Dirty war on LoC preceded deadly Poonch ambush

[SQ8]

Let what how I know stuff be with me, and the feeling is mutual. Your arrogance is in thinking all of us get our information from www is quite a big fallacy.

as I said, you stick to your convictions, most reading the exchange of conversation between us know what I am talking about, maybe one day you will to.

thanks

How you came to know of this is very important....this is a forum....if your claiming something you provide proof... IF you cannot prove proof or any links then you do not speak about it .... Most reading this conversation will go with the person providing credible information .

Even if the conversation did happen what is objective? What possible achievement is to be looked at? After all, there is national anger in India but what possible directives will that anger achieve?
As I said on another thread and did not get the reply yet from Sandy.. I would love to have miniature nukes lobbed at the TTP... but that isn't viable nor is it the most prudent option.

 

[Manindra]

BS article

What would Antony do ? order to nuke Pakistan

 

[third eye]

Why Def Minister ? India has a PM from the north.

What wonders has he done ?

 

[chauvunist]

I wonder what would have happened if 6 russian/american/british soldiers were killed in their own sovereign land by a neighboring country. Given the fact that India is not comparable to any of the three nationalities mentioned, does that make lives of Indian soldiers less valuable?

India will not go to war against pakistan on this, as suggested by better informed members here, the answer will be localised retaliation, which will draw counter retaliation and the cycle will continue. Does this equation needs to be changed? Is there any scope a heavy deterrence to be introduced that will make such aggressive baiting an extremely expensive exercise for pakistan? is there any scope to discuss that?

Government of India with it's current crop of leaders do not have out of the box thinking, their rapprochement strategy has been sheepish diplomacy which can be easily hijacked by a terrorists, company commanders, even government change in Islamabad. If this path is so fragile and hasn't yielded any incentives in last 9 years, what is point of following such flawed reasoning.

Diplomacy yields - violence in the north, and so does standstill relation, then why invest the human capital in diplomacy?

Sir what about Our Civilians who were kidnapped from our side of the border and later Killed Brutually in the cold blood by your Army,not to forget couple of days Back one of our soldier was Martyred and one got injured by Unprovoked firing from your Side...Its a two way game and your posture of innoceny does not make any sense...

 

[MilSpec]

How you came to know of this is very important....this is a forum....if your claiming something you provide proof... IF you cannot prove proof or any links then you do not speak about it .... Most reading this conversation will go with the person providing credible information .

I am actually not claiming anything. I told you what I knew, and it is not based on what "times of India" say's. Most of what I say on this forum is not based on "www". thats what it is and always has been. And yes your links to what happens and strategic implication do follow the popular/percieved logical opinion, I will concede that. But Again I said what I think needs to done and what I know of from a highly placed source, which I choose not to disclose. And I totally understand If your thought process aligns you to what ajai shukla's and the others say about the directives on the ground. I choose not to agree to that.



my reasoning today might be a little more gently worded, because I was really pissed of yesterday.

 

[MilSpec]

Sir what about Our Civilians who were kidnapped from our side of the border and later Killed Brutually in the cold blood by your Army,not to forget couple of days Back one of our soldier was Martyred and one got injured by Unprovoked firing from your Side...Its a two way game and your posture of innoceny does not make any sense...

As far as military perspective is concerned, we need to opt out of the 2003 ceasefire, If there is provocation from any side, the other must have the mandate from their respective government to go on the offensive. My fear is these incidents will get common after a while and people will stop paying attention to these, media will sideline it as localized incidents and governments on both sides will get immune to such losses. This is something evident from drone strikes in pakistan, does it draw the same flak that it did say 7 years ago, sure it's a concern, but does it bring the same outrage when there is tacit approval/ignorance from the govt? This is what I fear is going to happen to the border areas.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...its-defence-minister-north.html#ixzz2bIaTbjQe

 

[SRP]

BS utter BS. What to do with north and south. These journos need kick on their back.

 

[SQ8]

It's evident, from my posts, I lost it yesterday, but the events that unfolded are to blame for it.

We need to take a break from the diplomatic process altogether, stop the non-sense candyfloss of trade and other paths currently undertaken by both sides.

when you are dealing with quality control in six sigma, you identify the pareto of issues that plague the system, identify the biggest contributor and tackle that first, same applies here, first solve Kashmir, then everything else.


As far as military perspective is concerned, we need to opt out of the 2003 ceasefire, If there is provocation from any side, the other must have the mandate from their respective government to go on the offensive. My fear is these incidents will get common after a while and people will stop paying attention to these, media will sideline it as localized incidents and governments on both sides will get immune to such losses. This is something evident from drone strikes in pakistan, does it draw the same flak that it did say 7 years ago, sure it's a concern, but does it bring the same outrage when there is tacit approval/ignorance from the govt? This is what I fear is going to happen to the border areas.

Well if you start with Kashmir then that particular problem will not be solved unless there is an actual on the ground process to address the Kashmiri grievances. There will be a continued resistance to its integration within the Indian state and quelling it will only produce a spring effect. I have posted before on how a major focus on Kashmiri youth but the results will vary: A personal experience is with two Kashmiri youth's studying here with me.. both studied in Dehli Uni and lived in Dehli for years.. their families are well employed in Indian businesses and settled. Yet, these youth insist that Kashmirs will not leave the struggle and that India occupies their territory illegally. Clearly there is a problem which then translates to both emotional and opportunistic support from Pakistan. Solving Kashmir militarily for Pakistan is an impossibility and in my view even for India(as there were rumors of such an attempt in 2001).

If there was a ceasefire then we would not be having incidents like these.. so clearly there isnt a ceasefire; just a signed document.
No one wants to play devil's advocate and come belligerent but neither will let go of their strategic imperative. At this point the Indian media is clearly not playing it as a local incident and the atmosphere being drummed up is that of being at war. The infiltration will quite likely continue, not perhaps because of PA but because of a much deeper state and non-state that now exists within Pakistan. Perhaps the assertion that this incident is a move to divert attention from the recent spate of failures by the security agencies might be true. It may also be possible that the LeT do not wish to have their primary means of existence removed so easily. A PA uniform costs INR 400 and is available from local shops all over Pakistan. Possibilities for either exist but I feel more inclined for the former.

The response or protest for such an event has already been seen in the 2001 standoff, the 2008 standoff.. and so on. At each point it has been realized that neither state is prepared to step into declared conflict due to various risks. Hence, declared open conflict is not a solution and as the last tit for tat spate showed.. neither is that. What other solution is there?
I see a diplomatic one.. India raises hell at the UNSC, with its countries and demands stricter action. In either case it will have much more effect as compared to 5 or 50 deaths.

 

[Star Wars]

I am actually not claiming anything. I told you what I knew, and it is not based on what "times of India" say's. Most of what I say on this forum is not based on "www". thats what it is and always has been. And yes your links to what happens and strategic implication do follow the popular/percieved logical opinion, I will concede that. But Again I said what I think needs to done and what I know of from a highly placed source, which I choose not to disclose. And I totally understand If your thought process aligns you to what ajai shukla's and the others say about the directives on the ground. I choose not to agree to that.



my reasoning today might be a little more gently worded, because I was really pissed of yesterday.

alright....you have your openion i have mine

 

[Slayer786]

The point is why the tensions are rising just before the two PM meet on the sideline of the UN General assembly in September in New York. Someone does not want the talks to happen. Anyone care to speculate who will benefit from the talks being cancelled?

 

[Ayush]

dumb suggestion..

 

[MilSpec]

Well if you start with Kashmir then that particular problem will not be solved unless there is an actual on the ground process to address the Kashmiri grievances. There will be a continued resistance to its integration within the Indian state and quelling it will only produce a spring effect. I have posted before on how a major focus on Kashmiri youth but the results will vary: A personal experience is with two Kashmiri youth's studying here with me.. both studied in Dehli Uni and lived in Dehli for years.. their families are well employed in Indian businesses and settled. Yet, these youth insist that Kashmirs will not leave the struggle and that India occupies their territory illegally. Clearly there is a problem which then translates to both emotional and opportunistic support from Pakistan. Solving Kashmir militarily for Pakistan is an impossibility and in my view even for India(as there were rumors of such an attempt in 2001).

If there was a ceasefire then we would not be having incidents like these.. so clearly there isnt a ceasefire; just a signed document.
No one wants to play devil's advocate and come belligerent but neither will let go of their strategic imperative. At this point the Indian media is clearly not playing it as a local incident and the atmosphere being drummed up is that of being at war. The infiltration will quite likely continue, not perhaps because of PA but because of a much deeper state and non-state that now exists within Pakistan. Perhaps the assertion that this incident is a move to divert attention from the recent spate of failures by the security agencies might be true. It may also be possible that the LeT do not wish to have their primary means of existence removed so easily. A PA uniform costs INR 400 and is available from local shops all over Pakistan. Possibilities for either exist but I feel more inclined for the former.

The response or protest for such an event has already been seen in the 2001 standoff, the 2008 standoff.. and so on. At each point it has been realized that neither state is prepared to step into declared conflict due to various risks. Hence, declared open conflict is not a solution and as the last tit for tat spate showed.. neither is that. What other solution is there?
I see a diplomatic one.. India raises hell at the UNSC, with its countries and demands stricter action. In either case it will have much more effect as compared to 5 or 50 deaths.

Is pakistani army alligned with the diplomatic solution approach,

If yes and the assumption is this and the previous incedent was conducted by Let/co, there must be tacit approval from PA, because it must be really diffcult to stage an attack from Pak side of the border without thier approval, and if that is the case then the PA doesn't align itself to the rapprochement process.

Worst case scenario for India:

Involving UNSC means external arbitration, and UN would love to jump in there. Pakistan wishes if UNSC comes in, and legitimize kashmir as a disputed territory. Here is my problem, with this, when there was a scope for third party intervention from 47 to 65 pakistan did not concede, now it wants India to concede to a third party so that it can capitalize on and legitimize the kashmir issue. It will lead to the foundation of an additional UNSC resolution and this time the push would be to reform the state of J&K and not the entire kashmir as the insurgency is only in J&K, and weaken India's position.

Given the state of affairs in india, and if the current congress govet is reelected, pakistan might even pull this off, effectively giving a steeping stone for amalgation of kashmir into pakistan.

 

[SQ8]

Is pakistani army alligned with the diplomatic solution approach,

If yes and the assumption is this and the previous incedent was conducted by Let/co, there must be tacit approval from PA, because it must be really diffcult to stage an attack from Pak side of the border without thier approval, and if that is the case then the PA doesn't align itself to the rapprochement process.

Worst case scenario for India:

Involving UNSC means external arbitration, and UN would love to jump in there. Pakistan wishes if UNSC comes in, and legitimize kashmir as a disputed territory. Here is my problem, with this, when there was a scope for third party intervention from 47 to 65 pakistan did not concede, now it wants India to concede to a third party so that it can capitalize on and legitimize the kashmir issue. It will lead to the foundation of an additional UNSC resolution and this time the push would be to reform the state of J&K and not the entire kashmir as the insurgency is only in J&K, and weaken India's position.

Given the state of affairs in india, and if the current congress govet is reelected, pakistan might even pull this off, effectively giving a steeping stone for amalgation of kashmir into pakistan.

Yes and No. You have to keep differentiating between the various "power" sectors in Pakistan. PA command is not based solely on COAS Kayani but on the Corps Commanders. Each have their opinion and talk to each other directly as well. Most if not all are NOT pro militancy anymore. The current COAS is also one of the most cautious leaders ever to take control of the PA after J.Karamat. That being said, he was GOC Murree during Kargil and most likely saw first hand the massacre during the retreat that also likely left an impression on him. Yet , his overtures on Siachen suggest that he does realize that the Kashmir issue is priority to solve. Now, the border areas along the LoC are impossible to monitor 24/7 due to the terrain otherwise India would have pulled it off easy as well. Contrary to popular belief and reinforced by the accounts of the recent D.I Khan Jail attack our security forces don't actually bother with asking a person in uniform for their I.D unless specifically instructed to do so. Is it possible that this attack may have been carried out without the PA unit in the area actually knowing that those 40 guys weren't just another random unit on patrol?
Perhaps in collusion with a particular LeT "asset" within the ranks of that unit or perhaps through low level ISI contacts?
The reason I bring these up is because from this side, there seems to be little plausible motivation when it comes to an objective. This incident WILL not divert the public or political opinion as such from any action at this point...nor does it actually create such an effect that will even slightly alter the Kashmir status. It seems more aimed at derailing the peace process but that either confirms your assertion that the PA does not want peace(why? when clearly there is little other choice left for it with the current situation) and that they are seriously stupid OR that there are elements that do not want peace because then their reason for existing(and going around in bullet proof SUVs) will end and they will be called to court since their status as a useful asset will end.

Come LeT and Hafiz Saeed. Their status is like the dirty wing of a corporate organization or mob. But here the organization has "ditched" them in essence in an effort to clean up. However, these people were a large part of organizational process and offensive tactics of the PA and during that time built up contacts and more importantly evidence of co-operation. Which is why regardless of court orders and what not, there is no way the current leadership of the PA will every let HS(or for that matter Musharraf) be caught since he would open a pandora's box of finger pointing. So keeping him out of trouble is a Hobson's choice for those whose career is interspersed with working with him(and others) to gain tactical and strategic advantages.

As for the resolution, If I am to construe it right.. the actual insurgency and problem in the Kashmir area is confined to the section that is formed if you draw a line from Siachen to the entrance of the Chenab in Pakistan; and essentially that is actual area of interest to Pakistan since that outlines the water supply to the majority of Pakistan's rivers and canal systems. If this issue does get internationalized and even gets to the point of a referendum.. then based on population and demographics it will still come out in favor of India since the demographics of Kashmir have changed since then(apart from the fact that the Indian state will try to coerce votes in their favor). Hence, all that might happen is that there would be strict recommendations to improve governance and uplift of the local population in that area. The rest of Kashmir would favorably respond and there would be little to worry about from there.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

.............
As for the resolution, If I am to construe it right.. the actual insurgency and problem in the Kashmir area is confined to the section that is formed if you draw a line from Siachen to the entrance of the Chenab in Pakistan; and essentially that is actual area of interest to Pakistan since that outlines the water supply to the majority of Pakistan's rivers and canal systems. If this issue does get internationalized and even gets to the point of a referendum.. then based on population and demographics it will still come out in favor of India since the demographics of Kashmir have changed since then(apart from the fact that the Indian state will try to coerce votes in their favor). Hence, all that might happen is that there would be strict recommendations to improve governance and uplift of the local population in that area. The rest of Kashmir would favorably respond and there would be little to worry about from there.

As long as the Simla Agreement is valid, there is ZERO percent chance of the Kashmir issue being internationalized or even a third party mediator, let alone a referendum. So the rest of the your proposed resolution is simply impossible unless we abrogate the Simla Agreement.

 

[Jango]

Quick folks, watch Z news. Absolute comedy!!!

Jab T-90 tank kay laser guided missile pakistan par lock kar dain gay, to Pakistanion kay paas baghnay kay ilawa koi chara na hoga!