What's new

Why Pakistan Produces Jihadists

so Nepal and even Bengali maoists have nothing to do with the maoist movement in india?


Last time i checked Bengal was a state of India??:what: Nepal Maoists are different from India ..its not Indians who fight against Nepalis there ..its the Nepali people..what is India has to do with it??

TTP is not a religious organization either, no matter how hard they try to project themselves that way. If that were the case, they wouldn't be caught with bottles of smuggled wine, heroin; they wouldnt be attacking Mosques and killing Muslims.

it is an ideological organization; and it is being funded and supported from elements outside and even inside the country.


For you and many Pakistanis here..but what is the world thinks about them??In the end they were always tagged as Islamic terrorists whether you liked it or not..and as for foreign funding apart from some conspiracy thearies there is no concrete proofs about it..

the naxalite movement is also ideological; indian spin-masters will be quick to say that they are just poor people and they are no threat

they conveniently forget that your own pm singh labelled them (not TTP or Let) as ''single biggest threat [to hindustan]''

As I said they are not going to kill in the name of religion nor divide the country in the name of religion..yes its a threat to Indian democracy..Its the worst thing that can happen to India..she will fall from a democracy to Autocratic country and the name maay be changed to People Republic of India..Is that the case of TTP coming to power??Not only Pakistan but the whole world has to be feared..

''menace''

:rofl:

they killed 75 policemen a few weeks back (and took their arms!)

just yesterday or day before yesterday they murdered a Congress leader; around the same time, they also blew up a few schools



''menace''

Death of those CRPF jawans were unfortunate but you have to take notice that it happened inside Maoists influvential area and that too inside India not in other country..and also care to show me any proof that Maoists had a big bomb attacks like TTP did in major cities of yours??Indian govt knows its partially has to blame themselves for the growth of Naxals and they are trying to devalop those backward areas along with paramilitary action..note that those jawans are going with out any air support nor artillary support..In the end Naxals are one of our own ..

we acknowledge them as a threat. Follow the counter-insurgency operations and news/discussion threads. There are over 3 very active ones in the War section. You can go and learn how we are dealing with this threat, despite their cowardly counter-attacks in which mostly civilians die.

I know you aknowledge them as a threat and you are fighting against them..from this thread and other news papers i know how much lives has lost because of this WoT..but i am asking this,what has Indian dalits and maoists has to do with it??Does poiting fingures at how India dealing with Maoists help you makes your country better?
and we set aside our pride and did something about it.....india has also had its fair share of international terrorists. One of the suspects in the failed London bombing was an indian (as an example)

Yes i know..i said most of the terrorist actions..not all of them..


well we know about the booming prostitution industry in hindustan (a key contributor to the scourge of reported and un-reported HIV/AIDS cases existing in that country). That's just informal economy sector, we can discuss that elsewhere

but as for these specific reports of indians deploying prostitutes for their soldiers (i dont know if its 100% true or not) - it may have something to do with this

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20704371-5005961,00.html

You just cant stop your self from having a pot shot even if you become a think tank huh??from that should i have to think that there are no prostitutes in Pakistan and not even a single Aids patient?as you said will discuss it in another thread..Those are no specific reports its just the rants of Ahmed Qureshi to tickle Pakistani people..stress is with every army..You having a military proffessional knows it better than me ..

Pakistan is doing its best to first eliminate threats to its own soil. National interests come first before ANYTHING else.

We are, however, happy to extend support internationally to help combat terrorism. Those well-versed (and not relying on phoneys with self-imagined credentials) know our efforts have had much success. We've had some short-comings. But we are a responsible nation and do not condone terrorism.

I am happy about our role in helping Sri Lanka eliminate the indian supported/armed Tamil tigers group. They were responsible for fighting and civil war in the island country for over 25 bloody years, God only knows how many civilians they killed.


See now you bringing Sri Lanka in to it?cant you just focus on whats happening in your country??
 
.
I have two questions for you, do you agree with William Casey (CIA Chief) who ordered attacks by militants (Mujahideen) within USSR territory -
I cannot take the preface to this question at face value, nor will I take the time to investigate it. And what was your second question?

What is up for debate is an article by a clearly biased man who originates from India.
So what? Musharraf is from New Delhi. All Pakistani men over the age of 63 can be considered as having been born in India!

His view point is often that Pakistan is causing all the problems in the world and what he fails to mention is the intelligent policies of the GoUS that have caused a war to get dragged out for such a long time.
I was asking Abu Z for substantial criticism, wasn't I? Go on, give examples.

In my opinion, working with someone who has clearly suffered more is the main task for US and not openly criticising and harrasing Pakistan into actions that will have further implications.
If Pakistani leaders truly felt the suffering of their citizens they would never have let Swat feel the lash of the Taliban, would they? Pakistan's leaders are very corrupt. Being an ally of the U.S. does mean exposure to U.S. criticism. That's how it goes. You can always refuse. Pakistani leaders have been trying to twist the U.S. 'round their fingers since the '65 war, when Bhutto tried to turn the CENTO mutual-security pact into a war of conquest against India. I wish they'd give it up, but clearly a lot of the populace (like you) supports this approach. The moral rot is bad, and there seems to be very little pressure to change it - I suppose people who are "out" would rather be "in" on the corruption instead.

I imagine those who are sickened by this have just four choices: do nothing and maybe blame others, depart, fight for honest democracy, or go jihad. Which do you prefer?
 
.
actually its well documented that Musharaff initiated Kargil to gain power and also derailed the ongoing peace process which saw our prime minister visit Lahore via bus. At that time the talks was on and its hinted that a solution to Kashmir wasn't very far away. Zia is the person who radicalized Pakistan with his ideologies and thats where the ball was set rolling.

Even Zia initiated a plan in the late 80's to solve the Kashmir conflict and was working on it through back channels but he died. Musharraff did not start the war to derail peace plans, it was a plan that was in the offing for some time but was put on hold and due to international pressure, cut short. The army was angry at the corruption and bad governance of the country and wanted to run things better than what had happened in the 90's.

It would take more than a bus trip to solve the kashmir problem as many people are of conflicting views, it would have taken some time and who is to say what might have occured.
 
.
Firstly what do you Indians rate as world, since your knowledge is limited to TTP, let me enlighten you that TTP terminology is refered to the Indian sponsored terrorists in Pakistan, the other action in your small world are supposedly carried out by those affiliated to the Al-Quaida. Talking of blowing others up, well you have seen how the Maoist reacted when the Indian authorities tried to retake a piece of Forrest from them, well the scumbags blowing your so called world up were once planted there and now they are being forced out as the likes of US and NATO, try to uproot and retake their piece of Forrest. And you sit tight in your corner as all the NATO firepower was unable to execute as what Pakistan Army alone managed to achieve by sheer determination and will, hence we don't need no weekend warriors to rant about our responsibilities.

Back to Indian sponsership huh??care to show us some concrete evidence??with out it ,this will remain a baseless allegations from your side ..And as for Maosists are concerned read my previous posts..They are not going in with Air power nor artillary fire ..and those jawans were CRPF not Indian militaray..try to understand the difference between two before you vomit the so called expert comments about Maoists..

Then i suggest you stick to the likes of Aaj Tak, i am sure that puts wind in your sails.

Na i prefer some regional news channels but yea i prefer aaj tak than Zaid Hamid and Ahmed Qureshi

Let me assure you, whatever is happening around us and whatever your country sends our way, no one in Pakistan misses a heart beat but hey as they say, what goes around...... comes around. :cheers:

yups i think Pakistan should have learned it a long time ago..two nations would have co exsited peacefully ..
 
.
I cannot take the preface to this question at face value, nor will I take the time to investigate it. And what was your second question?

So what? Musharraf is from New Delhi. All Pakistani men over the age of 63 can be considered as having been born in India!

I was asking Abu Z for substantial criticism, wasn't I? Go on, give examples.

If Pakistani leaders truly felt the suffering of their citizens they would never have let Swat feel the lash of the Taliban, would they? Pakistan's leaders are very corrupt. Being an ally of the U.S. does mean exposure to U.S. criticism. That's how it goes. You can always refuse. Pakistani leaders have been trying to twist the U.S. 'round their fingers since the '65 war, when Bhutto tried to turn the CENTO mutual-security pact into a war of conquest against India. I wish they'd give it up, but clearly a lot of the populace (like you) supports this approach. The moral rot is bad, and there seems to be very little pressure to change it - I suppose people who are "out" would rather be "in" on the corruption instead.

I imagine those who are sickened by this have just four choices: do nothing and maybe blame others, depart, fight for honest democracy, or go jihad. Which do you prefer?

I like how you avoid questions so you have do not have to provide an answer that implicates USG in mishandling the whole situation. My second question was that there are conflicting views on Pakistan from policymakers and those do not help. Which one do you agree with, limited media reach in Pak or media influenced bias against the west. Clearly both cannot be mutual and co exist side by side.

And regarding bhutto using CENTO mutual-security pact as way of conquest, that is what it was for isn't it. When you can go help israel, why not help Pakistan who was fighting a country which leaned towards the soviets. And at the end of the day USA got the best deal out of an alliance with Pak, defeat of USSR. If USSR was here today, imagine the way things might have been.

And who are you to provide me with choices as to what I and fellow pakistanis should do. Perhaps these choices should be presented to the USG who are stuck in trap called afghanistan.

As for corrupt leaders, yes we know that and what can we do, becuase leaders in Pakistan need clearance from three A's.

Allah, Army and America.
 
.
I like how you avoid questions so you have do not have to provide an answer that implicates USG in mishandling the whole situation.
That unsupported preface prejudged any answer. I'm not a toy.

My second question was that there are conflicting views on Pakistan from policymakers and those do not help. Which one do you agree with, limited media reach in Pak or media influenced bias against the west. Clearly both cannot be mutual and co exist side by side.
I do wonder about that.

And regarding bhutto using CENTO mutual-security pact as way of conquest, that is what it was for isn't it.
No sir. And Bhutto, as foreign minister, knew that very, very well.

When you can go help israel -
I don't think the U.S. has anything like a CENTO agreement with Israel.

And who are you to provide me with choices as to what I and fellow pakistanis should do.
It isn't a "should" list but a "could" list. Who do I have to be? Did you have your own contribution to make? Apparently not.

As for corrupt leaders, yes we know that and what can we do, becuase leaders in Pakistan need clearance from three A's. Allah, Army and America.
Not only does that not accurately characterize the relationship, but you should be able to figure that out yourself. If your leaders needed "clearance" from America, would Pakistan would ever have been "cleared" to develop nuclear weapons?

I'm tired of people trying to justify their actions by characterizing Pakistanis as inferiors. But I suppose it is a handy excuse for those Pakistanis who see public areas turned into politically-owned and approved apartment blocks to blame others, rather than citizen apathy, for their country's fate.
 
.
That unsupported preface prejudged any answer. I'm not a toy.

I do wonder about that.

No sir. And Bhutto, as foreign minister, knew that very, very well.

I don't think the U.S. has anything like a CENTO agreement with Israel.

It isn't a "should" list but a "could" list. Who do I have to be? Did you have your own contribution to make? Apparently not.

Not only does that not accurately characterize the relationship, but you should be able to figure that out yourself. If your leaders needed "clearance" from America, would Pakistan would ever have been "cleared" to develop nuclear weapons?

I'm tired of people trying to justify their actions by characterizing Pakistanis as inferiors. But I suppose it is a handy excuse for those Pakistanis who see public areas turned into politically-owned and approved apartment blocks to blame others, rather than citizen apathy, for their country's fate.


One more time my friend I am about to shock you as you are clearly not aware of what USA has done in its past. The below quoted summary proves that US did indeed approved Pakistan building nuclear weapons.

December 26, 1979: Memo to President Carter Gives Pakistan Green Light to Pursue Nuclear Weapons Program
Edit event

National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski writes a memo to President Jimmy Carter about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which has just begun (see December 8, 1979). Brzezinski focuses on fears that success in Afghanistan could give the Soviets access to the Indian Ocean, even though Afghanistan is a landlocked country. He suggests the US should continue aid to the Afghan mujaheddin, which actually began before the war and spurred the Soviets to invade (see 1978 and July 3, 1979). He says, “This means more money as well as arms shipments to the rebels and some technical advice.” He does not give any warning that such aid will strengthen Islamic fundamentalism. He also concludes, “[W]e must both reassure Pakistan and encourage it to help the rebels. This will require a review of our policy toward Pakistan, more guarantees to it, more arms aid, and alas, a decision that our security problem toward Pakistan cannot be dictated by our nonproliferation policy.” Carter apparently accepts Brzezinski’s advice. Author Joe Trento will later comment, “With that, the United States agreed to let a country admittedly in turmoil proceed to develop nuclear weapons.” [Trento, 2005, pp. 167-168] Trento and fellow author David Armstrong will add: “Once [Pakistan] became a partner in the anti-Soviet Afghan campaign and the Carter administration adopted a more lenient view of Pakistan’s nuclear activities, the [procurement] network [run by A. Q. Khan] expanded its operations dramatically. It would soon evolve into a truly global enterprise, obtaining the vast array of sophisticated equipment with which Pakistan would eventually build a bomb.” [Armstrong and Trento, 2007, pp. 99]

Entity Tags: James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., David Armstrong, Joseph Trento, Zbigniew Brzezinski

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, A. Q. Khan's Nuclear Network, War in Afghanistan

October 1980: Former President Nixon Indicates Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Program May Continue
Edit event


On a trip to New York, Pakistani dictator Muhammad Zia ul-Haq meets with former US President Richard Nixon. The meeting is to discuss the Soviet-Afghan War, but Pakistan’s nuclear program also comes up. General Khalid Mahmud Arif, who accompanies Zia, will later say that Nixon makes it clear he is in favor of Pakistan gaining nuclear weapons capability. Nixon does not say that he is acting for Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, but, according to authors Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clarke, “his comments signal […] the way ahead,” as the future Reagan administration will enable Pakistan to continue work on its nuclear weapons program without being sanctioned. [Levy and Scott-Clark, 2007, pp. 76]

Entity Tags: Khalid Mahmud Arif, Reagan administration, Richard M. Nixon, Muhammad Zia ul-Haq

April 1981: Reagan Administration Says It Can Turn a Blind Eye to Pakistani Nuclear Program

Pakistan Foreign Minister Agha Shahi and General Khalid Arif visit Washington to discuss the new Reagan administration’s plans for the Soviet-Afghan War. The new administration is aware that Pakistani support is crucial if it wants to keep up US aid to anti-communist fighters in Afghanistan. However, the Pakistanis impose a number of conditions on their participation, one of which is that the US does not complain about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons development program. According to former State Department official Dennis Kux, Shahi and Arif tell US Secretary of State Alexander Haig that Pakistan will not compromise on its nuclear program. Haig replies that if Pakistan conducts a nuclear test, this will cause trouble in Congress and “make it difficult to cooperate with Pakistan in the way that the Reagan administration hoped.” However, if Pakistan does not perform a test, the nuclear program “need not become a centerpiece of the US-Pakistani relationship.” State Department South Asia specialist James Coon will comment that there is “a tacit understanding that the Reagan administration could live with Pakistan’s nuclear program as long as Islamabad did not explode a bomb.” [Armstrong and Trento, 2007, pp. 118, 248] Over the next few months, Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance James Buckley and other US officials travel back and forth between Washington and Pakistan, in the words of authors Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark, “refining the back-channel deal on the Pakistan nuclear program,” and reassuring the Pakistanis that the Reagan administration will allow their work on the bomb to continue. On one occasion, Arif meets Buckley and they discuss the sale of F-16 fighters to Pakistan. Arif then raises the nuclear issue, but, Arif will later say, “The Americans suggested there was no need to talk about Pakistan’s [nuclear] program any more.” [Levy and Scott-Clark, 2007, pp. 88-89]

Entity Tags: Khalid Mahmud Arif, James Buckley, Dennis Kux, Alexander M. Haig, Jr., Agha Shahi, James Coon

Timeline Tags: A. Q. Khan's Nuclear Network

I would like to hear your comments on this matter now. USA did indeed allow Pakistan to build nuclear weapons becuase they got a good bargain.
 
Last edited:
.
Beyond Times Square: The Growing Threat from Pakistan - TIME

Not long ago, a bomb attack on New York City's Times Square would have had intelligence officials and terrorism experts checking off the usual suspects among the sources of terrorist plots against the U.S. — Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq. But these days, says a top counterterrorism official, "when I hear of a terrorist plot, I can count back from 10, and before I get to zero, someone will bring up the P word."

That's P for Pakistan
.

Over the past couple of years, more plots against U.S. targets have emanated from or had a strong connection to Pakistan than any other country. Says the counterterrorism official, who was briefed on the hunt for the Times Square bomber but is not authorized to speak with the media: "It was totally predictable that the smoking Pathfinder would lead to someone with Pakistan in his past."
(See the making of a Mumbai terrorist.)

Nor would it come as a surprise if it were revealed that Faisal Shahzad, who has claimed to investigators that he was working alone, was in fact linked to an ever lengthening list of extremist groups operating in Pakistan's northern wilds. These groups, whose attacks had long been confined to the Indian subcontinent, are now emerging as a deadly threat to the U.S. and its allies. As the core of al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, wilts under the constant pounding from the CIA's Predator drone campaign, Pakistani groups are mounting operations deep into the West.

Such groups as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) have not yet notched major successes against U.S. targets to match Hizballah's bombings in 1980s Lebanon or al-Qaeda's destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. But they have lately mounted operations of great audacity and sophistication. LeT has been operating in Europe for at least a decade, initially raising funds from the large Pakistani diaspora in countries like Britain and France and later recruiting volunteers for the jihad against Western forces. At least one of the plotters of the 2005 London subway bombings was an LeT trainee, and British investigators believe the group has been connected to other plots in the U.K.
(See Mohammad Amir Ajmal Qasab's jihadist journey into India.)

The TTP, which claimed credit for Shahzad's failed bombing, was behind the suicide bombing that killed seven CIA agents in Afghanistan late last year. And in 2008, in the most spectacular attack by a Pakistani-based group on Western targets, LeT bombed and shot up a railway station, a hospital, two five-star hotels and a Jewish center in Mumbai, killing more than 160 people, including six Americans. Afterward, Indian authorities scanning a computer belonging to one of the Mumbai plotters found a list of 320 targets worldwide; only 20 were Indian.
(See who made the TIME 100.)

Now, security officials fear, Pakistani jihadis are spreading their operations across the Atlantic, recruiting U.S. citizens to their cause just as Britons were recruited a decade ago. If that assessment proves accurate, the Times Square bomb plot could be the first of more to come.
(Comment on this story.)

An Evolving Threat What are the wellsprings of Pakistani radicalism? In the 1980s, many fervently Islamic groups were set up in Pakistan to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. After the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, however, these groups and their spin-offs did not lay down their arms but instead turned their attention to Pakistan's old enemy, India. Encouraged by Pakistani civilian, military and intelligence authorities, LeT, Jaish-e-Mohammed and others refashioned themselves as freedom fighters in the cause of Kashmir, the Himalayan territory claimed by both India and Pakistan. Pakistani officials regarded the jihadis as a proxy in their conflict with India, and Islamabad provided groups like LeT with land, funding and even military training, though it was understood that they could not attack targets in Pakistan or get involved in any operations against the U.S., Pakistan's ally. Though there was some low-key cooperation between the Pakistani groups and al-Qaeda, it didn't merit much attention from Washington.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, however, the Bush Administration began to look more closely into bin Laden's alliances. Washington pressured the Pakistani government of General Pervez Musharraf to crack down on LeT, Jaish and others, which by then were on the State Department's list of proscribed terrorist organizations. But the government in Islamabad allowed the groups to continue operations — in December 2001, LeT attacked the Indian Parliament in an audacious move that nearly brought the two countries to war — with only cosmetic changes to their names. LeT, for instance, merged with its charitable foundation, the Jamaat-ud-Dawah.

Gradually, the Pakistani groups began to broaden their targets beyond the Indian enemy. LeT propaganda, for instance, began to focus on links, real and imagined, between India, Israel and the U.S. By the mid-2000s, the group's leader, a former Islamic-studies professor named Hafiz Muhammed Saeed, began to call for a jihad against the West using language similar to those of the fatwas issued by bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. LeT fighters began to venture out of their comfort zone, joining the fighting in Iraq.

At the same time, a new group of radicals, the TTP, had begun to emerge along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. While LeT, Jaish and other older groups were dominated by Pakistan's majority Punjabi ethnic group, the TTP was overwhelmingly Pashtun, the dominant ethnic group in Afghanistan. And the TTP never had any qualms about challenging the Pakistani state as well as NATO troops in Afghanistan. In 2007 its leader, Baitullah Mehsud, ordered the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and attacks on military targets; he also unleashed a wave of suicide bombings in Pakistani cities. While Pakistani authorities have continued to take a somewhat tolerant view of the Punjabi groups, their attitude toward the TTP is another matter. The army began to crack down on the group in 2008, and in the summer of 2009, a CIA drone took out Baitullah Mehsud. His successor, Hakimullah Mehsud, was thought to have been killed in another drone strike in January, but he re-emerged last week to claim responsibility for the Times Square attack.

Militants in Our Midst How plausible is that? U.S. officials were initially dismissive of the TTP's claims but began to reconsider once it emerged that Shahzad had been trained in bombmaking at a camp in Waziristan, which is Mehsud's stronghold. There is no doubt that the TTP and other Pakistani groups are now recruiting among Americans. Last October, the FBI arrested a Pakistani American, David Coleman Headley, and a Pakistani Canadian associate, for plotting to attack the Copenhagen offices of a Danish newspaper that had published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. More shockingly, the FBI said that Headley had been involved in the Mumbai attacks too (he had scoped out the hotels and the Jewish center for LeT) and was planning to bomb the U.S., British and Indian embassies in Dhaka, Bangladesh, before local authorities discovered the plot. In March, Headley pleaded guilty to all charges; he is now waiting to be sentenced.

The Headley revelations alarmed the Obama Administration's security team. In January, Daniel Benjamin, the State Department's top counterterrorism official, said in a speech to the Cato Institute in Washington that "very few things worry me as much as the strength and ambition of LeT." The next month, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that LeT was "becoming more of a direct threat ... placing Western targets in Europe in its sights."

The TTP is certainly doing so. In 2008, it plotted to bomb the public-transport network in Barcelona, though the operation was busted before it got much beyond the planning phase. If Shahzad was indeed acting on Mehsud's instructions, then the TTP has come closer to successfully executing a large-scale operation on American soil than any group has since Sept. 11, 2001.

Exporting Jihad It's fair to say that many analysts remain skeptical of the ability of a group like the TTP to operate outside Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mehsud lacks the kinds of networks cultivated by the Punjabi groups among Pakistanis living in the West. The TTP's fighters also tend to be poor, unsophisticated peasants from the mountains, ill equipped for foreign assignments. Besides, Mehsud and his fighters now find themselves under attack from the air (the CIA drones) as well as on the ground (the Pakistani military) and may not have the freedom to think big. They're much more likely to seek U.S. targets close at hand: in April, the TTP attacked the U.S. consulate in the Pakistani city of Peshawar.

But the TTP is working on ways to export terrorism. The group's training camps in Waziristan are a magnet for Western jihadis, including U.S. citizens. Once trained, some return home and become executors of the TTP's global ambitions. It's likely that the camps attended by both Najibullah Zazi, who confessed to planning attacks on the New York subway system last year, and Shahzad, the alleged Times Square bomber, were run by the TTP. Others will no doubt follow in their footsteps. Ashley Tellis, a South Asia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says there's no reason to doubt Mehsud's determination to mount attacks in the U.S. "His group has taken very big hits from the drone campaign," he says. "He's looking for payback. We have to watch the TTP very carefully."

LeT has the same intent but much greater capabilities. It has larger international networks and access to more sophisticated urban and educated recruits — people like Headley, who can move freely in American society. Its foreign operations tend to be better planned, often in collaboration with other groups, like al-Qaeda and Jaish.

Perhaps LeT's greatest strength is the patronage it continues to receive from the Pakistani military and intelligence services. And it enjoys genuine popularity in large parts of the country, where it offers social services that the government cannot provide. After the devastating 2005 earthquake in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, LeT volunteers were often the first to arrive on the scene and provide valuable assistance. Like Hizballah in Lebanon, LeT and other Punjabi jihadist groups wield a combination of military and political power that makes them practically untouchable.

How can the Pakistani groups be combatted? Bruce Riedel, a counterterrorism expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, says the Administration's best bet is to launch a "global takedown" of Pakistani jihadi cells outside Pakistan, especially in Britain, the U.S. and the Middle East. "These external bases are the most threatening to us, much more than their operations in Pakistan," he says. As British authorities — who have had more experience with this challenge than those in the U.S. — know very well, such a takedown involves long, hard work by a host of law-enforcement agencies. And while the good guys are increasing their capabilities and understanding of the threats facing them, so are the bad guys. The Times Square bomb plot didn't go as planned. But as Riedel says, "We can't rely on them to be bad bombmakers forever."
 
.
you seem to be having more info on what India is doing in Afghanistan than what is happening in Pakistan. Afghanistan and India share a long history of friendship even before the existence of Pakistan so its natural we help them out. The so called Indian equation your talking about only exist in stupid blogs or Zaid Hamid websites, no proof has ever or will ever be provided as it does not exist. Its almost become habit to blame India for all your domestic issues, from water to terrorism.
Well we have every Indian member telling us what is supposed to be happening inside Pakistan, hell that even saves me wasting my self on BR or something and It comes as a pleasant surprise in fact a shock to hear of your friendly history with any neighbor, suppose during Russian invasion, you were torn between the two lovers. ;)
Buddy whatever Zaid Hamid is worth, he doesn't stand a chance in front of your seasoned drama queens. Each to his own.
 
.
Back to Indian sponsership huh??care to show us some concrete evidence??with out it ,this will remain a baseless allegations from your side ..And as for Maosists are concerned read my previous posts..They are not going in with Air power nor artillary fire ..and those jawans were CRPF not Indian militaray..try to understand the difference between two before you vomit the so called expert comments about Maoists..
You are incompetent to witness any evidence sitting behind a screen,
No one criticized your army, the point in question was the resistance shown by such outfits when they are forced to comply.

Na i prefer some regional news channels but yea i prefer aaj tak than Zaid Hamid and Ahmed Qureshi
No doubt since they rant what you want to hear and can digest.

yups i think Pakistan should have learned it a long time ago..two nations would have co exsited peacefully ..
Yes by implementing all UN resolutions.
 
.
Unfortunately, we Pakistani got 4 dictators who ruled the country with their own wishes. But in India never any general took control over. Wich is a very good thing for India & Indians.

I know that many Indians will hate my this post or will be disagreed for sure. Because Kashmir Issue gave birth to many Jihadi Tanzeem. Because they wanted to help Kashmirir people from 700.000 Indian troops in Jammu & Kashmir.

Kashmir is a biggest & core isuue between Pakistan & India.
 
.
You are incompetent to witness any evidence sitting behind a screen,
No one criticized your army, the point in question was the resistance shown by such outfits when they are forced to comply.

Again comparison between two and action against two is not comparable..as for now Maoists didnt face any real test ..some ill equiped para military and police is what they faced till now..not what in the case of TTP.. Still my question whats the purpose of bringing dalits and maoists in to the scenario?is it gonna change anything in your country??Does any body in the world thinks that Indian maoists are a threat to their country??

No doubt since they rant what you want to hear and can digest.

Yea but as same league as Zaid Hameed and Ahmed Qureshi which you wanna hear and can digest



Yes by implementing all UN resolutions.

That includes withdrawal of Pakistani force from P-O-K first ..didnt happen yet
 
Last edited:
.
Unfortunately, we Pakistani got 4 dictators who ruled the country with their own wishes. But in India never any general took control over. Wich is a very good thing for India & Indians.

I know that many Indians will hate my this post or will be disagreed for sure. Because Kashmir Issue gave birth to many Jihadi Tanzeem. Because they wanted to help Kashmirir people from 700.000 Indian troops in Jammu & Kashmir.

Kashmir is a biggest & core isuue between Pakistan & India.

Why would Indians or for that matter any one hate our post which is logical...In fact people will love you post because when it comes to Kashmir people tend to loose their sense...

There is no doubt Kashmir issue provided enough fuel to birth to Jihadi Tanzeem and many Jihadi outfits however you got to see things in pespective....If you look at Kashmir history it was very peaceful till 80's..Trouble started only after proxy was campaign was launched by our Pakistani counter parts...GOI steps to counter it also did not help.... If you read some respectable indian media articles they blames GOI partly for the sorry state of Kashmir...especially the rigged elections in 1986(or 1987)....
 
. .
Pakistan Army: Taliban Responsibility in Failed NY Attack Unlikely | USA | English

Pakistan Army: Taliban Responsibility in Failed NY Attack Unlikely

Pakistan's army says it does not believe the Pakistani Taliban helped with the failed car bombing in New York City last week, as the insurgent group has claimed.

Army spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said Wednesday that "anybody can claim anything," calling the reach of the terrorist organization "questionable." He said he does not think the Pakistani Taliban has the capacity to carry out attacks overseas because the army has destroyed their facilities.

Police in New York said Monday there was no evidence to support the Pakistani Taliban's claim.

Family members and friends of Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-born U.S. citizen accused in the failed bombing, also expressed doubt that he is connected to any militant groups.


They said he comes from a peaceful, educated family without any links to radical political or religious parties.

Shahzad is the son of a retired Pakistani air force officer and is married with two children.

Pakistani officials said Tuesday they have detained several people in connection with the car bomb attempt in New York's Times Square last week and pledged full cooperation with U.S. authorities.

The officials, who did not want to be identified, declined to give further details, but said the arrests had taken place in the southern port city of Karachi.

Law enforcement officials said the 30-year-old Shahzad had recently returned from a five-month stay in Pakistan where they say he received training in bomb making.

Shahzad came to the United States on a student visa in the late 1990s. He has a Bachelor's degree in computer science and a master's degree in business administration. Shahzad became a U.S. citizen last year.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom