There is no unity among people in Pakistan.

[Stag112]

Apparently our military establishment is stupid enough to risk a war, in a position that is not very strong. I repeat, do not troll.

Which theory is a little more realistic and makes more sense? Again no one is stupid enough to risk a war.
This the reason why we have Senior Cafe, for such topics.

I hope there is better comprehension is seniors café, so I leave the thread.

For the non-seniors - I'm saying Pak establishment did not risk war by heating up border because they can see the obvious -i.e.India will not go to war over border skirmish. It was a safe gamble for them for the benefit of vilifying the TTP (that they are Indian assets) and uniting their people.

OTOH Pakistani claim of Indians heating the border is totally without merit, because just by heating up the border Pakistan can not be forced to pull troops away from anti-TTP ops.

I hope seniors café can separate war time propaganda from reasonable facts. All the best to them.

 

[Spectre]

Totally unrealistic. limited war...dude, these conclusions are hardly realistic.

No chance of any war let alone limited war.

Regards

 

[WAJsal]

.India will not go to war over border skirmish.

You are simply abusing and giving our army a bad image, by stating this. Yet it would risk loss of civilian lives. Considering that is the usual outcome of these border tensions.

OTOH Pakistani claim of Indians heating the border is totally without merit, because just by heating up the border Pakistan can not be forced to pull troops away from anti-TTP ops.

Troops to some extent and more importantly our resources and attention. All in desperation.

I hope seniors café can separate war time propaganda from reasonable facts. All the best to them.

Save me the rhetoric's.

No chance of any war let alone limited war.

Regards

Why not. Quite a possibility. Read the first part of my post.

 

[The-king]

@WAJsal
bro little off topic me new here how can i change full member to PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
i check my setting no option available

 

[WAJsal]

@WAJsal
bro little off topic me new here how can i change full member to PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
i check my setting no option available

It is a title given by the administration, you can't change it in settings.

 

[The-king]

It is a title given by the administration, you can't change it in settings.

oops so what is the procedure to ask admin to change it, thanks for the reply

 

[WAJsal]

oops so what is the procedure to ask admin to change it, thanks for the reply

You can't ask them, only quality posters get the title. Admins decide, keep posting. If this was the case: everyone would be a Think Tank, ciao and have a nice day.

 

[Spectre]

Why not. Quite a possibility. Read the first part of my post.

My friend, there are thresholds which need to be crossed - International Community on which both of our countries are highly dependent have further raised the threshold - Deplorable and avoidable the casualties both civilian and military might be due to firing over LoC and IB - these things are considered as acceptable losses.

Further there is no clear cut picture of who is responsible for this - It would be a grave mistake to put the blame squarely on one party - had that been the case we would have seen a censure of offending parties - lack of international criticism indicates the blame resides on both the parties - the difference might be in degrees - as in which party shoulders the greater share of blame but that doesn't imply that the other party is innocent.

To precipitate a war one party has to take a unilateral decision and in our case who ever is the aggression party they will be isolated by international community - hence no party would risk even a limited war without grave justification - which threatens the very fabric of their sovereignty.

To conclude I do not see the present conditions necessary and sufficient to ignite a war.

Just my humble opinion.

Regards

 

[mikhail ivanovich]

The title of this thread justifies why there are so many jihadi/terrorists faction inside pakistan.

 

[Stag112]

You are simply abusing and giving our army a bad image, by stating this. Yet it would risk loss of civilian lives. Considering that is the usual outcome of these border tensions..

I do not wish to go in circles with you. But I can say exactly the same to your side when they say that India heated up border. Did we not know risk to civilian lives? Then how is Pakistani saying this ''not giving a bad name to our Army'' but my rebuttal is???

 

[WAJsal]

I do not wish to go in circles with you. But I can say exactly the same to your side when they say that India heated up border. Did we not know risk to civilian lives? Then how is Pakistani saying this ''not giving a bad name to our Army'' but my rebuttal is???

Good point. My point was made on the comments you made, as to gaining psychological victory-cheap shot. To gain psychological victory PA would risk civilian lives, that's just beyond cheap.
This post makes more sense:

Further there is no clear cut picture of who is responsible for this - It would be a grave mistake to put the blame squarely on one party - had that been the case we would have seen a censure of offending parties - lack of international criticism indicates the blame resides on both the parties - the difference might be in degrees - as in which party shoulders the greater share of blame but that doesn't imply that the other party is innocent.

 

[Spectre]

My point was made on the comments you made, as to gaining psychological victory-cheap shot. To gain psychological victory PA would risk civilian lives, that's just beyond cheap.

Ah! you misunderstood.

This was an going discussion with Icarus where he suggested Indian army due their stronger position vis a vis Pakistan which is fighting on it's western borders may attempt to instigate cross border firing to score a psychological victory on Pakistan.

I just presented it as a claim by Pakistani side.

Psychological victory point was for Indians not Pakistanis. Sorry for the confusion - I realize my post was not very coherent.

Regards

 

[Lurch Adams]

Its far from being unique, border disputes are common around the world. Yes sporadic shelling is not the same as a full scale invasion but India does not need to mount a full scale invasion. They can simply take the positions that Pakistan occupies on dominating features and need not advance further, their objectives will have been met already.
The only realistic scenario we have on the LoC at the moment is a stand-off. The time to secure an alternative arrangement through confidence building has passed.

India has nothing to gain from initiating shelling or any other trouble at the LOC. Pakistan, on the other hand, uses the pretext to complain repeatedly to UNMOGIP, a body that India tolerates but ignores. India shelling at the border so that Pakistan gets a chance to do what India wishes to avoid is specious logic, at best. We usually tend to go with who gains most.

The point is, the stand-off is what the Pakistani Army wishes for. It just has to explore the alternative. India also happens to be building a fence along the LOC. We usually build a fence to keep people out, not as a precursor to invading them.

 

[SQ8]

we have experienced the negative impact of afghan refuges on our culture and economy. I don't think the Syrians want to migrate to Pakistan. majority of the refugees going to Europe are economic migrants looking for a peaceful life. don't blame them.

Baluchistan is returning to normalcy slowly but one cannot compare the situation in Kashmir to Baluchistan. Baluchistan's problems also stems from what the baluch tribal leaders have done or actually not done for their tribes. if the tribes get education and jobs elsewhere the baluch tribal leaders lose control which they don't want to obviously. the tribal leaders are filthy rich and their tribes probably the poorest people in Pakistan. having said that the federal govt has also not been fair in their dealings with the baluch.. by paying huge subsides to the baluch leaders in order to buy their loyalties has basically backfired. the baluch leaders used that money to arm their tribes with sophisticated weapons and also indulged in the drugs trade to amass more wealth. one of the bugti leaders is living in Switzerland for the last 3-5 years. how?

Pakistanis are by and large more united now-a-days than before.

a section of the overseas Pakistanis obviously have a different opinion about Pakistan. that is why they live overseas.

Considering I joined the overseas category around January of this year.. I will respectfully disagree.

Be it the policy of the sardars or how they act, the common denominator comes to economics.
Where economics are absent , religion takes over.. where religion is not enough.. the following works.
One does not inhabit a country; one inhabits a language. That is our country, our fatherland - and no other.

 

[ZYXW]

Pakistan is a peculiar nation, on paper, it was made to fail and was given a lifespan of only five years but not only did it survived, it thrived. It was not an easy journey by any means, we fought wars, there were floods, there was political instability, our compatriots in the east parted ways with us in less than amicable fashion, we bore the brunt of the world's largest refugee exodus, we were sanctioned and then were plagued by terrorism and yet here we stand.
Like I said, its a strange nation. The more pressed we feel against the wall, the harder we spring back. The more circumstances pull us apart, we gel closer. We smile amidst tragedy and are at peace with our pain.
There is no scholar that can explain this, it is just national character.

Cute post. I agree with much of it. But the only reason the bolded part is true is because Pakistan places more importance on "image" and "patriotism" for arbitrary/man-made borders than it does on individual human life and protection of that life. That is why even with injustice more common than oxygen in our country, many of us still claim to be smiling through tragedy and at peace with "our" pain. If you experienced yourself, the pain that the masses of the country have felt, the pain the "collateral damage" individuals of the country feel, you would not say that so proudly. Patriotism is nothing but propaganda. The only reason it has any meaning is because we as humans indulge in mean-making throughout life to give our existence some type of purpose, which in return validates this whole human condition/experience we are a part of. For a country that claims to be built on Islamic theology, the little importance Pakistan gives to human life is inherently against Islamic principles. While I agree with much of your post, I think that a national character of our country is placing patriotism above human life and that why at a time like this you can write a post like that and have so many people agree with you.

Pakistan is a country drowning in the fragile illusion of patriotism, that is a national characteristic. As soon as the illusion dies, it takes only seconds to realize how divided we are as a people.

Kabhi aao na PakVsIndia match main khushbu laga ke...

L.O.L.