Pakistan Victors Want Dialogue With Militants

[maqsad]

MastanKhan I think you greatly underestimate the size and strength of the US economy. It is still 25% of world GDP and the per capita income is still one of the highest in the industrialized world. Also the leverage that the US has with the Pakistani economy is something Pakistan can be held hostage over, not the US.

Politics, not economics is what deters a US attack on Pakistan in the short term. Also, the US has 90 days worth of oil reserves in the south inside some cave complex. Trust me, if there is any kind of an economic shock related to war the US will be the country that suffers the least in terms of quality of life of the population.

[MastanKhan]

Maqsad,

Please trust me---I fully understand the strength of the U S economy---but today, the sub prime finacing mess has shaken quite a few knees---even though it may have 90 day of reserve oil---$500 a barrell of oil would break the back of any economy---. In 2002, the pending war with india was stopped because of economy and had nothing to do with politics---.

The economic leverage works both ways---the u s is learning very fast that it cannot blast everyone to kongdom come---. Today it is not the GDP or the per capita income that is the issue---I know people who were making 10k a month six months ago have no jobs today---they can't find jobs just to rent and buy food, they are struggling---the unemployment is on the rise---just see this monster grow.

The 25 % of GDP, or the highest per capita income or 90 day oil reserve are not going to come to rescue if there is fresh war---speciallyu agaimnst pakistan---. The same reasons that are for the u s' dominance---are going to be the reason that it cannot wage anymore wars.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by maqsad

Pull out everyone from Afghanistan, Iraq and the gulf and then bomb pakistan with ICBMs? Yeah technically but its a big hassle and a momentous political decision which nobody would want to take because it is somewhat pointless and would involve releasing all military bases in the ME and CA entirely. A bit inconvenient to say the least.

Any war is inconvenient. I can't see that stopping the US. They bombed Sudan for ..well not much. US could probably just leave Afghanistan, bomb Pakistan, and nuke Afghanistan just to make sure there's no terrorists remaining.

You do have a point about it not being in the interests of the US to bomb Pakistan though. If that happens the whole region would get sucked into war which would make the US's defence of the TAP pipelines in Afghanistan much more difficult.

There is a realistic chance that Pakistan can launch a counter attack on Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Q8, Qatar, Diego Garcia even and knock out tens of thousands of US troops. This ability acts as a deterrent. Deterrents repulse attacks before they are launched.

Maqsad, imo, there's no chance of any counter attack even if US troops are there. First off, you'll be genociding hundreds of thousands of Arabs, and Afghanis, at the expense of tens of thousands of US troops which would lead to probably an international nuking of Pakistan. Pakistan just would not nuke any other country, it doesn't make sense.

Because it is a political decision too. I just explained how Iraq was defanged, scammed, invaded and occupied over the course of decades with minimal US casualties. I think it was less than 50 deaths or something ridiculous like that for taking over Iraq entirely? Now instead of using cunning an guile why would the US use this purely military method to destroy a country like Pakistan? It wouldn't...hasn't done so since Normandy.

It's just little defenceless places like Afghanistan, Grenada or Panama that get trashed by the US "on impulse" if you check the history of the last 60 years or so.

I agree the US does attack and occupy little defenceless places. But it can bomb Pakistan, and has reasons it can put forward. Look at Obama's popularity with the voters even though he said he'd bomb Pakistan. The bombing threat remains.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by MastanKhan

Hi guys,

There is no more threat of any attack on pakistan. If you don't live in america, you have no clue how bad america is hurting economically---it is bent over double in pain---the days of ICBM type attacks are gone---any attack would have a devastating effect on the world economy---the price of oil will jump between 5 to 10 times a barrell---ie from a $100 to $500---$1000 a barrell of oil.

American economy will be shattered so would the european, chinese, japanese and indian economy. Each and everything is attached to the price of oil.

There was a small fire in a texas refinery about 4 days ago. The priceof oil jumped from $90 to $100 the next day. So, fear not aout any attacks.

There is no reason for the govt to take over any bases given to the u s---let them be for now. They may ask the u s to close those bases at a later date. It is better to take these al qadea out in combat or raids---rather than capture them---because of liability issues---they need quick justice---what better than the fear of ever lingering death---flying overhead---a silent killer---a blinding flash---an everlasting eternity thereafter.

There's been doomsday scenarios over the US economy for ages, but it's still there. I'd agree it won't last forever, but it'll last until China matures which will be another couple of decades. Enough time to bomb another handful of countries.

[MOSABJA]

Why shouldnt they do .I think just applying mad power is no solution to any problem.

There should be a multi pronged strategy.

We ve got to say to the tribes and the taliban that hey we ll not tolerate suicide bombings???

If you ve carried out these attacks on innocent civillians then its an open war.

If not then help us in HUNTING DOWN the real terrorist.


By the way thats what Musharraf himself did in South Waziristan with the taliban commander of the wazir tribe Maulvi nazir Ahmed.

He told them that we want peace but for that you have to help us in hunting down terrorists and AQ and then an operation was carried out to Expel the foreigners from the WAZIR region.

Right now because of the Uzbeks expelled the Wazir region in SW is calm .
there is tension in Mehsud region which can be settled with CARROT AND STICK APPORACH.

[maqsad]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Any war is inconvenient. I can't see that stopping the US. They bombed Sudan for ..well not much. US could probably just leave Afghanistan, bomb Pakistan, and nuke Afghanistan just to make sure there's no terrorists remaining.

Right and the key is leaving Afghanistan, moving 45,000 troops out of Afghanistan creating a power vacuum that would immediately be filled by locals, throwing away all strategic depth achieved at such a high political cost and for what? Nuking the Afghan countryside? No I don't really see that as a plausible scenario. It accomplishes nothing and loses everything.

Now also factor in China and Russia. One or both would just rush in there and take over. How do you really know that the US is in Afghanistan to fight terrorism. What if the US is in Afghanistan in order to halt and repel the imperial designs of Russia and China?

Originally Posted by roadrunner

You do have a point about it not being in the interests of the US to bomb Pakistan though. If that happens the whole region would get sucked into war which would make the US's defence of the TAP pipelines in Afghanistan much more difficult.

I wasn't really thinking about the TAP pipeline, the way I see it the US is using sticks and carrots to blackmail and seduce pakistan into being an ally, knowing full well that pakistan is disgusted about the whole deal but cannot do a thing about it...so THIS pakistan as long as it is obedient is not worth bombing---just yet. Now if pakistan tries to assert some sovereignty and self-interest then yeah...depending on conflicts of interest then it may become worth it to bomb pakistan.

The presence of nukes in pakistan, needless to say, is always a constant reminder of pakistan's sovereignty. It's a double edged sword.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Maqsad, imo, there's no chance of any counter attack even if US troops are there. First off, you'll be genociding hundreds of thousands of Arabs, and Afghanis, at the expense of tens of thousands of US troops which would lead to probably an international nuking of Pakistan. Pakistan just would not nuke any other country, it doesn't make sense.

First of all tactical nukes aimed at US military bases, aircraft carriers and barracks would not be genociding any large numbers of Arabs and Afghans. I dunno much about munitions but missiles carried by PAF fighters in an all out blitz attack could also wipe out command and control structures assuming they manage to get off the ground in the first place. I dunno if the chance of this is 0%, 5% or 50% but once again this is not a first strike option but rather a retaliatory capacity or even a preemptive strike scenario assuming the pak military is operating in a doomsday scenario. And tactical nukes under 2 kilotons I believe are not even classified as WMDs, are they?

Now obviously the pak military would suffer more in retaliation but this theoretical capacity still serves as a technical hitch each time some lunatic in the pentagon has a schizo attack and proposes a sneak attack on pakistan..grenada style.

In the case of a defenceless country like Grenada, Panama, Iraq after sanctions it is a lot easier to persuade planners of success with very few casualties but in a wargaming scenario the US would be forced to factor in tens of thousands potentially dead which does serve as a serious deterrence up to a certain limit of course.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I agree the US does attack and occupy little defenceless places. But it can bomb Pakistan, and has reasons it can put forward. Look at Obama's popularity with the voters even though he said he'd bomb Pakistan. The bombing threat remains.

Of course the bombing threat remains. The threat of bombing pakistan to the stone age is the main reason pakistan was blackmailed into joining the war on terror. "Either you are with us or you are gunna be bombed into the stone age". This big "favor" of letting pakistan continue to play the game while surreptitiously undermining the country by sowing the seeds of civil war has been the unstated post 2001 foreign policy objective for pakistan. The threat has been very effective in ripping pakistan off as a stick which has negated the need for more expensive carrots which could have done the job also.

An example was how Turkey was offered 17 billion dollars to help invade Iraq(but their parliament was too disgusted to accept). Nobody threatened to bomb Turkey to the stone age probably because it would have looked very very shady in the news...but with the massive propagnada divident from the fresh 911 WTC attacks which infuriated the american public and pakistan's backing of the taliban, and by proxy "Al Qaida" supposedly, it was extremely easy to blackmail pakistan and no carrots were needed.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by maqsad

Right and the key is leaving Afghanistan, moving 45,000 troops out of Afghanistan creating a power vacuum that would immediately be filled by locals, throwing away all strategic depth achieved at such a high political cost and for what? Nuking the Afghan countryside? No I don't really see that as a plausible scenario. It accomplishes nothing and loses everything.

Now also factor in China and Russia. One or both would just rush in there and take over. How do you really know that the US is in Afghanistan to fight terrorism. What if the US is in Afghanistan in order to halt and repel the imperial designs of Russia and China?

As a last resort, it's possible the US would do it. Right now, they can take the casualties. It's not high enough.

I think the US is in Afghanistan to get Caspian Sea Oil.

I wasn't really thinking about the TAP pipeline, the way I see it the US is using sticks and carrots to blackmail and seduce pakistan into being an ally, knowing full well that pakistan is disgusted about the whole deal but cannot do a thing about it...so THIS pakistan as long as it is obedient is not worth bombing---just yet. Now if pakistan tries to assert some sovereignty and self-interest then yeah...depending on conflicts of interest then it may become worth it to bomb pakistan.

The presence of nukes in pakistan, needless to say, is always a constant reminder of pakistan's sovereignty. It's a double edged sword.

Isn't this the reason Pakistan must ally with the US? Because they US would bomb it if it tries to "assert its soverignty"?

First of all tactical nukes aimed at US military bases, aircraft carriers and barracks would not be genociding any large numbers of Arabs and Afghans. I dunno much about munitions but missiles carried by PAF fighters in an all out blitz attack could also wipe out command and control structures assuming they manage to get off the ground in the first place. I dunno if the chance of this is 0%, 5% or 50% but once again this is not a first strike option but rather a retaliatory capacity or even a preemptive strike scenario assuming the pak military is operating in a doomsday scenario. And tactical nukes under 2 kilotons I believe are not even classified as WMDs, are they?

Now obviously the pak military would suffer more in retaliation but this theoretical capacity still serves as a technical hitch each time some lunatic in the pentagon has a schizo attack and proposes a sneak attack on pakistan..grenada style.

Does Pakistan even have tactical nukes?

In the case of a defenceless country like Grenada, Panama, Iraq after sanctions it is a lot easier to persuade planners of success with very few casualties but in a wargaming scenario the US would be forced to factor in tens of thousands potentially dead which does serve as a serious deterrence up to a certain limit of course.

Up to a limit. But if Pakistan hinders the US/supplies its enemies (which is basically what those that believe the US should leave Afghanistan alone are saying), then its probably overstepping the limit.

Of course the bombing threat remains. The threat of bombing pakistan to the stone age is the main reason pakistan was blackmailed into joining the war on terror. "Either you are with us or you are gunna be bombed into the stone age". This big "favor" of letting pakistan continue to play the game while surreptitiously undermining the country by sowing the seeds of civil war has been the unstated post 2001 foreign policy objective for pakistan. The threat has been very effective in ripping pakistan off as a stick which has negated the need for more expensive carrots which could have done the job also.

An example was how Turkey was offered 17 billion dollars to help invade Iraq(but their parliament was too disgusted to accept). Nobody threatened to bomb Turkey to the stone age probably because it would have looked very very shady in the news...but with the massive propagnada divident from the fresh 911 WTC attacks which infuriated the american public and pakistan's backing of the taliban, and by proxy "Al Qaida" supposedly, it was extremely easy to blackmail pakistan and no carrots were needed.

Exactly. I agree with you. Pakistan is a different situation to Turkey, and Musharraf had to ally with the US for the good of Pakistan. This is what the illogical lunatic thinkers like MOSABJA and dabong fail to see. The alternative was much worse.

I also think the US is not friend of Pakistan politically, and all this overturing by the US of making a big increase in aid to Pakistan is quite patronizing, bordering on insulting. Pakistan should just reject the aid, firstly most of it doesnt get through, secondly it makes no difference to the Pakistani economy. It just makes it look like it's being bought off.

[solid snake]

Originally Posted by mujahideen

They are our people and no one should tell us how to treat our people. We have fought our people in the past and what we got was disintegration of the country that is why Pakistan is so keen on talking, because 1971 is still fresh on our minds. What is needed is a three step solution first dialogue needs to occur, then economic progress needs to occur and if all fails the elements should be eliminated. I think dialogue if it works should happen, but at the same time I think we shouldn't negotiate with the foreign element who have come into the region.

If they are our people, why are they killing people through suicide bombings? They are nobody's people. They are evil, and they cannot be reasoned with. This has nothing to do with 1971. Bangladesh separated because we did not let Awami league rule the country like it deserved.

The people we are fighting now are savage fundamentalists who would not waste 1 second to behead one of our soldiers. It would be an insult to the memory of the 1000 Pakistanis who have laid down their lives to win this war for Pakistan. We must not stop now, if we make a deal with these terrorists now their camps will survive and they will strike and kill innocent people again.

[mujahideen]

Pakistan Taliban warn new government to keep clear

By Kamran Haider

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan militants linked to al-Qaeda warned any incoming civilian government on Sunday they would strike even more viciously if President Pervez Musharraf's U.S-backed war on terror continued in tribal areas.

Following last week's inconclusive election, several political parties are in talks to form a coalition strong enough for a ruling majority in the National Assembly. How they deal with militants will be one of their most pressing challenges.

The Pakistan Taliban have been blamed for the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on December 27, as well as killing hundreds in attacks over the past few years.

In northwest Pakistan on Sunday, militants attacked a security post, killing a policeman and two paramilitary servicemen and wounding six others, officials said.

Maulvi Omar, a spokesman for the Pakistan Taliban, told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location that any new military operation in tribal areas would lead to more violence.

"Whoever makes the government, we want to make it clear to them we don't want fighting. We want peace, but if they impose war on us, we will not spare them," he said.

"We don't want political parties to repeat the mistake which Musharraf committed and follow a path dictated by the U.S."

On Sunday mainstream Islamists said they would wait and see what sort of government emerges before deciding on any agitation.

"We'll give them a chance," Qazi Hussain Ahmed, head of the Jamaat-e-Islami, told a news conference in Islamabad.

MUSHARRAF'S FATE IN BALANCE

Provisional results from the February 18 election have been announced for all but 10 seats. Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party leads with 87, followed by the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif with 67.

The fate of Musharraf, a U.S. ally who seized power in a military coup in October 1999, could depend on what kind of coalition emerges, although his supporters, with 39 seats, could still have a say.

If the PPP and PML-N forge a coalition, as expected, it will be the first time in Pakistan's history the two main parties have come together.

Musharraf appeared to win some respite on Sunday from months of calls for him to step down when Amin Fahim, the PPP's choice for prime minister, told CNN there were no immediate plans to seek his removal.

Previously both the PPP and PML-N have called for him to quit or face impeachment.

"We should not rock the boat at this time. We must have a civil transition of power," Fahim said.

Musharraf angered many Islamists by sending the army into tribal lands to flush out al-Qaeda and Taliban militants who took refuge there when U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan after September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Islamist parties ruled the border areas of North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan and were the main opposition in the National Assembly for five years until being swept away in last week's vote by liberal groups led by the PPP and PML-N.

The PPP and other parties have also been critical of extremists and militants and vowed to fight them.

(Editing by David Fox and Mary Gabriel)

[maqsad]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I think the US is in Afghanistan to get Caspian Sea Oil.

If that is true then it places Pakistan in a very dangerous position because in order to get Caspian oil and gas to the sea you have to go through Balochistan through a port like Gawadar. This is akin to having a mafia don sending an enforcer into your neighbourhood offering "protection" in return for some cash. Perhaps pakistan is in a situation where it has to offer backup support to the US because if it refuses then the US will just attack Pakistan, crack it in two down the middle(much to the delight of afghans, some baloch and some pathans) and make a new country called "pakhtunistan" or even "free balochistan" or perhaps expand the puppet state of Afghanistan itself with pathan and baloch lands taken from pakistan. These anexxed territories will have very small populations, tons of undereducated people(low domestic consumption of petrochemicals) and then the US pays off the new corrupt leadership to allow the looting to continue all the way to Turkmenistan.

Perhaps this is one of the unstated reasons as to why mushy jumped on board with the WOT so quickly because "we will bomb you to the stone age" really means "we will take what we need from your geographical boundaries within 2 weeks and there isn't a thing you can do about it".

I am convinced that there has to be a ton of unstated blackmail threats behind the reason Pakistan cooperates with the US.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Isn't this the reason Pakistan must ally with the US? Because they US would bomb it if it tries to "assert its soverignty"?

Bomb it or implode it or give the green light to India to attack it and annex certain parts. I believe the US holds tremendous power over Pakistan and bombing is just one of the threats which can be unleashed. Just one of them.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Does Pakistan even have tactical nukes?

Aren't those quite easy to make? Basically just smaller bangs. From what I recall the bombs that Pakistan tested had extremely small yields so it is possible that this was intentional so as to produce battlefield ready nukes.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Up to a limit. But if Pakistan hinders the US/supplies its enemies (which is basically what those that believe the US should leave Afghanistan alone are saying), then its probably overstepping the limit.

Yeah who knows, there may be a low low level macho game of tit for tat going on between rogue elements of the ISI and rogue operatives of MI/CIA in Afghanistan. A lot of this murky business never really makes it to the mainstream news in original and unbiased form. You have to read between the lines to get the whole picture and even then it's like a shot in the dark really.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I also think the US is not friend of Pakistan politically, and all this overturing by the US of making a big increase in aid to Pakistan is quite patronizing, bordering on insulting. Pakistan should just reject the aid, firstly most of it doesnt get through, secondly it makes no difference to the Pakistani economy. It just makes it look like it's being bought off.

I don't think the US is a friend of any country in the region except Israel. Everyone else is just an ally of convenience. With Pakistan it is a long standing relationship nurtured over centuries with Punjabi muslims. Such old relationships are hard for both sides to dissolve. Not impossible but still hard to do. As far as the Pakistani economy is concerned the leadership of pakistan has managed to make it heavily dependent on foreign trade with the US to the tune of 30% of exports.

This whole sickening relationship can't be eliminated overnight but I view it as being trapped at the bottom of a deep well. You can't jump out but you can slowly crawl out to a better state of existence.

[mujahideen]

PPP calls for end to military operation in Balochistan Party given green signal to form government in province

By our correspondent

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan People's Party on Sunday (PPP) called for an immediate end to the military operation in Balochistan and demanded the release of all the political prisoners in the province. In the parliamentary party of the PPP Balochistan chaired by Asif Ali Zardari here at Zardari House, the new members-elect pledged to work for provincial autonomy. PPP Co-chairman Asif Zardari gave a green signal to the parliamentary party of the province to go ahead with its efforts to form a government in the province with other like-minded parties. Political situation, as well as options available in the post-election scenario with the party, was also discussed at the meeting. Besides, Balochistan PPP President Lashkar Raisani, Secretary General Bismillah Khan Kakar, senior leaders of the party Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani, Jahangir Bader, Raja Parvez Ashraf, Raza Rabbani and Sherry Rehman also attended the meeting. According to sources, Nawab Aslam Raisani emerged as the parliamentary leader of the party in Balochistan. However, the final announcement in this regard would be made with the announcement of the parliamentary leaders at the Centre as well as provinces. The meeting was informed that despite seven seats in the provincial assembly, many independent members-elect as well as a forward group within the PML-Q was ready to support the PPP to form its government for the first time in the province. The provincial leadership of the party also informed the meeting that other parties like BNP (Awami) and Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal were also in line to act as the coalition partners at the provincial level. The meeting also approved five resolutions. In one of the resolutions, the PPP on behalf of the people of Pakistan apologised to the people of Balochistan for the atrocities and injustices committed against them and pledged to turn over a new chapter of mutual respect in the province. The resolution also demanded that the Army operation in Balochistan be stopped immediately; all political prisoners including Akhtar Mengal be released immediately, the Levies instead of the police force be deployed in the province. In the resolution, the PPP pledged to work to give maximum provincial autonomy to the provinces in the framework of the 1973 Constitution. The meeting paid rich tributes to Benazir Bhutto for her courage and sacrifice in ushering in a democratic era in the country. The meeting reiterated the demand for a UN probe into her assassination. The participants also offered Fateha for the departed soul of Benazir Bhutto. Earlier, in his welcome note, Asif Zardari said he had called meetings of the members-elect of all the provinces with a view to having broad-based consultations within the party. He said that Balochistan had suffered hugely in the past and the PPP would do all it could to heal the wounds of injustice in the past. Zardari said that the party had set up its own Election Monitoring Cell and asked the participants to bring the cases of rigging and electoral manipulation to the notice of the Election Commission and use peaceful agitation through the Election Monitoring Cell and other legal forums. The participants highlighted the problems faced by the people of Balochistan and made suggestions to resolve them.

Courtesy The News

[mujahideen]

Zardari’s offer worth considering: BLA

* BLA spokesman says dialogue possible after PPP comes into power

By Malik Siraj Akbar

QUETTA: The banned Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) said here on Monday that Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Co- chairman Asif Ali Zardari’s offer for dialogue to restore peace in Balochistan was premature but worth consideration.

BLA spokesman Bibarg Baloch told Daily Times that Zardari’s offer for dialogue was premature as the PPP had not assumed power yet.

Consider: “Once the PPP and its allies form their government in Islamabad and show with their actions and not with words that their policies are pro-Baloch, then we will consider negotiating with Islamabad,” he said. “All of us, who have moved to the hills, are not aliens. We have been betrayed many times in the past by successive governments,” he said.

Recollecting the apology tendered by President Pervez Musharraf to the people of Balochistan in the past, the BLA spokesman regretted that President Musharraf did not keep his promise, and carried out a ‘deadly operation’ in the province.

“This offer of dialogue has come from someone who is still not in power. The actual power in the country still rests with President Pervez Musharraf. How can the PPP co-chairman guarantee that Baloch people will not be betrayed again? Is he capable of conceding our demand for an independent Balochistan? We are waiting for his party to come into power and demonstrate its capability to settle disputes through negotiation,” he said. Baloch said the PPP offer for talks was filled with paradoxes.

“On one hand, the PPP wants negotiations but security forces, on the other hand, have unleashed a new operation in the Chamalong and Kahan areas ‘murdering’ several innocent people,” he claimed.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

[blain2]

Is he capable of conceding our demand for an independent Balochistan?

Already setting up the stage for hard negotiations so they can drive the max out of them.
Fine by me. Give them the autonomy that they deserve but keep them within the Federation.

[roadrunner]

^ I don't really buy that the ordinary Baloch wants autonomy. The sardars who make money out of the gas do want autonomy. The ordinary people of Balochistan generally would not want this. PPP may want to try and win the BLA seats, but how well do they tell us what the people of Balochistan want? They shouldn't be given any autonomy until a referendum is carried out. I don't think the PPP care much what the ordinary Baloch think, they just want to get a couple more seats from the BLA is all.

[Proud to be Pakistani]

I see only one thing!

They are going to tear Pakistan Apart!