India Supporting Taliban-US Intel Official

[Flintlock]

"Ripe for picking by the west".

That ain't happening. India is doing a balancing act, and will continue to do that until it has more influence.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That ain't happening. India is doing a balancing act, and will continue to do that until it has more influence.

That balancing act will go against the West for sure were the West to directly confront India over its complicity in terrorism.

There is a balancing act occurring on all sides here - India trying to balance its support for terrorism in Pakistan against Western economic and strategic interests in India. The US trying to balance pressure on Pakistan and India against both economic and strategic interests (vis a vis China and Iran) and Pakistan trying to balance its interests against a very real Indian threat on both Eastern and Western fronts.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2:

One more study quoting 'anonymous US intelligence Officials' as supporting the argument that India is supporting Taliban militants in Pakistan:

"A major new study, The Defense & Foreign Affairs Handbook on Pakistan, has reported that Indian security services, working with Afghan Government intelligence officials, are providing arms, intelligence, training, and other support to jihadist fighters to destabilize Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Pakistani tribal areas.

The 260pp study also cited US intelligence sources as confirming the Indian and Afghan Government actions, but said that the US was taking no steps to stop the destabilization of Pakistan, despite the fact that Pakistani cooperation with the international peacekeeping operations is critical to the success of the war to halt the Taliban in Afghanistan, and despite the fact that Pakistan — which is currently now a net importer of food — is providing massive food aid to Afghanistan.

The study, authored by ISSA President Gregory R. Copley and Purvis A. Hussain, provides the most significant depth of detail ever published on the political, military, and intelligence situation prevailing in Pakistan. The book, which has extensive current listings of key Pakistani defense personnel, cabinet officials, Foreign Ministry officials, and the like, as well as the first listings published of the Pakistani defense industrial sector, was scheduled to be launched at the Fifth International Defence Exhibition, in Karachi, on November 25, 2008. The book also has the most detailed order of battle data yet published on Pakistan, as well as significant chapters on the economy, the tribal areas, the regional situation, and much more."

STRATEGICSTUDIES.ORG

 

[afriend]

uhuh - and how many Pakistani soldiers and civilians have been killed by the Taliban? How many suicide bombings targeted ISI employees in 2007?

I dare say there is a stronger case, using your logic, against Pakistan supporting the Taliban, then there is against India doing so.

Well you are absolutely right, that there is a stronger case against Pakistan supporting the taliban. But you can also not deny historically Pakistan have supported jihadists groups, against Soviet union and india(well ofcourse not they are not taliban but freedom fighters as you say). After all the these changed after 9/11 and more importantly from the preassure of the American arm twisting, which have resorted the talibani's to retaliate against much softer target pakistan. As USA was using PAK to erradicate taliban they once supported which obvoiusly pakistan have failed miserably(with recent imposing of sharia law in swat).

However if you look at india, india have never ever directly confronted the taliban, we have no forces in Iraq and afghanistan, yet Taliban have issued open threats to india, and have beheaded indian people working for the RECONSTRUCTION of afghanistan. You may also recall the kabul indian embassy bombing.

So your article completely defys logic and your argument is just a statement iwthout considering the circumstances that has led taliban turning against pak, and only can be taken as a mere speculation to counter alleged propoganda by india. A tit for tat without a base.

However i am not sure about india supporting BLA issue, but i think even if we do its justfied as you have been openely supporting the Freedom fighters in Kashmir U know a tit for tat. Giving it back with the same coin..!!!

 

[Halaku Khan]

Milt Bearden:

But you know, I'd like to throw out something for our group here is,
India. What is India up into -- up to in Afghanistan? What are its goals?

Building roads, power lines, supporting child nutrition, and generally helping the democratically elected government of Afghanistan.

And do we understand the effect on Pakistan, the government of Pakistan,
the army of Pakistan, of the Indians doing anything in Afghanistan? I
think it's a huge issue. I think Holbrooke will have to look at it and
understand it.

Obviously some Pakistanis will be furious about being denied the opportunity to colonize Afghanistan through Taliban proxies. Pakistani colonial aggression against the Afghans through Taliban proxies is illegitimate irrespective of whatever real or imagined grievances they may have vis-a-vis India.

And Karzai is considered by most Pakistanis as a man of
India.

If the Afghans democratically elect somebody other than Karzai, India will support them too, if they want India's support.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^ yes yes - the same old tired canard of 'conspiracy theories', when no factual rebuttals can be conjured up'.

As I told Energon, unless the CIA officials statement is retracted or discredited, I see no reason to doubt the assertion - it fits in with a variety of other information from a variety of other sources.

So, explain to the "CIA officials'' why they are 'conspiracy nuts".

I am going by the facts presented in these articles, not merely spouting rhetoric about conspiracies like you.

 

[Flintlock]

That balancing act will go against the West for sure were the West to directly confront India over its complicity in terrorism. There is a balancing act occurring on all sides here - India trying to balance its support for terrorism in Pakistan against Western economic interests in India. The US trying to balance pressure on Pakistan and India against both economic and strategic interests (vis a vis China and Iran) and Pakistan trying to balance its interests against a very real Indian threat on both Eastern and Western fronts.

So how does all of this support your "ripe for picking" remark?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So how does all of this support your "ripe for picking" remark?

What does 'ripe for the picking' mean to you?

In the context I used it in, it means that most Indian contracts will go to the West, especially after how badly the Russian have burned India over the AC Carrier, Nuke Subs, etc.

Economically the Russians have nothing to offer even close to what the West can. Hence, if the West does not alienate India, she is ripe for the picking.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

However i am not sure about india supporting BLA issue, but i think even if we do its justfied as you have been openely supporting the Freedom fighters in Kashmir U know a tit for tat. Giving it back with the same coin..!!!

Kashmir is internationally recognized disputed territory, Baluchistan is not. In Kashmir India unilaterally walked away from international agreements to resolve the issue, thereby eliminating the means for diplomatic resolution of the dispute.

There is no comparison between the two issues, and leave it off this thread please.

The rest of your comments about India and the Taliban have been answered already in various posts, go back and read through them.

 

[Flintlock]

What does 'ripe for the picking' mean to you?

In the context I used it in it mean that most Indian contracts will go to the West, especially after how badly the Russian have burned India over the AC Carrier, Nuke Subs, etc.

Economically the Russians have nothing to offer even close to what the West can. Hence, if the West does not alienate India, she is ripe for the picking.

I took it as India ditching Russia to to become a US Allied state.

 

[roadrunner]

Good finds AM. Credible references, I would say.

 

[Awesome]

If this were true, Richard Holbrooke and his entire entourage would be raising hell in India right now; and it would be the NATO forces bombing Indian embassies in Afghanistan. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Do you honestly think US and NATO would let India get away with supporting the Taliban when we've have been taking such high casualties of late? This matter would be plastered over every major news media network in the West and would be the focal point of all discussions with India; furthermore all defense deals with India would be threatened and/or severed instantaneously. Every American policy group and think tank worth its salt would be investigating this topic in earnest and publishing their results; but none of this seems to be the case either; all we have is a post on a glorified blog with irritating graphics and pop up ads claiming to expose the "myth of Israel."

Things take some time to change... Americans will play nice for the time being.

 

[S-2]

BLA-

BLA Profile- START DHS/Univ. of Maryland

This is a DHS website that will clarify our current views. It will also indicate those of Great Britain, Australia, Canada, the EU and Russia WRT the BLA. I'm not sure our views are that out of line with those of others.

I think Bearden's comments here are general in nature but illustrate that ANY Indian activity in Afghanistan would be unacceptable given an "anxious" Pakistani climate. I found, therefore, Halaku Khan's response very appropriate-

"Building roads, power lines, supporting child nutrition, and generally helping the democratically elected government of Afghanistan."

That's the dominant Indian message with Afghanistan and entirely legitimate/necessary. By itself, it can't be seen as a geo-political threat of any importance as it only visibly manifests Indian altruism. Their self-interests seem fully transparent- to gain access to CAR, Russian, and European markets and energy and to do so from a favored diplomatic posture with Afghanistan. They appear to be succeeding famously.

Seems that portion is how the game should be played, wouldn't you agree?

Pakistan could do with a more visible presence in Afghanistan as well. My understanding is that your President and Karzai get along quite well as compared to, say, Musharraf. It needs exploitation.

There's a lot of back n' forth here but nothing's changed my essential views that Pakistan now suffers from a long and continuing history embracing proxy warfare.

You may have a problem between Mehsud and the Afghan Nat'l Directorate of Intelligence. I don't know but wouldn't be the least surprised. So too with India- but not from Afghanistan. Too difficult and too many prying eyes when it's otherwise too easy to move money and expertise by other means and through other routes.

 

[Awesome]

BLA-

BLA Profile- START DHS/Univ. of Maryland

This is a DHS website that will clarify our current views. It will also indicate those of Great Britain, Australia, Canada, the EU and Russia WRT the BLA. I'm not sure our views are that out of line with those of others.

I think Bearden's comments here are general in nature but illustrate that ANY Indian activity in Afghanistan would be unacceptable given an "anxious" Pakistani climate. I found, therefore, Halaku Khan's response very appropriate-

"Building roads, power lines, supporting child nutrition, and generally helping the democratically elected government of Afghanistan."

That's the dominant Indian message with Afghanistan and entirely legitimate/necessary. By itself, it can't be seen as a geo-political threat of any importance as it only visibly manifests Indian altruism. Their self-interests seem fully transparent- to gain access to CAR, Russian, and European markets and energy and to do so from a favored diplomatic posture with Afghanistan. They appear to be succeeding famously.

Seems that portion is how the game should be played, wouldn't you agree?

Pakistan could do with a more visible presence in Afghanistan as well. My understanding is that your President and Karzai get along quite well as compared to, say, Musharraf. It needs exploitation.

There's a lot of back n' forth here but nothing's changed my essential views that Pakistan now suffers from a long and continuing history embracing proxy warfare.

You may have a problem between Mehsud and the Afghan Nat'l Directorate of Intelligence. I don't know but wouldn't be the least surprised. So too with India- but not from Afghanistan. Too difficult and too many prying eyes when it's otherwise too easy to move money and expertise by other means and through other routes.

Definition of Naivety: Why is India in Afghanistan? For trade purposes...

 

[Flintlock]

^India is in Afghanistan to win over the Afghan government and people, and to create an ally. Pakistan obviously does not want this. Nothing "naive" or "innocent" about it.