PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan backed attack on U.S. embassy



R Gitananda
23 September 2011, 02:22 AM
If they are bold enough to help coordinate an attack on the
United States then how can India expect any thing better
than more terror attacks sponsored by Pakistan?

"The most senior US military officer has accused Pakistan's spy agency of
supporting the Haqqani group in last week's attack on the US Kabul embassy."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15024344

sm78
23 September 2011, 04:42 AM
If they are bold enough to help coordinate an attack on the
United States then how can India expect any thing better
than more terror attacks sponsored by Pakistan?

"The most senior US military officer has accused Pakistan's spy agency of
supporting the Haqqani group in last week's attack on the US Kabul embassy."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15024344

The responsibility of all the present day Islamic terror mess goes much to the US for it sham foreign policy. It shipped billions and billions of dollars over the years and arms to Pakistan who are directely responsible for developing the worst terrorist elements including Taliban and AQ.

In Afganistan, an exceptional Muslim leader callled Ahmad Shah Masood, who was also a military genius, repeatedly requested US and the west to understand that it was Pakistan that has created Taliban - but it fell into deaf years. He even warned of 9/11, nobody cared except one intelligence personel. Then he was killed in a suicide attack and the next day was 9/11. US has systematically been encouraging the most dangerous elements of the worlds for its own percieved gains, and is now facing its own frankenstien.

Even now, it tries to blame operations outside immediate government in Pakistan, when it is in plane sight that ISI is behind most things in the region.

Even now, in Afganistan it is trying to shrug off Taliban and calls for talks with "Good" Taliban when gradually the remenants of Northern Alliance (only friend of India in the Afganistan and the entire Muslim world perhaves) is being eliminated by Taliban.

The other monster it has bread is Saudi Arabia, and continues to turn blind eye to the fact that the heart of this Islamic fascism is envisioned, motivated, governed and helped by that country.

Its a big shame that few humanistic Islamic leaders were not backed by and taken care by the US and the west.

wundermonk
23 September 2011, 06:20 AM
One thing you got to appreciate about the Pakis...they f!@#$%g know how to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds!

Whats amazing is why the Americans are still clueless about the real epicenter of world-wide terror? Whenever you get a country on earth whose name literally stands for "Land of the Pure", you know you are in store for ethnic cleansing of those not deemed "Pure" enough. Pakistan has no reason for existence as a separate country, if you ask me.

sm78
23 September 2011, 07:02 AM
One thing you got to appreciate about the Pakis...they f!@#$%g know how to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds!

Whats amazing is why the Americans are still clueless about the real epicenter of world-wide terror? Whenever you get a country on earth whose name literally stands for "Land of the Pure", you know you are in store for ethnic cleansing of those not deemed "Pure" enough. Pakistan has no reason for existence as a separate country, if you ask me.

Why America still behaves like a headless chicken on this issue is I think purely dependent on the ego of America as a nation and its officials. I believe it is too hard for them to officially acknowledge that had been wrong for decades and this terror over which they are always on war is mostly their own child. So while now more and more people are pointing fingers at Pakistan, US is still hesitant to make it offical and thus the billion $$ still keeps flowing in and ending as human bombs on their own embassy. Lets see how long it can pretend to look away.

The problem is, I believe, the new US strategy with the current economic environment is to gradually phase out of the area. So it is not eager to accept its mistakes, but rather make it irrelevant (which is unlikely as Taliban is all set to get back to power, and it cannot stand US). Also, I think again prematurely it believes China is a nobel nation whose only interests are economic. When US is gone from the region, China will move in.

Whatever way you look its bad for India. The Norther Alliance, even with its current corrupt leaders would have been the only good thing for India, but it is clear they can't survive Taliban when US is gone. Killing of Ahmad Shah Masood has set the clock ticking for India, and sooner or later it will face the brunt. Ahmad Shah pleaded before UN that if Pakistan support to Taliban is cut-off he could eliminate Taliban and AQ from Afganistan in a year. Given his record against the Soviets, he was not talking out of thin air. But nobody bothered.

Btw, the reason I am hung up on Ahmad Shah Masood is because I was reading about him and became hugely impressed. If only there were more Muslims like him. His last interview below gives a good profile of the guy. Could you believe that he believed in equal rights for women, democracy and never practiced torture or brutality inspite of being in war for 20 years?

http://www.orient.uw.edu.pl/balcerowicz/texts/Ahmad_Shah_Masood_en.htm (http://www.orient.uw.edu.pl/balcerowicz/texts/Ahmad_Shah_Masood_en.htm)

Jainarayan
23 September 2011, 10:03 AM
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend". It has been, and always will be that way. The US has climbed into bed with the worst of the worst... Iran under the Shah, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the list goes on. Then it comes back to bite us, all of us, in the butt.

I don't understand the history or politics of the partitioning of India when the Brits finally left. But on the face of it, it seems to have created a monster. If Pakistan and what is now Bangladesh were just Muslim dominated areas of India, why couldn't they be states? India is so varied from north to south, east to west, at least the Indian government would have had control over the two areas.

Maybe Woodrow Wilson was right and the US should have been isolationist and neutral, only providing humanitarian aid. If we spent more on that and less on military and politics, the world might be less hungry, at least.

Or maybe I'm just naive. :dunno:

R Gitananda
23 September 2011, 02:52 PM
... If Pakistan and what is now Bangladesh were
just Muslim dominated areas of India, why couldn't they be states? ...

When the British were finally ready to quit India, the Muslims - backed by a large armed
militia - started demanding their own "Pure land". Gandhi didn't want civil war so he agreed
to it. The result was a bloody partition that resulted in the slaughter of several hundred
thousand to a million people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India
Now Pakistan points nuclear weapons at India.

Jainarayan
23 September 2011, 03:23 PM
I knew there had to be more to it. Short-sightedness.

Believer
23 September 2011, 06:28 PM
Namaste,

May be, just may be, my observations/conclusions could bring out some extra facts not covered in the above posts.

1. I would never underestimate the overall intelligence gathering ability of the US agencies which is the basis for making decisions by civilian leaders. Granted that in some cases, the decisions are political and not the smartest ones in the national interest.

2. Few decades back, the main condition for getting US aid was for Pakis to be Nuke free. Bush senior knew about their nuclear program, but he needed the use of land route from the port city of Karachi to supply the fighters fighting the Russians. So, he certified them to be nuclear free in order to get a safe passage to the Afghanistan border in return for aid (land use payment). Not only that; in the absence of any accounting of the military hardware reaching its destination, the Paki army stole the guns and rocket propelled grenades at will, from the convoys.

3. Fast forward to 2001, again a land route was needed to establish a supply route for the allied forces in Afghanistan to avenge the 9/11. Again, the US had to strike a deal with the devil to get what was needed. And, it continues on till today.

4. US does not have the intelligence blinders on. Things have been and are continuing to be done in the most pragmatic way - money in return for the safe passage of food, fuel and bullets for the battlefront. For the longest time, various administrations looked the other way, out of necessity. Complete knowledge about the ISI's activities was ignored and downplayed in public, so as not to disturb the applecart. But the time has come for openness, and I hope it stays that way.

5. There is a general perception about Afghanis being homogeneous people. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Afghanistan borders Iran and 5 Stans (or is it Satans) - Turkmeni, Uzbeki, Kyrgyz, Tajiki and Paki. There are many ethnic groups, and there are sizable minorities from these places who call Afghanistan home. Then there is the Shi'a, Sunni divide. The Hazara Shiites of Bamiyan and elsewhere in Afghanistan were systematically brutalized by the Sunni Taliban. So, it is a fractured country ruled by warlords, with the federal Govt. having only a nominal hold on some key areas. For the US to galvanize this mess into a coherent nation in order to defeat the Taliban is a tall order. With this task at hand, many things went out of focus. But the time has come to redress the old issues and hopefully the ISI would not escape the spotlight this time. Masood of the Northern Alliance and his militia were very sensible people, but unfortunately he was assassinated, which created a leadership vacuum in their organization.

6. Contrary to the perception in certain quarters, the US national interest comes first and other geographical areas are sacrificed in favor of the main goal. As we all know, for the longest time the terrorism inflicted on India was ignored as it did not affect the US. But 9/11 changed all that. No, not all of it, only what affected the US. Problems faced by India have been, and continue to be largely ignored, in order to get ISI's help (is it coming??) in eliminating the Taliban, which alas is not what ISI would want to do. So, all the conflicting scenarios, mixed with the politically expedient decisions drive the course of events. There are no simple solutions. There are certainly limits to what US can and is willing to do. This behemoth keeps getting tugged by various interests and many a times, the decisions taken by the leadership don't turn out to be best ones - either in the short run or the long run. So, be gentle with your remarks about what and how things get done here. There is a limit to what the US leadership can do without going bankrupt or losing the support of the people who elect them. This nation too is run by mere mortals and not by divine souls with extraordinary vision/powers. And about the intelligence level of its citizens - remember we elected George W twice to be our president. ;)

Pranam.
-

TatTvamAsi
24 September 2011, 01:50 AM
^Believer,

Excellent analysis of the thought process behind the US' dealings with Pakistan.

However, I'd like to add a few points as well.

It must be unequivocally stated that the US, the power-players behind the scenes, are inimical towards India primarily because India (and Pandit Nehru) sided with the Soviets in the early 1950s rejecting Dwight Eisenhower's friendly overtures. This put their back up and encouraged them to join hands with Pakistan without thinking about the grave consequences (as can be seen today). This relationship became exacerbated when that idiot Richard Nixon and that bastard Henry Kissinger (anti-Indian scum) went and licked the behinds of the Chinese (Zhou EnLai) and overtly denigrated India/Indians.

The other factor is that the US is still a mleccha-deSa; its collective conscience is very much still that of asuras (abrahamics). These are people who committed genocide against an entire race of people (Native Americans) and enslaved another for centuries on end. We should not be surprised that America and its so-called principles, are sorely lacking in compassion, thoughtfulness, and egalitarianism as their culture and "civilization" is a highly self-centered one; that is why they are mlecchas. Many Americans, even today, think the world is there for their benefit and their sorrow/misery is shared by everyone else. This can be easily seen by their idiotic efforts to "negotiate" with the likes of the Taliban and getting into bed with despotic leaders around the world. This myopic worldview of theirs arises from their abrahamic mindset; they now thump "democracy" around the world instead of thumping "christianity" (although that is done through the euphemism of spreading "freedom" :rolleyes:).

We Hindus (Indians) must never be surprised that the US continually targets Hinduism and Hindus diplomatically through NGOs and other so-called humanitarian organizations that are in actuality geo-political groups who have the backing of fundamentalist christians and jews in the US. It is evident that the US used "human rights" as a political rod to lambaste various countries that don't see eye to eye with the west and/or US. Although I am no fan of China or its communist morons, their temerity to hit back, diplomatically, at the US is to be admired.

The US has always supported Pakistan and still prods India on its internal matters (J&K) and continues to fund the Pakistanis despite knowing most of the "aid" is steered towards armaments and facilitating terrorists against India. We Hindus must never be fooled in thinking that the US, or any other country, will come to our aid if a war were to break out between Pakistan and India. As an Abrahamic nation whose people have "succeeded" by the subjugation of others, it is only natural that the US will support the aggressors (Pakistan).

If and only if the US is directly affected, as you've stated, will it take action. It is up to India and especially the majority Hindus to act and act with purpose to root out terrorism by Muslims, Christians, and other anti-Hindu vermin around the world.

SM's post was enlightening as I had never heard of Ahmad Shah Masood and the Northern Alliance's connections to India; it is highly unfortunate that that group has all but disappeared and/or rendered useless by the US/Pakistan and the Taliban.

Pakistan is, according to privately held opinions of many political pundits, near collapse. Everyday bombings are routine and their economy is hanging by a thread (supported by US aid in exchange for allowing them to use their land routes etc.). Pakistan, a country which was created out of pure hatred for Hindus, will not go down without a fight; when it's in its last throes, I am almost certain that Pakistan will launch a massive attack (nuclear perhaps?) against India which will force India to react (hopefully the idiot Congress will be booted out of power and Narendra Modi will be PM). It is a bleak future for Hindus and Hinduism for without a strong India, there is no Hinduism. Let us pray that India shall remain victorious as she has despite the millenium of subjugation by asuras!

Jai Hind!

sm78
26 September 2011, 09:52 AM
http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-afghan-endgame-as-americans-retreat-india-needs-plan-b/20110924.htm

Believer
26 September 2011, 03:38 PM
Rajeev Srinivasan has made some interesting observations in the above article. Without making a judgement on the US winning or losing the war, it must be understood that the US will be there as long as it thinks it must, and as long as the US population supports the war. Being at war costs blood and money, and there are limitations to both of them without going broke or losing public support.

The unfortunate fallout will be more terrorism exported to India. In the last decade, India has seen much less terrorism on its soil, than it would have, if the terrorists did not have US as the punching bag in Afghanistan. Things can and will get worse for India. The Obama administration plans for a complete pullout by the end of 2014, and things will get real ugly in the aftermath. Again, the US national interest necessitates the course of action and not what others may want/need. India will have to step up and increase its ability to defend itself from terrorism - both the ISI sponsored and the home grown. The only time the US will step in is if their intelligence indicates that the nuke weapons are about to fall into the hands of terrorists. I am sure the diplomats and the defense departments of both nations know the scenario about to be played out after the US departure. The question is will India be able to defend itself against the proxy war waged by the Pakis? The US puts severe restraints (through threats of trade embargo and non-cooperation in the technology and nuclear fields) on India to not to go to war even when the national interest of India dictates so. I don't know if the Obama administration or whoever else happens to be in the White House after the next election, will start backing off from that strategy. And going to war with the Pakis is not going to be cheap either. They have acquired substantial military hardware with the ill gotten money in the last decade. There are so many factors to be considered in terms of cost and public support. Getting Taliban back in power in Afghanistan, or at least helping them be a bigger nuisance for the Karzai regime, and making trouble in India will be the only things that Pakis will be focused on.
-