Pakistan seeks int’l help to deal with terrorists

[janon]

US interests internationally are effected though. But that still doesn't explain why its ok for a super power to negotiate but not ok for Pakistan.

I am all for blowing up Ts where you can find them, but an even effective weapon is breaking organization into two or more then turning them against each other. They both die fighting each other. Heard of the phrase 1 arrow 2 hits?

I'll tell you why - because the US has a choice to continue the war or not, Pak does not. US can simply leave Afghanistan to its fate without any negotiations or fighting, and American citizens will only be glad. Whatever the outcome, American citizens and American soil will be safe, free and prosperous. Under such conditions, should they keep spending blood and treasure to protect Afghans, or do some negotiations to bring down the fighting there, while ensuring that the state they set up there cannot fall?

If a terror attack happens on US soil on US citizens, or if their country is in danger of being destabilized by barbaric hordes, you can bet that they won't be negotiating - they will be unleashing the forces of hell on their enemies. That is a fundamental duty of a nation state. That is what they did after 9/11 - they did not bring the perpetrators to Washington, DC for coffee and cookie meetings, but chased them to their holes and caves, threw them out of power in their country, decimated their networks, and ensured that they would never be able to touch American soil or harm an American life.

On the other hand, the talibs are fighting against Pakistan in Pakistan, and Pakistanis are dying every day. A state that invites insurgents to talks under such conditions casts serious doubts on its own soveriegnity and legitimacy.

 

[Cheetah786]

="Strigon, post: 5379581, member: 41431"]US interests internationally are effected though. But that still doesn't explain why its OK for a super power to negotiate but not OK for Pakistan.

To give you an example One corporation in USA makes more then entire country of pakistan and they have quite a few of these corporations there GDP isn't effected by terrorism or security.

I am all for blowing up Ts where you can find them, but an even effective weapon is breaking organization into two or more then turning them against each other. They both die fighting each other. Heard of the phrase 1 arrow 2 hits?

Negotiating with terrorist will make them turn on each other?

 

[Donatello]

we should help them by giving anti terror training..

No thank you. Get your house in order first.

Maoists attack CRPF team in Chhattisgarh, 16 killed - The Times of India

 

[syedali73]

@janon: You are good. I enjoyed your posts and learned.

 

[livingdead]

I'll tell you why - because the US has a choice to continue the war or not, Pak does not. US can simply leave Afghanistan to its fate without any negotiations or fighting, and American citizens will only be glad. Whatever the outcome, American citizens and American soil will be safe, free and prosperous. Under such conditions, should they keep spending blood and treasure to protect Afghans, or do some negotiations to bring down the fighting there, while ensuring that the state they set up there cannot fall?

If a terror attack happens on US soil on US citizens, or if their country is in danger of being destabilized by barbaric hordes, you can bet that they won't be negotiating - they will be unleashing the forces of hell on their enemies. That is a fundamental duty of a nation state. That is what they did after 9/11 - they did not bring the perpetrators to Washington, DC for coffee and cookie meetings, but chased them to their holes and caves, threw them out of power in their country, decimated their networks, and ensured that they would never be able to touch American soil or harm an American life.

On the other hand, the talibs are fighting against Pakistan in Pakistan, and Pakistanis are dying every day. A state that invites insurgents to talks under such conditions casts serious doubts on its own soveriegnity and legitimacy.

I disagree with the bit in which you nearly equate aq with taliban..
taliban has political agenda and that can be settled through dialogue, they also have very limited area of operation and pakistan can negotiate with them. With aq that was simply impossible because they were loose group.

Secondly the demands of taliban is not much different from what ordinary pakistani wants, give or take a few, its not a complete different set of choices (unlike it is for west), so why not sit together and sort out, may be pakistani people will agree to many of them in first place.
Of course they cant have a proper dialogue while pointing guns at each other, so this all will take time.

 

[illusion8]

I disagree with the bit in which you nearly equate aq with taliban..
taliban has political agenda and that can be settled through dialogue, they also have very limited area of operation and pakistan can negotiate with them. With aq that was simply impossible because they were loose group.

The AQ has metamorphosed into something totally different - they count among their allies or branches both the Pakistani and the Afghan Taliban besides other groups in the ME, Africa, Central Asia and are actively looking at tying up with terrorist groups from other Asian countries. They have a concrete network of actors in western countries as well.

This global network provides arms, men and financing - the ideology part is taken care of by the AQ leadership which also includes spreading it into the active controlled areas of these groups.

They have a global agenda and intend to achieve it with the help of these active groups.

Secondly the demands of taliban is not much different from what ordinary pakistani wants, give or take a few, its not a complete different set of choices (unlike it is for west), so why not sit together and sort out, may be pakistani people will agree to many of them in first place.
Of course they cant have a proper dialogue while pointing guns at each other, so this all will take time.

Agreeing to their demands means Pakistan becomes a part of their global jihad - the Saudi's are pushing this concept to Pakistan and by the looks of it Pakistani leaders are game for it.

 

[syedali73]

I disagree with the bit in which you nearly equate aq with taliban..
taliban has political agenda and that can be settled through dialogue, they also have very limited area of operation and pakistan can negotiate with them. With aq that was simply impossible because they were loose group.

Secondly the demands of taliban is not much different from what ordinary pakistani wants, give or take a few, its not a complete different set of choices (unlike it is for west), so why not sit together and sort out, may be pakistani people will agree to many of them in first place.

Of course they cant have a proper dialogue while pointing guns at each other, so this all will take time.

TTP (alias JI/JUI) and affiliates have one-point agenda, to rule Pakistan, use it as a base, and conquer rest of the world. This agenda is far (if at all) from being political, it is fascist agenda.

Secondly, TTP (alias JI/JUI) and affiliates do not ask what ordinary Pakistanis ask.

Ordinary Pakistanis want education, whereas TTP (alias JI/JUI) is against it.
Ordinary Pakistanis want to live modern life, whereas TTP (JI/JUI) wants to live in medieval times.
Ordinary Pakistanis want true democracy, whereas TTP (JI/JUI) believes in tyranny.

 

[livingdead]

Agreeing to their demands means Pakistan becomes a part of their global jihad - the Saudi's are pushing this concept to Pakistan and by the looks of it Pakistani leaders are game for it.

taliban does not have international agenda, even afgan taliban did not have that.
AQ is more like Domino's... taliban is like local kebab shop .. their aim are more modest.

 

[janon]

I disagree with the bit in which you nearly equate aq with taliban..
taliban has political agenda and that can be settled through dialogue, they also have very limited area of operation and pakistan can negotiate with them. With aq that was simply impossible because they were loose group.

Secondly the demands of taliban is not much different from what ordinary pakistani wants, give or take a few, its not a complete different set of choices (unlike it is for west), so why not sit together and sort out, may be pakistani people will agree to many of them in first place.
Of course they cant have a proper dialogue while pointing guns at each other, so this all will take time.

At that time, the AQ was mostly sheltered in, trained in and living in the state of Taliban. They were not a loose group back then, they were a potent network with a command structure. Only after that structure was destroyed, did they become what they are today - a collection of several groups using that name in many places, from Yemen to Iraq, none of them able to hit the west or anybody beyond the locality. I know they and the taliban were not the same, but the state of Taliban gave them shelter and sanctuary, and AQ could not have existed without Taliban as a base.

Terrorists always have a political agenda. Pure murderers are simply called psychopaths. Terrorists use bombings and violence for a political purpose. That is the very definition of terrorism. Whether it is destruction of the west, or revenge for Palestine, or wanting to establish a caliphate, or break Kashmir from India, these are all political aims. The TTP has a political aim in Pakistan, the AQ had a political aim internationally - to weaken the US and to reduce its influence in the middle east and other muslim places.

As for the part about TTP demanding what many Pakistanis want - that is true, but then there are also many Pakistanis who do not want those. That is why one side will have to crush the other. BTW, it is not so simple as that - today their demands are fundamentally in contradiction to the State of Paskistan as it exists today. They want the constitution to be removed, and democracy to be ended, and a theocracy established. These are not demands that the state can negotiate over. It would mean the end of the present State, and self preservation is the first duty and instinct of any state. If it was simply a matter of bringing some laws that most Pakistanis agree with and want, all they have to do is petition the legislators, or stand for elections on that platform. They would not have to wage war against the state.

 

[illusion8]

taliban does not have international agenda, even afgan taliban did not have that.
AQ is more like Domino's... taliban is like local kebab shop .. their aim are more modest.

It's part of a whole.

What the AT want to do in Afghanistan is what TTP wants to do in Pakistan - the same being the case with Boko, Al Shabab, ISIS, ISIL, AQIM etc - AQ has succeeded in bringing all these regional groups under a global umbrella - nonetheless loosely, keeping their local aspirations in mind.

 

[Manasvi Mehta]

Like many toxic relationships, India and Pakistan are stuck in a vicious cycle, having had numerous wars and conflicts since 1947. They have a set routine that occurs on a regular basis on their borders, ironically called the Line of Control(LoC). They exchange fire at the border, soldiers from one or both sides die, and the governments each issue cautious statements that blame the other side.
The media and many of the country's intellectuals are whipped into frenzy and are baying for blood on their twitter handles and blog sites.
Eager to placate an enraged fourth estate the government issues a strong condemnation of the other side and vows to stall any ongoing diplomatic or peace processes and the entire incident slowly fades from public consciousness as the media loses interest, that is, until the next firing exchange at the LoC.
For the average Indian citizen, it is almost impossible to count the number of times this exact scenario has been played out by India and Pakistan...

 

[livingdead]

Like many toxic relationships, India and Pakistan are stuck in a vicious cycle, having had numerous wars and conflicts since 1947. They have a set routine that occurs on a regular basis on their borders, ironically called the Line of Control(LoC). They exchange fire at the border, soldiers from one or both sides die, and the governments each issue cautious statements that blame the other side.
The media and many of the country's intellectuals are whipped into frenzy and are baying for blood on their twitter handles and blog sites.
Eager to placate an enraged fourth estate the government issues a strong condemnation of the other side and vows to stall any ongoing diplomatic or peace processes and the entire incident slowly fades from public consciousness as the media loses interest, that is, until the next firing exchange at the LoC.
For the average Indian citizen, it is almost impossible to count the number of times this exact scenario has been played out by India and Pakistan...View attachment 20816

welcome to pdf.. you are on wrong thread.

 

[livingdead]

TTP (alias JI/JUI) and affiliates have one-point agenda, to rule Pakistan, use it as a base, and conquer rest of the world. This agenda is far (if at all) from being political, it is fascist agenda.

Secondly, TTP (alias JI/JUI) and affiliates do not ask what ordinary Pakistanis ask.

Ordinary Pakistanis want education, whereas TTP (alias JI/JUI) is against it.
Ordinary Pakistanis want to live modern life, whereas TTP (JI/JUI) wants to live in medieval times.
Ordinary Pakistanis want true democracy, whereas TTP (JI/JUI) believes in tyranny.

First of all you cant wipe them away, if that was possible we wont be having this conversation. Lets keep that aside as a non option.
I have never heard about conqureing rest of the world bit, all they want is sharia law to be implemented in letter and spirit in pakistan (not rest of the world)
This is a consitent demand from a sizable section of pakistan who are disillusioned with democracy, army rule, financial misery, inflation etc.
ordinary pakistanis want education that teaches them the value system they are comfortable with, they want modern equpments(not modernity as you assert) but so do TTP (they are not ditching AKs for swords anytime soon), and large number of pakistani think sharia rule is fairer and a more truer form of democracy.
Now not everything they demand can be met nor are they going to agree to everything govt says, so why not sit face to face and sort out the common things, which both sides agree more or less. The more contentious issues can be revisited later.
You can even go for referendum.

In anycase talking does not mean agreeing, it means you are open to change. Govt of India talks to all sorts of terror groups all the time.

 

[darkinsky]

welcome to pdf.. you are on wrong thread.

nobody has welcomed me like that

 

[karan.1970]

No thank you. Get your house in order first.

Maoists attack CRPF team in Chhattisgarh, 16 killed - The Times of India

Post reported for off topic reference