What If India Attacks Pakistan?

[$elf]

pakistan is nothing in front of India

 

[RiazHaq]

Sir please worry about Pakistan's internal problems and try to solve it. We Indians have a democratically elected government to plan and solve our issues. Enough with your stupid statistical analysis of India while your own country is on the brink of collapse, and also why I am here is to express my views on topics on my mother country India. Jai Hind.

I know. The reality you see in the mirror does not please you!!

Here are the key points Dr. Jyoti Ghosh of JNU makes about India:

1. Talk of Chinindia is nonsense. China and India are two very different countries with different histories. India has never done the hard work of basic reforms that China did decades ago. Unlike India, early reforms combined with greater state control on the economy have helped China achieve rapid and massive reduction in poverty.

2. Unlike China, India does not run any trade surplus or current account surplus to fund its growth. In fact, India has been running significant twin deficits. India depends much more on foreign investments for its growth than China.

3. Although large number of Indians estimated at 110 million have been the main beneficiaries of India's rapid economic expansion, their numbers are only about 10% of India's 1.1 billion people. The growth has excluded the rest of the 90% of the population, leaving them in abject poverty.

4. Instead of fighting against economic injustice, people are being divided along ethnic, religious and caste lines. There is an increase in all kinds of unpleasant social and political forces in India, where people are turning against each other, against linguistic, caste and faith groups, because they can't hit at the system—it's too big. So they pick on somebody their own size, or preferably smaller.

Haq's Musings: BRIC, Chindia and the Indian Miracle

 

[TankMan]

With all honesty, my opinion is mode of warfare is fluid in nature, it evolves with technology, mindset, society, and evolving nature of logic...... there were days when armies got together is predetermined frontiers and fought hand to hand, that changed to flanking maneuver, then came the bows and arrows horse cavalries, making their way to trench warfare... so on and so forth.... nations which did not adopt are now footnotes in pages of history.

Very soon the concept of world war II styles divisions charging with mechanized cavalry with infantry battalions preceded by air interdiction will make way to new form of warfare, some of it which is seen in syria and else where.... small consistent investments in people pay huge dividends, perception management along with clear and deliberate identification of objectives with the right kind of backing will make way for new form of warfare...

The main players in the world are cognizant and are already making arrangements in humint, where warfare is not just fought with weapons but with political emotions, indoctrination, corruption, radicalization, social change and revolutionary ideology.

I am afraid both India and Pakistan are living in the past and deliberately ignoring to see the writing on the wall.

I agree with you, you are right about the evolution of warfare, actually its not just in warfare, in all spheres the era of the nation-state is slowly ending. Nowadays war has become "Just supporting allies", "enforcing international law", "spreading democracy" or "self defence against terrorists" (well, some exceptions are there, but that's generally the case)

My previous post, however, was in context of an India-Pakistan proper war. It isn't very likely, but if it does happen, that's probably how it'd play out.

 

[Solomon2]

Pakistan has a very bad and long history of supporting "stateless" terrorists in its struggles with India. Anybody Pakistani poo-pooing this statement is free to read accounts of the U.S. State Dept. and U.N., available on-line, of their witness accounts of such things, especially blatant in 1965 but also key to Jinnah's elevating Kashmir as a perpetual flashpoint between Pakistan and India (to pre-empt calls for Indian unity and thus keep himself in power).

Yet Pakistanis should recall that under post-9/11 revisions to international law "stateless" terrorists cannot continue to shelter behind the borders of nation-states: the nations terrorists attack have every right to attack such terrorists as long as the state they shelter in isn't attacking terrorists and dismissing terrorists' networks, and without the host nation being able to claim the right of self-defense to defend the terrorists.

States like Yemen and Syria have varied between weakly objecting and openly endorsing the new approach. I think it's only rump Pakistan that loudly rejects it (Bangladesh endorsed it). So I'm not sure Pakistanis will have many friends at all if it attempts to oppose Indian efforts to destroy terror hives on Pakistani territory. Perhaps better to take the Syrian approach and ignore Indian activity as much as possible but never ever shoot back?

 

[The Headache]

if pakistan attacked india, today Bangladesh can move in after china clean up the radiation left behind. Pakistanis will have billion of population, and earth can cross out the name India from maps. It a win-win for all human race.

Please make me understand what are you trying to write. And go do your h.w. You are not mature enough for pdf.

Why can't the both countries have bilateral trade to increase economic growth. Bewajah ki ladaayi mein kuch nhi milega.

 

[RiazHaq]

Pakistan has a very bad and long history of supporting "stateless" terrorists in its struggles with India. Anybody Pakistani poo-pooing this statement is free to read accounts of the U.S. State Dept. and U.N., available on-line, of their witness accounts of such things, especially blatant in 1965 but also key to Jinnah's elevating Kashmir as a perpetual flashpoint between Pakistan and India (to pre-empt calls for Indian unity and thus keep himself in power).

Yet Pakistanis should recall that under post-9/11 revisions to international law "stateless" terrorists cannot continue to shelter behind the borders of nation-states: the nations terrorists attack have every right to attack such terrorists as long as the state they shelter in isn't attacking terrorists and dismissing terrorists' networks, and without the host nation being able to claim the right of self-defense to defend the terrorists.

States like Yemen and Syria have varied between weakly objecting and openly endorsing the new approach. I think it's only rump Pakistan that loudly rejects it (Bangladesh endorsed it). So I'm not sure Pakistanis will have many friends at all if it attempts to oppose Indian efforts to destroy terror hives on Pakistani territory. Perhaps better to take the Syrian approach and ignore Indian activity as much as possible but never ever shoot back?

It makes no sense to declare all genuine independence movements from Palestine to Kashmir as "terrorism". If that definition holds, then all previous independence struggles from George Washington's on would also have to be re-labeled "terrorism".

Haq's Musings: Who Are the Haqqanis?

 

[Developereo]

Yet Pakistanis should recall that under post-9/11 revisions to international law "stateless" terrorists cannot continue to shelter behind the borders of nation-states: the nations terrorists attack have every right to attack such terrorists as long as the state they shelter in isn't attacking terrorists and dismissing terrorists' networks, and without the host nation being able to claim the right of self-defense to defend the terrorists.

The US government is arming the PKK which is designated as a terrorist organization by NATO.

Shall we now list the US as a state sponsor of terror?

The point, my dear Suleiman, is that any rhetoric is only as good as the guns behind it. Whichever side has the power (military, economic, diplomatic) can declare its actions as legitimate and those of its opponents as terrorism.

 

[oFFbEAT]

Pakistan ko attack karne ka faida kya......pehle ye to batao.....

 

[Joeblow]

It makes no sense to declare all genuine independence movements from Palestine to Kashmir as "terrorism". If that definition holds, then all previous independence struggles from George Washington's on would also have to be re-labeled "terrorism".

Haq's Musings: Who Are the Haqqanis?

@RiazHaq the caption on the picture is quite disingenuous, to put it mildly. In fact, some might call it a blatant lie. Taliban was never at the White House. That's the afghan mujahideen meeting president Reagan a decade before the existence of Taliban. I did take the time to read your "musings" on this matter. Haqqani was never at the White House or in the US. I've posted a pakistani link below (using my phone so link might not be complete). Please do read through the whole article. The 2 people ISI loved the most (haqqani and hekmatyar) weren't in that meeting and neither was the Taliban. Why don't you concentrate on lack of toilets in India? 'cause shyt is you milieu. Enjoy it


Khalis, not Haqqani, was photographed with Reagan - thenews.com.pk

 

[RiazHaq]

@RiazHaq the caption on the picture is quite disingenuous, to put it mildly. In fact, some might call it a blatant lie. Taliban was never at the White House. That's the afghan mujahideen meeting president Reagan a decade before the existence of Taliban. I did take the time to read your "musings" on this matter. Haqqani was never at the White House or in the US. I've posted a pakistani link below (using my phone so link might not be complete). The 2 people ISI loved the most (haqqani and hekmatyar) weren't in that meeting and neither was the Taliban. Why don't you concentrate on lack of toilets in India? 'cause shyt is you milieu. Enjoy it



Khalis, not Haqqani, was photographed with Reagan - thenews.com.pk

Where did the Taliban come from?

Did they fall from the sky?

Did Khalis and his sons not become Taliban?

Were they not called "mujahideeen" when they fought against the Soviet Union?

Read "The Taliban" by Ahmad Rashid, the authority on Taliban, to learn.


Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia - Ahmed Rashid - Google Books

 

[Joeblow]

Where did the Taliban come from?

Did they fall from the sky?

Were they not called "mujahideeen" when they fought against the Soviet Union?

Read "The Taliban" by Ahmad Rashid, the authority on Taliban, to learn.


Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia - Ahmed Rashid - Google Books

Taliban didn't come into existence till 1994. Mullah Omar was a foot soldier during the afghan war. Regarding your question on whether Taliban fell out of the sky, my guess would be more like the ISI's HQ. After seeing Afghanistan slipping away to pro-Afghan elements rather than the pro-Pakistan elements, they were created to regain control over Afghanistan. Thank you for the book suggestion. I'm sure I'll find it extremely educational. However, none that changes the fact that there is a blatant lie in your "musings" and the caption on the picture you posted is disingenuous.

 

[Mercenary]

@RiazHaq ....sir please add an avatar to your profile and some flags.

 

[RiazHaq]

Taliban didn't come into existence till 1994. Mullah Omar was a foot soldier during the afghan war. Regarding your question on whether Taliban fell out of the sky, my guess would be more like the ISI's HQ. After seeing Afghanistan slipping away to pro-Afghan elements rather than the pro-Pakistan elements, they were created to regain control over Afghanistan. Thank you for the book suggestion. I'm sure I'll find it extremely educational. However, none that changes the fact that there is a blatant lie in your "musings" and the caption on the picture you posted is disingenuous.

I suggest you read your link, especially the last three paragraphs:

Khalis Baba, as he was called in his old age, also backed the Taliban. He also supported them after the US invasion and his son Anwarul Haq Mujahid is now a commander of the Taliban fighting the American and Nato forces.

So a man who visited the White House and thanked President Reagan and the US for supporting the Afghan jehad ended up in the Taliban camp and befriended bin Laden.

As for Haqqani, he was always a Talib and wasted no time to join the Taliban when they emerged in 1994 to fight the mujahideen. He and his family is still loyal to the Taliban leader Mulla Muhammad Omar and now poses a major threat to the US-led Nato forces in Afghanistan.

Khalis, not Haqqani, was photographed with Reagan - thenews.com.pk

 

[Joeblow]

I suggest you read your link, especially the last three paragraphs:

Khalis Baba, as he was called in his old age, also backed the Taliban. He also supported them after the US invasion and his son Anwarul Haq Mujahid is now a commander of the Taliban fighting the American and Nato forces.

So a man who visited the White House and thanked President Reagan and the US for supporting the Afghan jehad ended up in the Taliban camp and befriended bin Laden.

As for Haqqani, he was always a Talib and wasted no time to join the Taliban when they emerged in 1994 to fight the mujahideen. He and his family is still loyal to the Taliban leader Mulla Muhammad Omar and now poses a major threat to the US-led Nato forces in Afghanistan.

Khalis, not Haqqani, was photographed with Reagan - thenews.com.pk

And may I suggest that you read your own post above which stately quite clearly that the Taliban emerged in 1994? The fact that one of the people who was at the White House later on joined the Taliban doesn't make it "Reagan meets the Taliban". I did start reading the book you suggested. It too said something about the Taliban coming into existence in 1994 and very few of the Taliban having fought in the war against the Soviet Union. Perhaps there is a subsequent explanation about their meeting Reagan at the White House? Maybe a chapter about an alternate reality only known to you where Reagan retakes the White House in 1994 just to meet with the taliban?

 

[RiazHaq]

And may I suggest that you read your own post above which stately quite clearly that the Taliban emerged in 1994? The fact that one of the people who was at the White House later on joined the Taliban doesn't make it "Reagan meets the Taliban". I did start reading the book you suggested. It too said something about the Taliban coming into existence in 1994 and very few of the Taliban having fought in the war against the Soviet Union. Perhaps there is a subsequent explanation about their meeting Reagan at the White House? Maybe a chapter about an alternate reality only known to you where Reagan retakes the White House in 1994 just to meet with the taliban?

It seems that you are strongly defending the US when even the senior US govt officials admit that they did not foresee the untended consequences of their support for the Mujaheddin who gave birth to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. You are being more loyal to the US than the Americans themselves in this instance.


Hillary Clinton Admits the U.S. Government Created al-Qaeda | Global Research TV

Sir.. please we indians know our problems, and do not need Pakistan's help to solve it. and please no more links to your blog. lol...

The fact is that there are few countries in the world as messed up as India with its widespread poverty, hunger, illiteracy, disease and open defecation.

In fact, India has more poor people than all of Africa combined. India's social indicators are like those of the most backward nations of sub-Saharan Africa.

India has more and fiercer insurgencies than any other country in the world.

India is a poster child for why democracy does not work in the developing world to solve basic problems of the people.

And if Indians are still deluded enough to start a war with Pakistan, they are in for the shock of their lives.