Pakistan in Peril

[Vinod2070]

You are arguing that his claim is true, based on the fact that Ahmed Rashid made it, and his 'scholarly demeanor and air of knowledge" - that is just silly.

If only he'd felt like this in relation to Brian Cloughley's extensive, well documented and researched piece of literature which incidentally was attested by sources involved in the said matter. Oh the irony...

But I suppose this sort of 3rd rate talk seems to be much more 'believable' by some of the Indian mentality.

If you don't see any logic and Mr. Rashid can see it, guess who is more credible?

Mister Rashid is not a military or nuclear expert. Furthermore his claim has not been and cannot be verified by either US or Indian officials (unlike the information I tend to provide), let alone Pakistani ones. It is likely he just spoke out of turn, or spoke on sub-quality information. I'm sure if contronted, he (like you) will have nothing to deny my evaluation.

Mister Rashid, I believe is providing inputs to the US administration that will likely be taken into account while formulating US policy towards the region. I guess that should be credible enough for you. And on top, he is a Paksitani who also provides inputs to the GOP as I understand.

Now I don't know Brian Cloughley! This may be the proof of my ignorance for you but that is what it is.

I can assure you his "3rd rate talk" was much more powerful and engaging than your "first class analysis" here which was unrelated and out of context. I won't stoop to call this "Pakistani mentality".

I don't need to justify what kind of expert Mr. Rashid is. I found him knowledgeable personally and someone who is clued into what is happening and can see the big picture.

Far better than some enthusiasts!

Do confront him with your analysis and let's see what comes out.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The reliability of the nukes requires many more tests. So the nukes are there with India and Pakistan but their reliability is surely an issue compared to other countries that have conducted dozens of tests.

Of course this doesn't take into account some other factors that can possibly increase the reliability. You know what I mean.

You mean get Chin to test our designs?

Possible - but then our test yields (if tested prior to 1998) shoudl have been identical to yields measured in some Chinese tests, and even then thats a very speculative argument.

Yes, I said that. That doesn't have much bearing on this argument of the nuclear strike issue. We took his video as a starting point assuming he knew his facts.

I would like to read his book when it comes out. Please don't mix my appreciation for this guy with the current argument.

No, as I mentioned that is an implicit assumption, the starting point of this debate.

If you want to have a discussion on using nukes within a nations territory, then Pakistan does not have to factor into it, and we can agree that A Rashid's comments have nothing to back them up at this point and proceed on a hypothetical without references to any single country and other references to why 'Yanks are paranoid'.

The implicit denigration of Pakistan has been there throughout, in both Flint and your posts, hence the direction and tenor of the discussion.

 

[Vinod2070]

You mean get Chin to test our designs?

Possible - but then our test yields (if tested prior to 1998) shoudl have been identical to yields measured in some Chinese tests, and even then thats a very speculative argument.

Possible. It is at best a side argument. We can leave it aside.

If you want to have a discussion on using nukes within a nations territory, then Pakistan does not have to factor into it, and we can agree that A Rashid's comments have nothing to back them up at this point and proceed on a hypothetical without references to any single country and other references to why 'Yanks are paranoid'.

The implicit denigration of Pakistan has been there throughout, in both Flint and your posts, hence the direction and tenor of the discussion.

That is true. He was just being taken at his word assuming he knew his stuff as I mentioned in one of my very early posts on this topic.

If we can't agree to that, discussion over. If we can, the other things just naturally came out of that.

Well, it is not about denigration or "dehumanizing" of Pakistan at all. I am not sure why it is brought out repeatedly.

You accuse India of so many things in your posts. Does anyone say you dehumanize or denigrate India? No, because you are sharing your thoughts (and we believe in good faith that there is no hidden agenda).

Please look at some of your own last few posts and see which is more "denigrating" or "dehumanizing"!

Discussing some negative points or criticism does not amount to that my friend.

 

[Kasrkin]

Now I don't know Brian Cloughley! This may be the proof of my ignorance for you but that is what it is.

Yup, proof of your 'ignorance' about the credentials of those who don’t have very incriminating things say to about Pakistan, things to your liking. Complete coincidence? I don’t think so.

I can assure you his "3rd rate talk" was much more powerful and engaging than your "first class analysis" here which was unrelated and out of context.

LOL, was it now? I talked about the logical and doctrinal possibility of nukes being used in our territory. What was so "unrelated" and "out of context" about that? You didn't skip my post again did you?

My analysis might not be 'first rate' according your belief, but it’s still better than 'because Ahmed Rashid says so', which is all you've provided.

 

[Vinod2070]

Now I don't know Brian Cloughley! This may be the proof of my ignorance for you but that is what it is.

Yup, proof of your 'ignorance' about the credentials of those who don’t have very incriminating things say to about Pakistan, things to your liking. Complete coincidence? I don’t think so.

I can assure you his "3rd rate talk" was much more powerful and engaging than your "first class analysis" here which was unrelated and out of context.

LOL, was it now? I talked about the logical and doctrinal possibility of nukes being used in our territory. What was so "unrelated" and "out of context" about that? You didn't skip my post again did you?

My analysis might not be 'first rate' according your belief, but it’s still better than 'because Ahmed Rashid says so', which is all you've provided.

Kasrkin, I see that you are having a serious problem in getting the context.

We are not discussing the Operation Parakram per se. We are discussing the specific comments by Mr. Rashid around that. The comments in which he makes startling revelations.

If you have seen the video, you would know what I am talking of. If you want to dismiss the facts and analysis given by him, I am fine with that.

I have not provided anything at all. I was just discussing the startling comments by your Mr. Rashid! Is that clear enough now or do I .... elaborate?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is true. He was just being taken at his word assuming he knew his stuff as I mentioned in one of my very early posts on this topic.

If we can't agree to that, discussion over. If we can, the other things just naturally came out of that.

I don't see how we can agree to the veracity of that allegation without further corroboration.

I just went through the section in Descent into Chaos covering the 2002 events, and I could not find any reference to this claim of his in there. The known arguments on how the US used coercive diplomacy with India etc. are all there, but not this.

Well, it is not about denigration or "dehumanizing" of Pakistan at all. I am not sure why it is brought out repeatedly.

It is denigration, the list of topics you, a moderate Indian, focusses on betrays that:

1. Pakistanis are brainwashed into hating India (several polls showed that more Indians dislike Pakistanis than vice versa)

2. Pakistan dishonored its soldiers.

3. Pakistan is so callous as to just go ahead and 'nuke' its civilians.

etc. etc.

You accuse India of so many things in your posts. Does anyone say you dehumanize or denigrate India? No, because you are sharing your thoughts (and we believe in good faith that there is no hidden agenda).

Please look at some of your own last few posts and see which is more "denigrating" or "dehumanizing"!

Discussing some negative points or criticism does not amount to that my friend.

I accuse India on backtracking form her commitments on Kashmir, and I have presented strong evidence to back that up, including quotes from India's then Prime Minister Nehru.

My criticism of India is solely in that context.

What have you offered in terms of evidence to validate anything in the above issues?

 

[Kasrkin]

I have not provided anything at all. I was just discussing the startling comments by your Mr. Rashid! Is that clear enough now or do I .... elaborate?

Crystal.

I questioned these claims based on what I know of the ground realities. You, despite your whole hearted support behind them, have nothing to refute my objections with, other than perhaps that 'Ahmed Rahid said it' (which in itself is pretty hypocritical coming from you).

But yup I understand clearly. At least now you're not trying to make us feel guilty about threatening to kill our own people anymore as if it is an undisputable fact...

 

[Vinod2070]

I don't see how we can agree to the veracity of that allegation without further corroboration.

I just went through the section in Descent into Chaos covering the 2002 events, and I could not find any reference to this claim of his in there. The known arguments on how the US used coercive diplomacy with India etc. are all there, but not this.

Well you can't deny that it is there in the video! If you don't agree with him without presenting some sort of proof (which is impossible to come), let's drop it. As I said it was always an implicit assumption.

It is denigration, the list of topics you, a moderate Indian, focusses on betrays that:

1. Pakistanis are brainwashed into hating India (several polls showed that more Indians dislike Pakistanis than vice versa)

2. Pakistan dishonored its soldiers.

3. Pakistan is so callous as to just go ahead and 'nuke' its civilians.

etc. etc.

Again, these threads just happen to be in the areas of my interest. I don't know much about military hardware. I am keenly interested in our history, in the societies of our two countries (even other non-regional countries) and current affairs etc.

We happen to have opposing views on most issues where our countries are adversaries (quite naturally). But please understand that in most (or all) cases, I didn't say anything that many Pakistanis and foreigners have also not said! In fact I have shared many such views from Pakistani and foreign neutral authors. So accusing me (and Flintoff) on that count is not fair.

I would strongly suggest to take these differences in that spirit. I have nothing at all against Pakistan as a country. I have my strong views on some subjects that I share. There is no hidden agenda or meaning.

I accuse India on backtracking form her commitments on Kashmir, and I have presented strong evidence to back that up, including quotes from India's then Prime Minister Nehru.

My criticism of India is solely in that context.

What have you offered in terms of evidence to validate anything in the above issues?

I think I have offered my inputs in all those respective threads. Sometimes I feel, some secondary hidden meanings are being construed which I have no control over.

 

[Vinod2070]

I have not provided anything at all. I was just discussing the startling comments by your Mr. Rashid! Is that clear enough now or do I .... elaborate?

Crystal.

I questioned these claims based on what I know of the ground realities. You, despite your whole hearted support behind them, have nothing to refute my objections with, other than perhaps that 'Ahmed Rahid said it' (which in itself is pretty hypocritical coming from you).

But yup I understand clearly. At least now you're not trying to make us feel guilty about threatening to kill our own people anymore as if it is an undisputable fact...

Yes, your (and mine) understanding of the ground reality could be different from his.

It was he who was making you guilty. Do you accuse him of the same crimes that you accused me of!

And I am not sure what did you find hypocritical. I never countered your analysis. That was not the point of this discussion and I didn't want to go on a tangent.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well you can't deny that it is there in the video! If you don't agree with him without presenting some sort of proof (which is impossible to come), let's drop it. As I said it was always an implicit assumption.

I think these sorts of things have to be looked at in detail and either validated or debunked becasue they otherwise become part of the popular 'opinion' presented as fact.

No doubt we will soon have someone saying Pakistan is *&&^$*$ becasue it will nuke its own people - Ahmed Rashid said so !

 

[Vinod2070]

No doubt we will soon have someone saying Pakistan is *&&^$*$ becasue it will nuke its own people - Ahmed Rashid said so !

Already started happening.

But seriously why do you think he said that?

Mere sensationalism, to increase the sale of his book, to suck up to Washington!

What could be it if not facts as he knew it?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Already started happening.

But seriously why do you think he said that?

Mere sensationalism, to increase the sale of his book, to suck up to Washington!

What could be it if not facts as he knew it?

An anecdote he heard somewhere and repeated.

He researched his book quite well obviously, so I imagine if he had proper sources for that claim he would have mentioned it in there at least - and it would have been the talk of the town.

Kasrkin's reasoning on why such a policy from Pakistan's perspective would be unfeasible was quite accurate IMO.

 

[Vinod2070]

An anecdote he heard somewhere and repeated.

He researched his book quite well obviously, so I imagine if he had proper sources for that claim he would have mentioned it in there at least - and it would have been the talk of the town.

Kasrkin's reasoning on why such a policy from Pakistan's perspective would be unfeasible was quite accurate IMO.

My last post for the day.

I am sure he would know all that Kasrkin mentioned and he still said what he said. He is clearly nobody's fool.

There is more to it than is apparent. Not sure if and when it comes out.

 

[Flintlock]

Its the terrorists from Pakistan that conciously target civilians, not IA. Your posts are getting more ridiculous by the minute.

Those brainwashed morons use civilians as human shields, and you have the gall to call them "freedom fighters".

But why am I even arguing. You will go to any lengths in order to justify your nation's immoral and disgusting policies.

Yes it does. Using religious extremism (Jehad = holy war) to further a political agenda is terrorism.

You're understanding of the concept of Jihad is obviously non-existent. Jihad is not synonymous with war or terrorism. And neither is war or terrorism synonymous. If you're aim is to brand all Muslims engaging in martial activates 'terrorists' then you are failing miserably. Terrorism, as is widely acknowledged, is not limited to any religion or particular style of warfare. It is simply a word to describe the conscious targeting of civilians, be that the gun-men in Mumbai or Indian forces in the valley.

 

[Flintlock]

No doubt we will soon have someone saying Pakistan is *&&^$*$ becasue it will nuke its own people - Ahmed Rashid said so !

Well Ahmed Rashid is not some two bit writer for the APP. He's among the most respected journalists in the world and an authority on the Pakistan-Afghanistan conflict, as well as on the Pakistani state and its functioning. So yeah, Ahmed Rashid said so. Deal with it.

Someone always has to say something, I'm quite sure that nobody on this forum has the means or ability to directly validate facts from the battlefield or the corridors of power.

Next you'll be asking for photographic and documentary evidence, or perhaps video footage? But oh no- that may be doctored! Photoshopped!