Haqqani network also target of N Waziristan operation: ISPR

[Rank]

Mark my words "Hathi Kay Dant kahnae Ka aur dikanae Kae aur" no one touch their assets ...

 

[foxbat]

lolz, Indians love to conjure up conspiracy theories, don't they. Easy on the SaaS and bahu soap operas and ndtv reporting, guy. it can make one very delusional, like in your case.

Well, Pakistanis can very well make 9/11 a CIA op and 26/11 a RAW op and hum karen to saala character dheela hai ?

 

[foxbat]

It would be "folly" only if the "contrasting views" were not purely speculative, as are yours when you claim that "the $900 million US funds and potential MI-35 deal are behind the Pakistani decision to conduct a military operation in NW".

Not at all. I claimed no such thing. What I did insinuate was that the decision to go after Haqquani and the aid/help/hardware Pakistan is getting are linked and in my view they certainly are. Prove it otherwise .

In fact, you sort of agree with the point I made earlier, that the Pakistani government and military establishment had decided several years ago (certainly by the time Kayani took over the COAS position, and probably even earlier) that a Taliban controlled Afghanistan was not in Pakistan's interests. Where we disagree is that the "change in policy" was brought about by US "sticks and carrots". If nothing else, the one thing multiple high level US officials and commentators have agreed on is that neither sticks nor carrots have worked to shift Pakistani policy making on issues that Pakistan regards as vital to her national security interests - whether the nuclear program or the refusal to go after the groups in NW without broad political consensus and national support.

Yet, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you continue to argue that "US sticks and carrots influenced Pakistani policy making" - therefore your comments (and similar comments from parts of the Indian intelligentsia) are correctly described as "shallow and puerile".

Things are never just black or white. You and I (certainly I ) cant claim to know the driving factors in the minds of the likes of Kayani, NS etc when these decisions are made. Most of the driving factors are not mutually exclusive anyway. And more often than not, even if sticks and carrots work (and they do), the narrative / commentary is created to show that they didnt and the actions were driven by national interests. After all an establishment that has lost face by falling prey to sticks and carrot approach is pretty much useless to America. And this was seen when Musharraf was denied that face save after the large stick of the infamous "bomb you to stone ages" call. And that stick did shape the Pakistani policy for over a decade after that. Didn't it?

To the contrary, I have clearly "demonstrated" how your comments are "demonstrably false" - your entire premise is based on speculation and conspiracy theories of some sort of "secret pact/arrangement" over the past few years in which the US dictated Pakistani policy making.

You have done no such thing sir, except claiming that you have done it.

You have offered no evidence to support this alleged chain of events,

There is never any evidence of such arrangements. Just like there is none for the tacit understanding between USA and Pakistan (as claimed by a lot of Pakistanis) over continuous violation of Pakistani sovereignty by USA thru the use of drones and attacks on the Pakistani population on Pakistani soil. Not sure if that is a carrot or a stick.

and in fact, as I have pointed out in the my last few responses to you, the overwhelming evidence available publicly points to the opposite of what you claim - that US officials were openly frustrated by the Pakistani refusal to follow US diktat irregardless of the US "sticks and carrots" employed as leverage.

Refer to my earlier comment on the concept of providing a face save. A mistake they made by not providing the same to Musharraf and wizened up post that

"Went around town" - yet more unsubstantiated and exaggerated commentary -

Just a figure of speech mate..Relax.

I dissected your demonstrably flawed commentary on the rationale behind the recent Pakistani offensive in NW, and linked the underlying factors behind said "shallow and puerile analysis" to a broader affliction the Indian intelligentsia suffers from when it comes to analyzing Pakistan and Pakistanis.

Again, you did nothing of that sort except claiming that you did with a pat on your own back and using a consistent phrase to generalize my comments to cover the whole of Indian population, an approach for which using the word lame seems like a compliment.

 

[Side-Winder]

Zaid Hamid claims this is just a political statement by ISPR to fool the americans

 

[Zarvan]

The Pakistan army for the first time announced that the Haqqani network in North Waziristan is also a target of the current military operation.

"For the military, there will be no discrimination among Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) groups or Haqqani network, all terror groups are going to be eliminated," DG ISPR Major General Asim Bajwa told a briefing at GHQ.

He said so far 327 terrorists and 10 security personnel have been killed.

The DG ISPR confirmed the presence of a large number of Uzbeks and other foreign militants in North Waziristan, saying that they will all be wiped out.

"The Pakistan Army has requested the Afghan military to take action against terrorist hideouts in Kunar and Nooristan, but so far there has been no action taken," General Bajwa said.

The chief military spokesman said it is solely a Pakistan Army operation and not a joint Pak-US military offensive, adding that Pakistani security forces are capable of doing such an operation.

"North Waziristan has become a hub of terror and suicide attacks in the country because planning of such attacks was taking place here," Bajwa remarked.

He dispelled the impression that the operation was launched without political approval and said, "The operation was launched after a decision was made at the political level."

On Wednesday Prime Minister’s Adviser on National Security and Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz said security forces were conducting the operation against militants without discrimination.

Haqqani network also target of N Waziristan operation: ISPR - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Yes Yes off course Haqqani network target of operation when it already has left NW few months ago for GOD Sake who they are trying to fool here

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not at all. I claimed no such thing. What I did insinuate was that the decision to go after Haqquani and the aid/help/hardware Pakistan is getting are linked and in my view they certainly are. Prove it otherwise .

No, the onus is on the individual making the claim (in this case you making the claim that the decision to go after Haqqani is linked with the aid and hardware Pakistan is receiving from the US and Russia respectively). My previous posts have pointed out multiple instance of US officials expressing public and private frustration with the US inability to influence Pakistani decision making with respect to North Waziristan - you have offered nothing but speculation. So, again, the onus is on you to prove your claim, failing which your analysis is, as pointed out already, shallow and puerile.

Things are never just black or white. You and I (certainly I ) cant claim to know the driving factors in the minds of the likes of Kayani, NS etc when these decisions are made. Most of the driving factors are not mutually exclusive anyway. And more often than not, even if sticks and carrots work (and they do), the narrative / commentary is created to show that they didnt and the actions were driven by national interests. After all an establishment that has lost face by falling prey to sticks and carrot approach is pretty much useless to America. And this was seen when Musharraf was denied that face save after the large stick of the infamous "bomb you to stone ages" call. And that stick did shape the Pakistani policy for over a decade after that. Didn't it?

The world may not function in black and white, but that does not mean that explanations lacking any evidence be concocted out of thin air. You need to justify and prove your claims.

You have done no such thing sir, except claiming that you have done it.

I have shown your claims to be demonstrably flawed, by pointing out the statements of US officials expressing frustration with the inability of the US to influence Pakistani policy in NW, as well as by pointing out the complete lack of any evidence supporting your claims.

There is never any evidence of such arrangements.

Then the arrangement does not exist.

Just like there is none for the tacit understanding between USA and Pakistan (as claimed by a lot of Pakistanis) over continuous violation of Pakistani sovereignty by USA thru the use of drones and attacks on the Pakistani population on Pakistani soil. Not sure if that is a carrot or a stick.

The issue of a "secret agreement between the US and Pakistan on US drone strikes" is different from the claim you are making in that while that alleged agreement/understanding has no evidence supporting it, there are a variety of sources (American and Pakistani government) claiming that such an agreement/understanding exists. With the Pakistani operation in NW, even these 'rumors' and 'private claims by officials' don't exist.

Again, you did nothing of that sort except claiming that you did with a pat on your own back and using a consistent phrase to generalize my comments to cover the whole of Indian population, an approach for which using the word lame seems like a compliment.

I am not 'generalizing to cove the whole of the Indian population', I am referring to a specific section of the Indian intelligentsia, that is simply incapable of thinking beyond the confines of the aforementioned 'shallow and puerile understanding of Pakistan.

 

[foxbat]

No, the onus is on the individual making the claim (in this case you making the claim that the decision to go after Haqqani is linked with the aid and hardware Pakistan is receiving from the US and Russia respectively).

Nope. I have shared my opinion that you are trying to disprove. Go for it. !!!

My previous posts have pointed out multiple instance of US officials expressing public and private frustration with the US inability to influence Pakistani decision making with respect to North Waziristan - you have offered nothing but speculation. So, again, the onus is on you to prove your claim, failing which your analysis is, as pointed out already, shallow and puerile.

You got to start getting some variety in your terminology mate. Sounding like a broken record now. Multiple instances of US officials expressing frustration on Pakistan's refusal to act against terrorists is equally matched by US officials praising Pakistan for its support in WoT (this is parroted quite well on this forum as well). If US officials' words are good enough for you as a proof, its should work for the contrary as well. No ? or is that puerile as well ?

The world may not function in black and white, but that does not mean that explanations lacking any evidence be concocted out of thin air. You need to justify and prove your claims.

Again, you have the cart before the horse. You are the one trying to dispel my opinion. Put up a convincing argument and I promise I will consider it (even if it goes against what I believe)

I have shown your claims to be demonstrably flawed, by pointing out the statements of US officials expressing frustration with the inability of the US to influence Pakistani policy in NW, as well as by pointing out the complete lack of any evidence supporting your claims.

As I said before. You are just convincing your self that you have demonstrated something where you have not. Pat on one's own back only goes so far. Words of US officials are equally matched by contrasting words of the US officials praising Pakistan for towing the US objectives in WoT. And also, its not really new. Its the old US-USSR tango of 1980's all over again, where Pakistan sacrificed its own national interests to please USA.

Then the arrangement does not exist.

Prove it. Else dont try to convince me .

The issue of a "secret agreement between the US and Pakistan on US drone strikes" is different from the claim you are making in that while that alleged agreement/understanding has no evidence supporting it, there are a variety of sources (American and Pakistani government) claiming that such an agreement/understanding exists. With the Pakistani operation in NW, even these 'rumors' and 'private claims by officials' don't exist.

Well, the sources about a clandestine arrangement between Pak and USA allowing USA to bomb Pakistani civilians on Pakistani soil emerged many weeks/months after the drone strikes began. The operation in NWA is just 2 weeks old. Truth will come out here as well...

I am not 'generalizing to cove the whole of the Indian population', I am referring to a specific section of the Indian intelligentsia, that is simply incapable of thinking beyond the confines of the aforementioned 'shallow and puerile understanding of Pakistan.

Ok. Though you did mention the whole of Indian intelligentsia and not a section of it when you termed them as Puerile and shallow, but I will accept your clarification in that regard on its face value.

 

[nik141991]

Zaid Hamid claims this is just a political statement by ISPR to fool the americans

at least for first time he is not lying

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nope. I have shared my opinion that you are trying to disprove. Go for it. !!!

Your demand for me to "disprove your claim" is considered a logical fallacy - one cannot prove a negative i.e if you claim that 'something happened' then the onus is on you to prove that "something happened" - one cannot prove a "negative" since, by definition, an item or event that does not exist cannot have irrefutable 'evidence' to prove that it does not exist. So, since you have made claims regarding the existence of some covert or overt understanding between the US, Russia and Pakistan regarding quid pro quo's on conducting an operation in NW, the entire burden of proof is on you.

You got to start getting some variety in your terminology mate. Sounding like a broken record now. Multiple instances of US officials expressing frustration on Pakistan's refusal to act against terrorists is equally matched by US officials praising Pakistan for its support in WoT (this is parroted quite well on this forum as well). If US officials' words are good enough for you as a proof, its should work for the contrary as well. No ? or is that puerile as well ?

The argument remains the same as in the previous posts, as does my point, which you disingenuously continue to ignore, so there is no need to "add variety to the terminology used". Evidence of public and private expressions of frustration by US officials regarding their inability to influence Pakistani policies in NW is aplenty - evidence supporting your claim of some 'overt or covert' US, Russian and Pakistani understanding over military ops in NW is zero, zilch, nothing - therefore, unless you can provide evidence supporting your claims, your allegation is unsubstantiated.

Again, you have the cart before the horse. You are the one trying to dispel my opinion. Put up a convincing argument and I promise I will consider it (even if it goes against what I believe)

No, it is you who have displayed a remarkable ignorance of the laws governing debate - the onus is on the individual making the claim that "X event happened" to PROVE that "X event happened". My responsibility in this case is to dissect whatever evidence you provide to establish the lack of credibility of your claim, but since you have provided no evidence, I have nothing to dissect and your claim/allegations are in essence nothing more than speculation/fabrications

As I said before. You are just convincing your self that you have demonstrated something where you have not.

You have provided no evidence and continue to refuse to provide evidence supporting your claims, choosing instead to display an ignorance of the rules of debate in demanding that the opposing side "prove a negative". That alone is enough to "demonstrate" how "demonstrably puerile, shallow and fundamentally flawed" your arguments in this particular case, and your approach to debating in general, are.

Pat on one's own back only goes so far. Words of US officials are equally matched by contrasting words of the US officials praising Pakistan for towing the US objectives in WoT. And also, its not really new. Its the old US-USSR tango of 1980's all over again, where Pakistan sacrificed its own national interests to please USA.

The WoT is not a single linear event - it is a complex, multi-dimensional issue, with multiple parties having multiple interests (sometimes conflating and other times competing) involved. We are looking at one specific aspect of the WoT in this thread - the issue of the Pakistani military operation in NW, and what the US and Pakistan may or may not have collaborated upon elsewhere in the WoT does not automatically have any bearing on this particular issue.

Prove it. Else dont try to convince me .

I have in fact proven my side (public and private comments of US officials regarding the inability to influence Pakistani policy in NW) despite the fact that I am under no obligation to do so under the rules of debate. It is you who has to prove your claim, or go back to school to learn the basics of debate.

Well, the sources about a clandestine arrangement between Pak and USA allowing USA to bomb Pakistani civilians on Pakistani soil emerged many weeks/months after the drone strikes began. The operation in NWA is just 2 weeks old. Truth will come out here as well...

Thank you - you essentially admitted that there is no proof to support your claims. Until "the truth comes out", as you claim, your allegations are speculation and fabrications.

 

[foxbat]

Your demand for me to "disprove your claim" is considered a logical fallacy - one cannot prove a negative i.e if you claim that 'something happened' then the onus is on you to prove that "something happened" - one cannot prove a "negative" since, by definition, an item or event that does not exist cannot have irrefutable 'evidence' to prove that it does not exist. So, since you have made claims regarding the existence of some covert or overt understanding between the US, Russia and Pakistan regarding quid pro quo's on conducting an operation in NW, the entire burden of proof is on you.

Its not. And there in lies the difference between claiming a happening and voicing an opinion. If I claim something happened, I need to prove it because I want others to believe it. However, if I share an opinion, and you jump in to say that my opinion is misguided, then you need to prove that since its you who wants to challenge my opinion. And you do need to learn the difference between a claim and an opinion. The first one needs defending, the second one does not. Back to school ? Anyone ?

The argument remains the same as in the previous posts, as does my point, which you disingenuously continue to ignore, so there is no need to "add variety to the terminology used". Evidence of public and private expressions of frustration by US officials regarding their inability to influence Pakistani policies in NW is aplenty - evidence supporting your claim of some 'overt or covert' US, Russian and Pakistani understanding over military ops in NW is zero, zilch, nothing - therefore, unless you can provide evidence supporting your claims, your allegation is unsubstantiated.

Well, disingenuous ignoring then seems to be rampant on both side. Or did you miss out totally on the public and private praising from the similar US officials about Pakistani sacrifices (probably of national interests too) in the WoT? Refer again to the commentary on the difference between Claim and opinion for the rest of your paragraph.

No, it is you who have displayed a remarkable ignorance of the laws governing debate - the onus is on the individual making the claim that "X event happened" to PROVE that "X event happened". My responsibility in this case is to dissect whatever evidence you provide to establish the lack of credibility of your claim, but since you have provided no evidence, I have nothing to dissect and your claim/allegations are in essence nothing more than speculation/fabrications

Frankly, now you are sounding beyond puerile (as you so nicely put it) and bordering on ridiculous. I am not claiming any event at all. Simply postulating a hypotheses that seems to be explaining the Pakistani behavior in NWA. Its you who is claiming the hypotheses to be null, and hence you need to prove it. From where I stand, its you who is displaying a remarkable ignorance of the laws governing the usage of hypothesis.

You have provided no evidence and continue to refuse to provide evidence supporting your claims, choosing instead to display an ignorance of the rules of debate in demanding that the opposing side "prove a negative". That alone is enough to "demonstrate" how "demonstrably puerile, shallow and fundamentally flawed" your arguments in this particular case, and your approach to debating in general, are.

Actually what that demonstrates is that you have no understanding of how hypothesis work. You engaged in challenging an hypothesis and hence its upto you to prove it wrong. There is no empirical event whose existence is being claimed here, but simply a hypothesis explaining a series of such events and the logic behind them. For example
1. USA asks Pakistan to do an operation in NWA against Haqquanis
2. Pakistan refuse
3. USA frets and fumes
4. Pakistani public totally against that operation
5. Sudden increase in terror activities within Pakistan
6. Most of those activities point towards terrorists based out of NWA
7. Spate of aid and platitudes from USA in public domain for Pakistan
8. Pakistan announces operation against TTP in NWA
9. ISPR makes a statement that the operation will target Haqquanis as well

Now if a hypothesis conforms to this list of events, its a valid hypothesis. You think its not, prove it. Now if I would have said anywhere that this hypothesis is the absolute truth, then surely its was upto me to prove it as such. But currently its you who is CLAIMING that the hypothesis does not fit. So guess who needs to put his evidence where his mouth it ?

The WoT is not a single linear event - it is a complex, multi-dimensional issue, with multiple parties having multiple interests (sometimes conflating and other times competing) involved. We are looking at one specific aspect of the WoT in this thread - the issue of the Pakistani military operation in NW, and what the US and Pakistan may or may not have collaborated upon elsewhere in the WoT does not automatically have any bearing on this particular issue.

Your hypothesis could have worked if the NWA operation was not an integral part of the WoT. As a matter of fact, the operation in NWA was one of the biggest asks of the USA from Pakistan over last few years in WoT. Hence in my view, Pakistan and USA's arrangements in the WoT do specify a distinct trend which the current NWA operation seems to be following.

I have in fact proven my side (public and private comments of US officials regarding the inability to influence Pakistani policy in NW) despite the fact that I am under no obligation to do so under the rules of debate. It is you who has to prove your claim, or go back to school to learn the basics of debate.

Nope! You have not..Where is the proof that those statements were not planted to save Paksitani govt and military from the ire of Pakistani religious extremists and public. ?

And as I said before, do try to learn the difference between a debate and disproving a hypothesis.

Thank you - you essentially admitted that there is no proof to support your claims. Until "the truth comes out", as you claim, your allegations are speculation and fabrications.

Nope again. There are no claims as I explained, nor there is any admission of lack of proof. Only a hypothesis that explains the sequence of events as seen in the prelude to this operation. And simply highlighting the previous deception of Pakistani state with its citizens(about drones) and how the same trend is expected to be followed here (NWA operation)

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Its not. And there in lies the difference between claiming a happening and voicing an opinion. If I claim something happened, I need to prove it because I want others to believe it. However, if I share an opinion, and you jump in to say that my opinion is misguided, then you need to prove that since its you who wants to challenge my opinion. And you do need to learn the difference between a claim and an opinion. The first one needs defending, the second one does not. Back to school ? Anyone ?

An "opinion", if you intend for it to be taken for more than mere "gossip", needs to be substantiated. So, if you are now stating that your "opinion" is nothing more than speculation and/or gossip, then by all means, you have no need to justify it. That said, I have disproved your "opinion" already - see my comments in previous posts regarding the public and private statements of Western government and military officials expressing frustration at their inability to influence Pakistani policy in NW. It is now your turn to offer "evidence" and "prove" your speculative and puerile allegations, unless of course, as mentioned above, you agree with me that your "opinion" should count for nothing more than "gossip and unsubstantiated speculation".

Well, disingenuous ignoring then seems to be rampant on both side. Or did you miss out totally on the public and private praising from the similar US officials about Pakistani sacrifices (probably of national interests too) in the WoT? Refer again to the commentary on the difference between Claim and opinion for the rest of your paragraph.

What is wrong with US officials praising and recognizing Pakistani sacrifices in the WoT in areas outside of NW, and what bearing do those statements by US officials have on other statements by the same set of officials expressing frustration with their inability to influence Pakistani policy in NW? The fact that they praised Pakistani military ops and sacrifices elsewhere in FATA, while expressing frustration with being unable to influence Pakistani policy in NW only highlights the fact that Pakistani decision making WRT military operations in FATA is independent of US "sticks and carrots".

Frankly, now you are sounding beyond puerile (as you so nicely put it) and bordering on ridiculous. I am not claiming any event at all. Simply postulating a hypotheses that seems to be explaining the Pakistani behavior in NWA. Its you who is claiming the hypotheses to be null, and hence you need to prove it. From where I stand, its you who is displaying a remarkable ignorance of the laws governing the usage of hypothesis.

As mentioned above, if you now agree that your "opinion" is unsubstantiated and lacks any credible evidence to support it, then we can treat it as "gossip and speculation" and you have no need to justify/prove it.

Actually what that demonstrates is that you have no understanding of how hypothesis work. You engaged in challenging an hypothesis and hence its upto you to prove it wrong. There is no empirical event whose existence is being claimed here, but simply a hypothesis explaining a series of such events and the logic behind them.

If there is no empirical evidence supporting your hypothesis, then it is not a scientific hypothesis, and therefore unsubstantiated and little more than "gossip".

For example
1. USA asks Pakistan to do an operation in NWA against Haqquanis
2. Pakistan refuse
3. USA frets and fumes
4. Pakistani public totally against that operation
5. Sudden increase in terror activities within Pakistan
6. Most of those activities point towards terrorists based out of NWA
7. Spate of aid and platitudes from USA in public domain for Pakistan
8. Pakistan announces operation against TTP in NWA
9. ISPR makes a statement that the operation will target Haqquanis as well

Now if a hypothesis conforms to this list of events, its a valid hypothesis. You think its not, prove it. Now if I would have said anywhere that this hypothesis is the absolute truth, then surely its was upto me to prove it as such. But currently its you who is CLAIMING that the hypothesis does not fit. So guess who needs to put his evidence where his mouth it ?

Your hypotheis does not conform to this list of events - as you pointed out in your second point, Pakistan refused to carry out an operation in NW despite US demands. A study of events around that time shows the US use of both sticks and carrots to convince Pakistan to agree to the US demand, which failed. You also point out the lack of national public and political support for a military operation in NW at that time. What the empirical evidence in your own model shows is that Pakistani policy making (with respect to military operations in FATA) was not influence by US threats/promises of aid, but by local Pakistani political dynamics. Your own model debunks your hypothesis.

Your hypothesis could have worked if the NWA operation was not an integral part of the WoT. As a matter of fact, the operation in NWA was one of the biggest asks of the USA from Pakistan over last few years in WoT. Hence in my view, Pakistan and USA's arrangements in the WoT do specify a distinct trend which the current NWA operation seems to be following.

My comment was not a hypothesis - it was a statement of fact with respect to the WoT in Pakistan. And your hypothesis linking US aid with a military operation has been debunked above (as well as in the preceding posts), with no response from your end.

Nope! You have not..Where is the proof that those statements were not planted to save Paksitani govt and military from the ire of Pakistani religious extremists and public. ?

Where is the proof that India is not supporting TTP and Baloch terrorists in Pakistan, as alleged by Pakistan? This is the kind of debate your line of thinking is encouraging. Your question above is yet another example of a logical fallacy

Nope again. There are no claims as I explained, nor there is any admission of lack of proof. Only a hypothesis that explains the sequence of events as seen in the prelude to this operation. And simply highlighting the previous deception of Pakistani state with its citizens(about drones) and how the same trend is expected to be followed here (NWA operation)

You admitted in the previous post that no evidence existed to support your claims/opinion/hypothesis that the Pakistani military operation in NW was as result of the US providing aid - in addition, you admitted again in your most recent post that your "hypothesis had no empirical evidence supporting it", which reduces your "opinion/claim/hypothesis" to nothing more than unsubstantiated rubbish/speculation/gossip. On the other hand, I have provided evidence debunking your hypothesis (public and private statements by US officials expressing frustration over their inability to influence Pakistani decision making in NW). Your hypothesis stands debunked and your disingenuous arguments exposed.