the camps kept swelling and swelling. We were not allowed within yards of him, of course, and he was guarded carefully all the time. Even our visitors were carefully vetted before being let in, although my father was such a senior officer.

Meanwhile the camps filled and filled. Those of us who sneaked away and worked there until we were chased away by the police saw men, women and children with wounds; we were told by the doctors that those were bullet wounds, and the anger and sense of helplessness grew. We knew some of them were slipping away, and there were rumours of camps where arms training was going on, but it was all kept under wraps, and curiousity was severely discouraged. There were spies swarming around, although at the time, there was very little talk about it. When the intelligence records in Dhaka came to light, there were many unpleasant discoveries.

To describe what those days were like would take volumes. I wish you could have been there. I hope you never have to be in some place like that.

Don't ever say that there was no humanitarian or sympathetic element in the Indian reaction. Please. It may make a good debating point, but those days, for those of us who lived through it, were too emotional, too draining, too cruel to bear. To hear that all that happened was based on realpolitik cannot be endured. I beg you, say anything else but that.

Classic Indian propoganda and nothing else. On one hand, Indian army was openly supporting Mukti Behini and on the other were crying in front of the world about "massive" HR violations by Pakistan army the units of which defected. If the operation "Search Light" caused this all then there is a more bigger question. What forced Pakistan army to launch that operation in the first place?

Yesterday, It was reported that thousands of TTP militants are getting amass across Durind Line to attack Chitral. Now question is if it is not for CIA and RAW, then who else is supporting to these thousands of militants of TTP. TTP... Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan ... who have strong bastions in Afghanistan. Sounds little odd! Isn't it?
 
Classic Indian propoganda and nothing else. On one hand, Indian army was openly supporting Mukti Behini and on the other were crying in front of the world about "massive" HR violations by Pakistan army the units of which defected. If the operation "Search Light" caused this all then there is a more bigger question. What forced Pakistan army to launch that operation in the first place?
Yesterday, It was reported that thousands of TTP militants are getting amass across Durind Line to attack Chitral. Now question is if it is not for CIA and RAW, then who else is supporting to these thousands of militants of TTP. TTP... Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan ... who have strong bastions in Afghanistan. Sounds little odd! Isn't it?

Answer to the first underlined part: Operation Searchlight happened, its a reality. It was not a reaction but a continuation (or escalation) of the effort to "keep the Bingoes in their place".

Why was that necessary?
Because the Bingoes had clearly demonstrated that they were not going to be cowed down after they had demonstrated their strength at the ballot-box, whose verdict was being sought to be subverted by a greedy politician and some stupid Gernails in West Pakistan.

Now for the second underlined part:
In that part of Pakistan, both the Govt. of Paksitan and governance (sic) are only conspicuous by their absence. About the PA's will to take control there, nobody knows.
There is no need for a third party to stir up anything in the already present anarchy there.

Sounds little odd! Isn't it? No it does'nt. Its only obvious.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom