What's new

India will be forced to Kashmir just like US in Afghanistan: Hafiz Saeed

Well, 63000 terrorism related deaths in India with over 1 billion population in last 20 years
India Fatalities :: South Asia Terrorism portal

50,000 terrorism related deaths in Pakistan with under 200 million population in last 10 years..

Fatalities in Terrorist Violence in Pakistan 2003-2014

Looks like policy to sponsoring terrorism has turned out to be a self goal for Pakistan...

Dear Mr. Senior troll @karan.1970

I hope you will find this post in good health, I am pleased to know your deep concerns as a good neighbour about the 23K+ Shadats embrace by our fellow citizens in last 10 years in 'War Against Terrorism', I respect your gratitude in this regards.

However, in your post you seems to suggest that India has some how 'effectively address' the issue in last 20 years, by this stance of yours I believe you tried to point the effective ways which India has 'invented' as 'Master' & 'Introducer of 'this art' in subcontinent.

I would really appreciate if you can share some 'success stories' here, however your post is having some contradictions in it which I hope you would clarify to make it more understandable for some madrasa educated person like me ...... some are highlighted as under.

1- By your post it looks like India is maintaining 1 Billion population from last twenty years, official Indian figures and World bank Figures differ in this context

2- The link you provided by 'Indian source' clearly indicates 'Data Till 2004 does not include Fatalities in Left-wing Extremism'

3- Which raise a secondary question have India develop some bases to differentiate b/w different form of terrorism, If yes what are those bases ... ??

4- How authentic that data could be ?? as data related to Pakistan is shown from 2003 onward, and we all know that evil of terrorism spread its roots in Pakistan from 2006.
India-Pakistan1996-2006.jpg


5- Even if do not question the authenticity of your source, the effectiveness of Indian security apparatus come '?' as it shows for the period of 2003-2014 Indian forces successfully neutralized 11,812 terrorist on the other hand Pakistani security apparatus manage to neutralize 26,870 terrorists.

6- You tried to implied Pakistan as a source of terrorism, ignoring the fact that 67% declared terrorist organization of India are home grown and have no connections with Pakistan, Kindly visit National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affair, India website.

7- International & Indian sources suggest more than 80% of fatalities are the contributed by Indian home grown organizations.
Hope you wold reply soon..... :angel:

Regards,
HRK

.......... :cheesy:
 
USA vacating Afghanistan because of money not because of force :cheesy: Taliban is just a lame duck infront of USA.
 
Pakistan to Sambhalta nahin, India chalayenge .. :rofl:

Abe ********** Tera Adha Desh To Naxal Ke Hathon Me Hai Aur Tu Pakistan Ke Sanbhalne Ke Taaane Deta Hai

USA vacating Afghanistan because of money not because of force :cheesy: Taliban is just a lame duck infront of USA.


The Impending Afghan Defeat
July 11, 2013
Frustrated over negotiations for a stay-behind force of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, President Obama is now weighing the possibility of a faster withdrawal and a “zero option” on troops going forward. That may signal the belated recognition of twin American defeats in the Afghan and Iraq wars, says Beverly Bandler.


By Beverly Bandler

Americans hate the word “defeat” but that is what we face in Afghanistan. After nearly 12 years, the longest war in U.S. history is winding down with an almost inconceivably staggering cost in blood, treasure and what economists call opportunity cost — the value of the best alternative forgone.

As Tom Engelhardt, author of The End of Victory Culture, wrote, “Leave the mystery of who beat us to the historians.”


President Barack Obama and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan participate in a joint press conference in the East Room of the White House, Jan. 11, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

Yet, while future historians may provide the details of the U.S. defeat in Afghanistan, one assessment is possible now: The United States was defeated most of all by its own arrogance and ignorance. The cause for this defeat was bipartisan, implicating both Democrats and Republicans, neoconservatives and neoliberals as well as hubristic officials at the CIA and tunnel-vision generals dispatched by the Pentagon.

The folly dates back more than three decades to 1979 when President Jimmy Carter’s hard-line national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski devised a plan to poke at the Soviet Union by helping Islamist mujahedeen warriors harass the Soviet-allied government in Afghanistan. Brzezinski hoped the provoked Russian bear would fall into an “Afghan trap.”

After the Soviets invaded to protect the embattled regime in Kabul, President Ronald Reagan ratcheted up covert U.S. military assistance into the hundreds of millions of dollars and got Saudi Arabia to send a matching amount. The mujahedeen’s supply lines and much of the command and control was delegated to Pakistani intelligence which favored the most radical Islamists, including Saudi militant Osama bin Laden and his Arab fighters.

In 1989, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev withdrew the battered Soviet army and sought a power-sharing arrangement that would merge the Kabul regime with the CIA-backed mujahedeen. But President George H.W. Bush – heeding the advice of his deputy national security adviser (and former senior CIA official) Robert Gates – rebuffed Gorbachev’s offer and pressed on, seeking a clear-cut U.S. victory.

Passing up Gorbachev’s peace offer represented a major opportunity lost. Instead of a possible peace deal, the Afghan conflict continued inconclusively for years as the country descended deeper and deeper into civil war with various well-armed warlords battling for turf and power.

Finally, Pakistan’s ISI – the Inter-Services Intelligence – recruited a new force of militant Pashtuns from Afghan refugee camps and supported their drive on Kabul. This force, known as the Taliban, took power in 1996, ruthlessly disposed of its rivals, imposed a fundamentalist version of Islam – and granted safe haven to Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization.

We will probably never know how much U.S. money (along with Saudi funds) was funneled to the most brutal of the fundamentalist fighters from the “Islamic Right,” including bin Laden. But the Afghan covert operation was one of the longest and most expensive in CIA history, with funding beginning with about $20 million in 1980 and rising to around $630 million per year in 1987. An ABC News report said $3 billion was poured into the Afghan resistance via the CIA.

The end result of that massive investment was that – by the late 1990s – the radical Taliban was in power and the stage was set for an escalation of al-Qaeda’s war against its new enemy, the United States. The group hit American targets in the Middle East and Africa before taking aim on New York and Washington in the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

Classic Blowback

It was a classic case of what’s known in the intelligence trade as “blowback,” retaliation for some violent intervention in some faraway land, an unintended cause and effect. In this case, many Americans expressed bewilderment over “why they hate us” so much that young men would commit mass suicide and murder thousands of innocents to get revenge. There was little collective American knowledge about the devastation inflicted by U.S. foreign policy on Afghanistan and other Muslim lands.

President George W. Bush exploited this national confusion by providing his own nonsensical answer, “because they hate our freedoms.” Bush also harnessed American fury over 9/11 to brush aside a Taliban offer to negotiate bin Laden’s surrender and instead launched an invasion of Afghanistan.

U.S. forces and allied Afghan militias quickly ousted the Taliban but failed to get bin Laden, who managed to flee to Pakistan. Bush then pivoted U.S. military attention to Iraq, leaving the Afghan occupation/reconstruction to muddle along as the U.S.-backed government of Hamid Karzai stumbled and Taliban regrouped.

In 2009, President Barack Obama refocused U.S. attention on Afghanistan, as he pulled U.S. troops out of Iraq. He also acquiesced to demands for a larger Afghan military escalation from then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, General David Petraeus and other leftovers from Bush’s high command.

Obama was finally able to complete the mission of eliminating bin Laden with a Special Forces raid into Pakistan on May 2, 2011. But the Gates-Petraeus counterinsurgency “surge” in Afghanistan bogged down with little measurable success. Finally, Obama began to withdraw U.S. forces amid continuing squabbles with President Karzai about the size of an American stay-behind force.

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that an “increasingly frustrated” Obama is now considering an accelerated withdrawal of the remaining U.S. combat troops by mid-2014 and a “zero option” going forward, meaning no U.S. troops remaining in Afghanistan and the Karzai government left to face the Taliban, more or less, alone.

The prospect of so much invested in American blood and treasure with so little to show for the effort has led journalist Ann Jones to cite the Afghan War as a threefold failure: “no peace, no democracy, and no reconstruction.”

Looking back over the past 11½ years – from 9/11 to today – it now appears clear that the United States fell into its own “Afghan trap,” becoming just the latest nation taught painful lessons from “the graveyard of empires.” Or as Sir John Templeton once said, “The four most expensive words in the English language are: ‘This time it’s different.’”

An Enduring Crisis

It seems now that the only thing that will be enduring from Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan will be the human suffering of the survivors and the fiscal crisis caused by fighting the Afghan and Iraq wars on borrowed money.

Professor Linda J. Bilmes of Harvard’s Kennedy School estimated that the total costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars will be between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, making them “the most expensive wars in U.S. history.” She added: “One of the most significant challenges to future U.S. national security policy will not originate from any external threat. Rather it is simply coping with the legacy of the conflicts we have already fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The latest casualty figures indicate a U.S. death toll in Afghanistan of 2,249, along with about 1,100 more dead among coalition allies. Summarizing just part of the costs for the Afghan people, Chalmers Johnson wrote in 2004: “1.8 million Afghan casualties, 2.6 million refugees, and 10 million unexploded land-mines.”

The long litany of U.S. miscalculations resulted from a willful ignorance of Middle East and Afghanistan history by Washington’s “group think” community, not to mention the refusal of these “experts” to learn from the lessons Vietnam and the more recent Soviet experience in Afghanistan.

The corporate media and the U.S. public also must accept a share of responsibility for the fiasco, being so easily manipulated by flag-waving jingoism and by Hollywood movies, such as the Cold War propaganda of “Charlie Wilson’s War” which reveled in the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.

Today, at home, the U.S. is itself challenged with an “unraveling” due to dysfunctional polarized politics and a weakened economy, a good part of the latter the result of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

“Mark the moment,” wrote Tom Engelha



The Impending Afghan Defeat | Consortiumnews
 
Dear Mr. Senior troll @karan.1970

I will discount your feeble attempt at provocation towards an anticipated lack of substance in your post and wont respond or report the same ...

I hope you will find this post in good health, I am pleased to know your deep concerns as a good neighbour about the 23K+ Shadats embrace by our fellow citizens in last 10 years in 'War Against Terrorism', I respect your gratitude in this regards.

The figure I shared was close to 50K unless you do not want to count your citizens who have been killed by your security forces and labeled (sometimes correctly and some times not) as terrorists.. Appreciate your respect in that regards...

However, in your post you seems to suggest that India has some how 'effectively address' the issue in last 20 years, by this stance of yours I believe you tried to point the effective ways which India has 'invented' as 'Master' & 'Introducer of 'this art' in subcontinent.

Not really.. Just pointed out that your statement of comparing incident numbers in India and Pakistan and showing India only marginally better is flawed because of 3 main reasons..

1. India's population being almost 6-7 times that of Pakistan and still showing marginally lesser numbers of incident actually translates to India being better of by 7-8 times on a per capita incident basis (No comfort there though since ideally the incidents should be zero)

2. Comparing Incidents is really not a true barometer since it equates an adivasi shooting an arrow thru a police man and a suicide bomber blowing up a church killing 80 people

3. Finally, While the total annual casualties in Pakistan since 2005 have increased from 648 to 5379, In case of India they have decreased from 3200 to 884 ... This more importantly shows the trend both countries are following wrt terrorist violence..

PS: IN case of India, Naxals, Maoist etc all have been included in the figures...

ic1ukx.jpg


5138yg.jpg


I would really appreciate if you can share some 'success stories' here, however your post is having some contradictions in it which I hope you would clarify to make it more understandable for some madrasa educated person like me ...... some are highlighted as under.

Will try my best to help you with your doubts.. But personally I believe ignorance is less to do with your place of education and more to do with the mental make up and the society in which that person spends his early years..



1- By your post it looks like India is maintaining 1 Billion population from last twenty years, official Indian figures and World bank Figures differ in this context
This is more of a comprehension issue on your part since my post does not claim India to be maintaing 1 billion population for last 20 years. Its the casualty figures that are of 20 years and the present population sizes of both India and Pakistan are used to highlight the per capita impact of terrorism in both countries since both have grown with similar rate of population growth in last couple of decades..


2- The link you provided by 'Indian source' clearly indicates 'Data Till 2004 does not include Fatalities in Left-wing Extremism'
Fair point. I have in this post now compared India and Pakistan in last 8 years (2005 onwards) where the figures are about 18000 for India and about 49000 for Pakistan . Given the population difference, this shows the per capita terrorism impact in Pakistan is close to 20 times that of India (49000*7/18000)

PS: IN case of India, Naxals, Maoist etc all have been included in the figures...


3- Which raise a secondary question have India develop some bases to differentiate b/w different form of terrorism, If yes what are those bases ... ??

None.. All terrorism, whether its Naxals, BLA, TTP, AT or Kashmiri Mujahiddin is all same. It was a calculation bias that has been removed in this post

4- How authentic that data could be ?? as data related to Pakistan is shown from 2003 onward, and we all know that evil of terrorism spread its roots in Pakistan from 2006.
I will leave that decision to you.. Though the data as posted above does reflect your point as it shows a steep rise in Pakistan casualties post 2006


5- Even if do not question the authenticity of your source, the effectiveness of Indian security apparatus come '?' as it shows for the period of 2003-2014 Indian forces successfully neutralized 11,812 terrorist on the other hand Pakistani security apparatus manage to neutralize 26,870 terrorists.

Pakistan, 26870 terrorists out to 50631 casualties
India, 11812 terrorists out of 24522 casualties..

More of less similar ratio.. Add to the fact that Pak security apparatus is using gunships, Fighter bombers and heavy atry and APCs in their operations, this kind of flips the comparison on the head.. :)


6- You tried to implied Pakistan as a source of terrorism, ignoring the fact that 67% declared terrorist organization of India are home grown and have no connections with Pakistan, Kindly visit National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affair, India website.

7- International & Indian sources suggest more than 80% of fatalities are the contributed by Indian home grown organizations.
Pakistan, as a source of terrorism is no longer depends on the same being implied and is mostly accepted as a basic truth across most countries in the world... And the key distinction here is that Pakistan is the country which acts as a source of terrorism to other countries, more specifically India where as the home grown terrorist outfits in India are mostly restricted in their activities domestically.. And there in lies the distinction.


Hope you wold reply soon..... :angel:

Hopefully your hopes have been fulfilled :angel:


.......... :cheesy:
 
Yeah i agree with you RAW is such an inefficient organisation,It has divided Pak just one time in 67 years,what a waste of taxpayers money....:lol::lol:
RAW didn't do anything lol, it was Pakistan's own hard work and sweat that did the partition
 
RAW didn't do anything lol, it was Pakistan's own hard work and sweat that did the partition
Yeah i know that,i was just trolling because you were trolling if you would have replied humbly just like now i would have replied humbly just like this.
 
All the ramblings aside.

Kashmir is there. If the Pakistanis have the Cajones come and take it.

Better than the mashing of the keyboard and the gnashing of teeth behind it.
How could you Ravi - how could you live with the fact that young and old mujaheedin would become a source of manure in Kashmir??? :cry: All due to this exhortation above...

:sarcastic:
 
Kashmir related threads are always a good source of luls. Thanks for the entertainment everyone.
 
Yeah i know that,i was just trolling because you were trolling if you would have replied humbly just like now i would have replied humbly just like this.
i just took, all the credit of 1971, you get nothing
 
Back
Top Bottom