Pakistan is a threat to regional stability: Afghan foreign ministry.

[illusion8]

you my dear

so quickly went on your back foot, proves my point.


Read my post and do not forget point number 2 in it.


Thank you

My post was meant for the general readership more than you, though I had my doubts about your post.

 

[cyphercide]

Believe what you want, I makes no difference to me and won't change facts. Hegemony is not something a nation accuse another off, it's just calling for world wide condemnation, especially if the accusee is India.

India is fighting a proxy war against Pakistan, everyone can see it, you just don't want to admit it. So fine, live your dreams, whether in them, or for them, makes no difference to the real world.

Also, if you really think that India only employs a defensive strategy, then you're naive. No nation with a large military has a purely defensive doctrine, none at all.

What makes you so certain that India is waging a proxy war in Pakistan? Do we extend diplomatic or moral cover to your separatist groups? Do any of them operate from Indian soil or rely on us for logistics? Do we try to galvanize public opinion or shore up international support for your extremists? Does our press media publish biased propaganda that openly support your terrorists?

Of course not. India, for very selfish reasons, has no visible interest in aiding or backing Pakistani terror groups. Contrast this with Pakistan's approach to the same and you will see what I mean.


India's chief concern with Afghanistan would be to prevent it from being a breeding ground for militants. So I would term our presence there as primarily defensive.

 

[illusion8]

What makes you so certain that India is waging a proxy war in Pakistan? Do we extend diplomatic or moral cover to your separatist groups? Do any of them operate from Indian soil or rely on us for logistics? Do we try to galvanize public opinion or shore up international support for your extremists? Does our press media publish biased propaganda that openly support your terrorists?

Of course not. India, for very selfish reasons, has no visible interest in aiding or backing Pakistani terror groups. Contrast this with Pakistan's approach to the same and you will see what I mean.


India's chief concern with Afghanistan would be to prevent it from being a breeding ground for militants. So I would term our presence there as primarily defensive.

I tend to believe that we are not that innocent - could be true but equally could be false as well.

 

[That Guy]

What makes you so certain that India is waging a proxy war in Pakistan? Do we extend diplomatic or moral cover to your separatist groups? Do any of them operate from Indian soil or rely on us for logistics? Do we try to galvanize public opinion or shore up international support for your extremists? Does our press media publish biased propaganda that openly support your terrorists?

Of course not. India, for very selfish reasons, has no visible interest in aiding or backing Pakistani terror groups. Contrast this with Pakistan's approach to the same and you will see what I mean.


India's chief concern with Afghanistan would be to prevent it from being a breeding ground for militants. So I would term our presence there as primarily defensive.

What a narrow viewpoint. Haven't you heard of the plausible deniability factor of proxy wars? What about the term covert support?

How am I certain that India is waging a proxy war in Pakistan? Because they'd be stupid not to. As Chuck Hagel has already said, India is financing trouble for Pakistan. A broken Pakistan means regional hegemony for India, which means restricting the military and influences growth of China.

I've already set this same standard to Pakistan, and I'm confident that Pakistan would covertly support Sikh separatism if it existed.

Anyone who believes that India doesn't support separatists in Pakistan is naive, and anyone who believes that Pakistan isn't doing vice versa is even more naive.

 

[cyphercide]

I tend to believe that we are not that innocent - could be true but equally could be false as well.

Shoring up self interests is hardly an innocent exercise. But yeah, the future looks to be very eventful in the neighborhood.

What a narrow viewpoint. Haven't you heard of the plausible deniability factor of proxy wars? What about the term covert support?

How am I certain that India is waging a proxy war in Pakistan? Because they'd be stupid not to. As Chuck Hagel has already said, India is financing trouble for Pakistan. A broken Pakistan means regional hegemony for India, which means restricting the military and influences growth of China.

I've already set this same standard to Pakistan, and I'm confident that Pakistan would covertly support Sikh separatism if it existed.

Anyone who believes that India doesn't support separatists in Pakistan is naive, and anyone who believes that Pakistan isn't doing vice versa is even more naive.

Not really. Mindless violence isn't the end goal of waging a proxy war. While you need the window of deniability, you also want to make sure to leave your calling card behind. The idea behind a covert war isn't to be so covert that the enemy has no idea on where the shots came from. You can take the example of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, or Pakistan's support in fomenting Kashmiri militancy and even India's intervention in Sri Lanka as examples to plot commonalities:

We see that in all cases, the countries extended diplomatic and moral support to their proxies.

We see that in all cases, a base of operations was set up by the concerned intelligence services within the host country itself.

We see that in all cases, the national media wrote sympathetic pleas to garner public support for the cause and romanticized the respective movements. Some of them still do.


Now if we were to compare these characteristics to the issue of India's alleged meddling in Pakistan, we find that the Indian government has never shown any sympathy or extended diplomatic courtesies to either the Balochis or the TTP. In fact, the TTP has been very vocal about its plans to attack India in the near future.Neither the BLA nor the TTP owe their presence to India and the Indian media isn't too keen(read zero coverage) to promote their side of the story out here.

Add all this to the fact that Pakistani agencies are yet to table a single shred of evidence(real or fabricated) with India in regards to her alleged involvement, we can conclude that the probability of India being behind such movements in Pakistan is very low.

 

[That Guy]

Shoring up self interests is hardly an innocent exercise. But yeah, the future looks to be very eventful in the neighborhood.



Not really. Mindless violence isn't the end goal of waging a proxy war. While you need the window of deniability, you also want to make sure to leave your calling card behind. The purpose of a covert war isn't to be so covert that nobody can figure out where the shots are coming from. You can take the example of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, or Pakistan's support in fomenting Kashmiri militancy and even India's intervention in Sri Lanka as examples to plot commonalities:

We see that in all cases, the countries extended diplomatic and moral support to their proxies.

We see that in all cases, a base of operations was set up by the concerned intelligence services within the host country itself.

We see that in all cases, the national media wrote sympathetic pleas to garner public support for the cause and romanticized the respective movements. Some of them still do.


Now if we were to compare these characteristics to the issue of India's alleged meddling in Pakistan, we find that the Indian government has never shown any sympathy or extended diplomatic status to either the Balochis or the TTP. In fact, the TTP has been very vocal about its plans to attack India in the near future.Neither the BLA nor the TTP owe their presence to India and the Indian media isn't too keen(read zero coverage) to promote their side of the story out here.

Add all this to the fact that Pakistani agencies are yet to table a single shred of evidence(real or fabricated) with India in regards to her alleged involvement, the probability of India being behind such movements in Pakistan is very low.

This is really one of the worst comments you're written.

Let me break it down for you. FIRST....

Not really. Mindless violence isn't the end goal of waging a proxy war

Of course it isn't, when did I claim it was? In fact I claimed the opposite, India's proxy war has a clear purpose, to break Pakistan into two pieces.

While you need the window of deniability, you also want to make sure to leave your calling card behind. The purpose of a covert war isn't to be so covert that nobody can figure out where the shots are coming from.

The purpose of a covert action is exactly so that people don't find out who did it. It is exactly so nobody can figure out where the shots came from. Where on earth are you getting your information from?

You can take the example of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, or Pakistan's support in fomenting Kashmiri militancy and even India's intervention in Sri Lanka as examples to plot commonalities:

We see that in all cases, the countries extended diplomatic and moral support to their proxies.

We see that in all cases, a base of operations was set up by the concerned intelligence services within the host country itself.

We see that in all cases, the national media wrote sympathetic pleas to garner public support for the cause and romanticized the respective movements. Some of them still do.

The Soviet-Afghan war? Are you serious? If the US and Pakistan could hide the evidence completely, they would have. Suffice it to say, the Soviets weren't a superpower for nothing, they obviously had intel that showed the US supporting the Mujahideen.

Extending moral and diplomatic support is not the same as extending military aid. There is a clear difference, for example, Canada has extended moral and diplomatic support to the opposition in Syria, but it has no desire to get involved in military aid and action.

Now if we were to compare these characteristics to the issue of India's alleged meddling in Pakistan, we find that the Indian government has never shown any sympathy or extended diplomatic status to either the Balochis or the TTP. In fact, the TTP has been very vocal about its plans to attack India in the near future.Neither the BLA nor the TTP owe their presence to India and the Indian media isn't too keen(read zero coverage) to promote their side of the story out here.

Since I've already shown how wrong the foundation of this argument is, this entire argument falls apart. Still, I will say one thing; The enemy of my enemy may still be my enemy, but short term gains insist we ally, that is what India, the BLF and TTP are doing. A broken Pakistan would obviously help India, and India would be foolish not to go after these options. The US is doing the same in Syria, so don't be too quick to claim that India is innocent, when it clearly isn't.

A perfect recent example is the Taliban delegation to Iran. These two were and are bitter enemies, having almost fought a war against each other. Even during the beginning of the US invasion, the Iranians actually helped coalition forces against the Taliban.

They still hate each other, but the Iranians are extending diplomatic support to them, actually, so are the Americans who allowed Qatar to open an office for the Taliban.

Add all this to the fact that Pakistani agencies are yet to table a single shred of evidence(real or fabricated) with India in regards to her alleged involvement, the probability of India being behind such movements in Pakistan is very low.

I was hoping you'd say that, because the Indian side has yet to do the same. Birds of a feather flock together and what not. Don't be so quick to institute a double standard, because doing so will only lower your standards.

 

[uzair ramay]

what r u trying to say...u also have dumb army...ur army dnt even hav power to counter 10 tents made by chinese army althouth u have so called nuclear power...

 

[cyphercide]

This is really one of the worst comments you're written.

Let me break it down for you.

Let me break it down for you? Very gangsta indeed!!!

Of course it isn't, when did I claim it was? In fact I claimed the opposite, India's proxy war has a clear purpose, to break Pakistan into two pieces. The purpose of a covert action is exactly so that people don't find out who did it. It is exactly so nobody can figure out where the shots came from. Where on earth are you getting your information from?

You're conflating the fundamentals of a proxy war with subversion/subversive warfare. A proxy war is merely letting independent factions fight on your behalf. There is no coverup or false flag ops involved as that would be counterproductive to the very intention of waging a proxy war. Subversion is where the smoke and mirrors come out as it seeks to undermine and undercut the ideological foundations of the enemy. It is easier to conceal as it requires minimum manpower training or weaponry. However, it doesn't rely on violence to attain its objectives and cannot be pursued to carry out militancy on foreign soil.

The Soviet-Afghan war? Are you serious? If the US and Pakistan could hide the evidence completely, they would have. Suffice it to say, the Soviets weren't a superpower for nothing, they obviously had intel that showed the US supporting the Mujahideen.

Wrong. The United States and Pakistan never made any attempt to conceal any part of their support. The Afghan Mujahideen were the toast of American politicians during the height of the war in addition to the very obvious aid, political support and training they received. They even were paraded around as heroes in Washington and the US President had some very nice things to say about them. Most Pakistanis believe the creation of BLA by the KGB was direct retaliation for the role that Pakistan played. Some even say a certain Pakistani leader was assassinated for it too.

Extending moral and diplomatic support is not the same as extending military aid. There is a clear difference, for example, Canada has extended moral and diplomatic support to the opposition in Syria, but it has no desire to get involved in military aid and action.

My point was exactly the opposite. Do you know of any nation that is supposedly funding and arming a foreign separatist group but refuses to have political/diplomatic ties with them? Think about it; the quite recent FSA or Libyan rebels were acknowledged with diplomatic support along with military aid. This is what "morally legitimizes" the violence under the pretext that they are freedom fighters and not terrorists. India did the same thing during her stint in Sri Lanka , why would we deviate from that tried and tested path with regards to Pakistan?

Since I've already shown how wrong the foundation of this argument is, this entire argument falls apart. Still, I will say one thing; The enemy of my enemy may still be my enemy, but short term gains insist we ally, that is what India, the BLF and TTP are doing. A broken Pakistan would obviously help India, and India would be foolish not to go after these options. The US is doing the same in Syria, so don't be too quick to claim that India is innocent, when it clearly isn't.

You haven't proved anything other than how little you know.

I was hoping you'd say that, because the Indian side has yet to do the same. Birds of a feather flock together and what not. Don't be so quick to institute a double standard, because doing so will only lower your standards.

Wrong again. Evidence from India has been acknowledged in Pakistani courts, made the UN designate Pakistani groups as terrorist organizations and their leaders labeled as terrorists, was used to convict a foreign citizen(David Headley) for crimes committed on Indian soil and even pushed the United States to announce a bounty on one of them. In contrast, Pakistan hasn't tabled even a single page evidence of India's alleged involvement on any forum. Not even cooked up charges, imagine that!!!

P.S.# Kindly refrain from the unsolicited personal ratings of my posts. If I were looking for a feedback, I'd go to smarter folks than to a Pakistani!!!

 

[That Guy]

Let me break it down for you? Very gangsta indeed!!!




You're conflating the fundamentals of a proxy war with subversion/subversive warfare. A proxy war is merely letting independent factions fight on your behalf. There is no coverup or false flag ops involved as that would be counterproductive to the very intention of waging a proxy war. Subversion is where the smoke and mirrors come out as it seeks to undermine and undercut the ideological foundations of the enemy. It is easier to conceal as it requires minimum manpower training or weaponry. However, it doesn't rely on violence to attain its objectives and cannot be pursued to carry out militancy on foreign soil.



Wrong. The United States and Pakistan never made any attempt to conceal any part of their support. The Afghan Mujahideen were the toast of American politicians during the height of the war in addition to the very obvious aid, political support and training they received. They even were paraded around as heroes in Washington and the US President had some very nice things to say about them. Most Pakistanis believe the creation of BLA by the KGB was direct retaliation for the role that Pakistan played. Some even say a certain Pakistani leader was assassinated for it too.



My point was exactly the opposite. Do you know of any nation that is supposedly funding and arming a foreign separatist group but refuses to have political/diplomatic ties with them? Think about it; the quite recent FSA or Libyan rebels were acknowledged with diplomatic support along with military aid. This is what "morally legitimizes" the violence under the pretext that they are freedom fighters and not terrorists. India did the same thing during her stint in Sri Lanka , why would we deviate from that tried and tested path with regards to Pakistan?




You haven't proved anything other than how little you know.




Wrong again. Evidence from India has been acknowledged in Pakistani courts, made the UN designate Pakistani groups as terrorist organizations and their leaders labeled as terrorists, was used to convict a foreign citizen(David Headley) for crimes committed on Indian soil and even pushed the United States to announce a bounty on one of them. In contrast, Pakistan hasn't tabled even a single page evidence of India's alleged involvement on any forum. Not even cooked up charges, imagine that!!!

P.S.# Kindly refrain from the unsolicited personal ratings of my posts. If I were looking for a feedback, I'd go to smarter folks than to a Pakistani!!!

haha, what a bad comment.

First, you said

You're conflating the fundamentals of a proxy war with subversion/subversive warfare. A proxy war is merely letting independent factions fight on your behalf. There is no coverup or false flag ops involved as that would be counterproductive to the very intention of waging a proxy war. Subversion is where the smoke and mirrors come out as it seeks to undermine and undercut the ideological foundations of the enemy. It is easier to conceal as it requires minimum manpower training or weaponry. However, it doesn't rely on violence to attain its objectives and cannot be pursued to carry out militancy on foreign soil.

That's really not true. The point of proxy wars is so that a sponsoring nation has plausible deniability on it's hand full of cards. This is the very foundation of proxy wars, and no matter what you say, this fact will not change. Proxy wars, false flag operations, financial support for militant groups, all of these things rely on violence, as that is the very thing that will achieve the objectives and goals of said sponsoring nation. There are other ways, but we're not really talking about them, now are we?

Wrong. The United States and Pakistan never made any attempt to conceal any part of their support. The Afghan Mujahideen were the toast of American politicians during the height of the war in addition to the very obvious aid, political support and training they received. They even were paraded around as heroes in Washington and the US President had some very nice things to say about them. Most Pakistanis believe the creation of BLA by the KGB was direct retaliation for the role that Pakistan played. Some even say a certain Pakistani leader was assassinated for it too.

No, you're wrong. If they weren't trying to conceal their support for the Afghan Mujahideen, why is it that the USSR kept an embassy in Pakistan? By all rights, the Soviets should have cut off all it's contacts with Pakistan, but they didn't.

Again, you're making things up to suit your own views, instead of looking at facts. Stop using mere speculation to make arguments.

My point was exactly the opposite. Do you know of any nation that is supposedly funding and arming a foreign separatist group but refuses to have political/diplomatic ties with them? Think about it; the quite recent FSA or Libyan rebels were acknowledged with diplomatic support along with military aid. This is what "morally legitimizes" the violence under the pretext that they are freedom fighters and not terrorists. India did the same thing during her stint in Sri Lanka , why would we deviate from that tried and tested path with regards to Pakistan?

No, your point was clear, now you're just trying to change it. Let's say you're right, it was the opposite, what then? There are many nations that support separatist groups, yet have no official and open diplomatic and political ties with them, for example, the militants in Sudan are being sponsored by South Sudan, that much is obvious, but the South denis such support and have never given the militants any form of diplomatic or even moral support. This can even be said in vice versa, with Sudan doing the same to South Sudan.

By the way, Canada doesn't give any military aid to the FSA, only diplomatic support. The US is trying, but there is local opposition within the US to doing this. The EU is the only one to offer both diplomatic and military aid to the FSA, but there is no evidence that the EU has (as of yet) provided such lethal aid.

Besides, those aren't proxy wars, those are civil wars which the international community got directly involved in. In fact, in Libya, the UN and NATO directly militarily intervened, thus, it cannot be considered a proxy war.

So your examples are really bad.

You haven't proved anything other than how little you know.

ooohhhh, watch out guys, we got a badass over here.

Wrong again. Evidence from India has been acknowledged in Pakistani courts, made the UN designate Pakistani groups as terrorist organizations and their leaders labeled as terrorists, was used to convict a foreign citizen(David Headley) for crimes committed on Indian soil and even pushed the United States to announce a bounty on one of them. In contrast, Pakistan hasn't tabled even a single page evidence of India's alleged involvement on any forum. Not even cooked up charges, imagine that!!!

P.S.# Kindly refrain from the unsolicited personal ratings of my posts. If I were looking for a feedback, I'd go to smarter folks than to a Pakistani!!!

It's funny how you're trying to use strawman logic here. I didn't say that the said people weren't guilty, but the fact is that you have yet to show that they were state sponsored. In fact, this was your entire argument to begin with. It's kind of sad how you're using simple logical fallacies to prove something that you cannot through proper avenues. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, a simple logical fallacy, which you seem to be constantly using.

PS: Insulting my nationality is against forum rules, I suggest that you refrain from it in the future. Also, you're on the internet, you will receive feedback, regardless of you looking for it or not. Besides, you don't want constructive criticism, you just want validation of your views.

PPS: You're trying to sound smart, aren't you? Kind of sad, really...

 

[cyphercide]

Meh. I neither have the energy nor the inclination to indulge Pakistani village idiots like yourself. You need to read up and stop thinking that your validations matters to anyone out here

 

[That Guy]

Meh. I neither have the energy nor the inclination to indulge Pakistani village idiots like yourself. You need to read up and stop thinking that your validations matters to anyone out here

lol, the fact that you didn't have the guts to reply to me, and instead posted a comment in the hopes that I would read it, tells me your level of thinking.

Like I said before, badass...

Oh, by the way, you seem to be forgetting that you were the one to reply to me first, lol. If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the sun, because you'll get sunburnt very easily.

 

[That Guy]

I tend to believe that we are not that innocent - could be true but equally could be false as well.

That's a healthy view to have. On one should never believe that their nation is 100% clean, every nation has it's dirty secrets, even Pakistan.

 

[cyphercide]

lol, the fact that you didn't have the guts to reply to me, and instead posted a comment in the hopes that I would read it, tells me your level of thinking.

Like I said before, badass...

Oh, by the way, you seem to be forgetting that you were the one to reply to me first, lol. If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the sun, because you'll get sunburnt very easily.

Guts? What for? This is an online forum and if you are really that retarded to assume the things that you said, you're dumb and I ain't your abbu to start schooling you for free!!

Cheers and stop quoting me!!!

 

[That Guy]

Guts? What for? This is an online forum and if you are really that retarded to assume the things that you said, you're dumb and I ain't your abbu to start schooling you for free!!

Cheers and stop quoting me!!!

Seeing as you did it first, I have every right to reply to you. You're free to ignore my comments if you don't like them.

Also, keep on insulting me, just makes my argument all the more valid in other people's eyes.

 

[Haseebullah]

Oh.The.Irony.