Pakistan: On the Frontier of the Apocalypse

Redhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
578
Likes
263
Politics

On the Frontier of Apocalypse

As the events in Afghanistan unfold, the scariest place on the planet may be just next door. Patched together like Frankenstein's monster by the British under Lord Mountbatten, Pakistan, a nation mired in hypocrisy, has partially repudiated its ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban in order to squeeze another large check out of the United States. But from Peshawar to Islamabad,Christopher Hitchens sees evidence that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, warring fundamentalists, and territorial claims on Indian-held Kashmir make it not only a dangerous ally in this war but the likely cradle of an even deadlier conflict.

By Christopher Hitchens
An article on Pakistan written by Christopher Hitchens for the January 2002 edition of Vanity Fair. It is too long to copy and paste, but a link below is provided to the article. As with anything written by Hitchens, it is well worth reading and his assessment is accurate and germane to the current situation of Pakistan.

Pakistan: On the Frontier of the Apocalypse
 
Last edited:

prohumanity

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,290
Likes
1,362
Country flag
Pakistan still remains most allied Non-Nato ally of West,( at least its military rulers are). Civilian leaders have been and still ,are under the thumb of Generals who are addicted to western money and weapons. The irony is that 95% Pakistanis have, now become west haters in spite of receiving biliions of dollars of donations and free or subsidized weaponry. It will be interesting to see how West will deal with this Frankenstein monster which it created.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
You will not beat Pakistan until you understand the nature of its army. The Pakistan Army does not owe allegiance to Pakistan. It owes its allegiance to itself in part, and Islam in part. To it, the people of Pakistan are raw-material, and only a partial source of funds. They're like crop in the fields for the army. The Pakistani taxpayer is not the army's sole source of monies. It's foreign military aid. So it's only natural that the army's loyalties are split.

The Pakistan Army is a great consultancy for the west to use in this region. The politics of this entire region can be shaped by making the Pakistan army behave in a certain way. It has its fingers in not just India's security, but also its politics, media and film-industry. It can conduct psy-ops against India.

India's approach to beating Pakistan army on the battlefield, and capturing a few agents or saboteurs will not help. Nor will blind retaliation against Pakistan. Pak Army wants India to punish Pakistani people, so it feeds the India boogeyman in Pakistan. Our approach should be to destablize the Pakistani Army. Bathe key people in money, keep yourself informed, destabilize and sabotage the organization. The rest of Pakistan will fall in place.

Pakistan Army wants you to think that it's wielding nukes for the entire Sunni-Islamic world. For the reasons I mentioned before, it won't be deterred by a mere threat of retaliation against Pakistan, in the event of a nuclear strike. India must extend the threat of retaliation against the entire Sunni-Islamic world, in the event of a Pakistani first-strike (Israel's policy), while cultivating better economic ties with them than Pakistan can offer. That will not only isolate Pakistan from the rest of the Sunni-Islamic world, but also make it pressurize Pakistan to keep off India's back.

The conflict between India and Pakistan is not a military conflict over disputed territory. It's a clash of two civilizations, and ideologies. India will win that conflict the moment it realizes the nature of the conflict. Pakistan has waged a war on the idea of India. Our retaliation must be equally wholesome. We have more resources on our side.
 

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
@tarunraju, India need not go hyper either on Pakistan or its Army. INDIA NEEDS TO STRENGTHEN ITS SECURITY STRUCTURES BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL.

The destiny will take care of Pakistan.

Country like Pakistan cannot last long. It is a lamp that burns fast, soon its oil will be depleted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
@tarunraju, India need not go hyper either on Pakistan or its Army. INDIA NEEDS TO STRENGTHEN ITS SECURITY STRUCTURES BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL.
A defensive and non-reactive approach will not defeat Pakistan. Pakistan does not see defeats on the battleground as a bad thing. The attempt counts more than victory. It just dusts itself up and gets ready for the next attack. India cannot strengthen itself without security. They are aggressive towards pacifists, but skittish against aggression.

The destiny will take care of Pakistan.
Pakistan is resilient. Destiny can push Pakistanis to living in ruins, dressed in rags, and eating one meal a day. That will not stop Pakistan from pursuing India. To defeat Pakistan you must destabilize the Pakistan army.

Country like Pakistan cannot last long. It is a lamp that burns fast, soon its oil will be depleted.
If we're not as active against Pakistan army, as it is against us, Pakistan will last forever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Redhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
578
Likes
263
Is Pakistan as resilient as that other artificial creation, North Korea? North Korea has been hanging on by its fingernails for decades. But I don't think Pakistan is as resilient as North Korea. For a start, it is a far more populous country at roughly 180 million people, compared to about 24 million for North Korea. It obviously has far more internal stresses and strains at work than North Korea with a crippling internal terrorist problem and an atrocious internal economy: Pakistan is not even self-sustaining let alone self-reliant. If the U.S. decided it no longer wanted to support Pakistan, it could throttle the country at will. Perhaps China and/or Saudi Arabia might be interested in subsidising Pakistan, but I doubt it. And it is precisely that Pakistan is so materially vulnerable that the Indians ought to be pressing Pakistan and forcing the country's collapse.

How is it in the West's interests to have the Pakistani army move against India? The West can no more manipulate the Pakistani army as make the sun rise in the west and set in the east.
 
Last edited:

Redhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
578
Likes
263
And it is precisely that Pakistan is so materially vulnerable that the Indians ought to be pressing Pakistan and forcing the country's collapse.
I don't know if India (or for that matter, the U.S.) has contingency plans for intervention in the event of a Pakistani internal collapse, but it might be an area that warrants investigation. Seizing and securing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would have to be one item high on the agenda. It is in no-one's interests to see Pakistani nuclear weapons in the hands of religiously fanatical hillbillies.
 
Last edited:

Sambha ka Boss

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
701
Likes
375
An article on Pakistan written by Christopher Hitchens for the January 2002 edition of Vanity Fair. It is too long to copy and paste, but a link below is provided to the article. As with anything written by Hitchens, it is well worth reading and his assessment is accurate and germane to the current situation of Pakistan.

Pakistan: On the Frontier of the Apocalypse
I believe you should watch some videos of Christine Fair to understand the nature of Pakistani state. She has elaborated it quite well.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
You will not beat Pakistan until you understand the nature of its army. The Pakistan Army does not owe allegiance to Pakistan. It owes its allegiance to itself in part, and Islam in part. To it, the people of Pakistan are raw-material, and only a partial source of funds. They're like crop in the fields for the army. The Pakistani taxpayer is not the army's sole source of monies. It's foreign military aid. So it's only natural that the army's loyalties are split.

The Pakistan Army is a great consultancy for the west to use in this region. The politics of this entire region can be shaped by making the Pakistan army behave in a certain way. It has its fingers in not just India's security, but also its politics, media and film-industry. It can conduct psy-ops against India.

India's approach to beating Pakistan army on the battlefield, and capturing a few agents or saboteurs will not help. Nor will blind retaliation against Pakistan. Pak Army wants India to punish Pakistani people, so it feeds the India boogeyman in Pakistan. Our approach should be to destablize the Pakistani Army. Bathe key people in money, keep yourself informed, destabilize and sabotage the organization. The rest of Pakistan will fall in place.

Pakistan Army wants you to think that it's wielding nukes for the entire Sunni-Islamic world. For the reasons I mentioned before, it won't be deterred by a mere threat of retaliation against Pakistan, in the event of a nuclear strike. India must extend the threat of retaliation against the entire Sunni-Islamic world, in the event of a Pakistani first-strike (Israel's policy), while cultivating better economic ties with them than Pakistan can offer. That will not only isolate Pakistan from the rest of the Sunni-Islamic world, but also make it pressurize Pakistan to keep off India's back.

The conflict between India and Pakistan is not a military conflict over disputed territory. It's a clash of two civilizations, and ideologies. India will win that conflict the moment it realizes the nature of the conflict. Pakistan has waged a war on the idea of India. Our retaliation must be equally wholesome. We have more resources on our side.
Pearls of wisdom, specially the highlighted part. :hail:
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
@Redhawk,

Pakistan? :shocked:

Two quotes come to mind.

1. A Nation inherits an Army. The Pakistan Army has inherited a Nation.

2. China will fight India to the last Pakistani - Lt Col Wu of the Canadian Army on WAB.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
How is it in the West's interests to have the Pakistani army move against India? The West can no more manipulate the Pakistani army as make the sun rise in the west and set in the east.
Sometimes a western big-ticket business isn't able to get market-access. A few phonecalls later, that access is granted at the threat of movements by Pakistani sleeper-cells.
 

Redhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
578
Likes
263
Sometimes a western big-ticket business isn't able to get market-access. A few phonecalls later, that access is granted at the threat of movements by Pakistani sleeper-cells.
I hardly think so. But if you wish to think that the West is manipulating the situation between India and Pakistan, you are at perfect liberty to do so.
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,582
Likes
2,538
Country flag
A defensive and non-reactive approach will not defeat Pakistan. Pakistan does not see defeats on the battleground as a bad thing. The attempt counts more than victory. It just dusts itself up and gets ready for the next attack. India cannot strengthen itself without security. They are aggressive towards pacifists, but skittish against aggression.

Pakistan is resilient. Destiny can push Pakistanis to living in ruins, dressed in rags, and eating one meal a day. That will not stop Pakistan from pursuing India. To defeat Pakistan you must destabilize the Pakistan army.
If we're not as active against Pakistan army, as it is against us, Pakistan will last forever.
i do agree with you when you say that a non-(re) active role against pak army is unable to ......etxc etc
and i geve it a like for the logic flow and overall composition of the post

but i would word it differently ...... what we must avoid is a passive response to pak army

however to take them on head on and in direct fashion is almost asking for suicide


because, while their civilian systems are in a mess, not so with their military
they have had a military attitude, religion and culture far more advanced than our peaceful one and
for far longer , centuries longer
the military approach is their area of strength , indeed, their only one
and when you fight another in their areas of strength , you give them an unnecessary strength
if not advantage

and indirect approach is not weak , it can be strong, tough , just that
avoids playing on the adversary's turf

so an indirect approach more like the rug under their feet is the way
take their army on head on and we may suffer unduly for it

do it another way , their are many ways instead of the tunnel-visoned approach of
direct military respoinse .......indeed i think india has been doing it already , if not deliberately
then rather by virtue of circumstance in india's favour

what we need to do is enhance those indirect approaches
while at the same time holding out a genuine olive branch, ....to packland !
 
Last edited:

prohumanity

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,290
Likes
1,362
Country flag
At this point of time, West has no advantage nurturing and using Pakistan as Paki nation is becoming weaker and weaker by each day . As far Saudi Arabia, 90 % of its economy is oil and oil is in bad shape so their capacity to keep donating money to Pakistan is declining by each day. Some people still want to spread this myth that Pakistani military is powerful..this type of bulls*hit is being spread to scare India to sell very expensive weapons. China does not have any interest in catching a falling knife (Pakistan) They know it well.
The way Pakistan is going, it is already committing slow motion suicide. Yes, disintegration of Pakistan and fall of its nukes in terrorist hand will be deadly blow to Israel and western countries and therefore, west is still trying to please Pakistan out of this fear and waning hope that Paki military can be used in the future against the Giants like India or China. West can continue its hegemony only IF it succeeds in making India and China arch-enemies. This is not likely as these two giants are more interested in trade than in war.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,278
Country flag
So china is peace loving country?
China did not go to war with india in 1962?
China did not point 600 IRBM's at Delhi?
China did not annex Tibet?
China did not give nuclear weapons to Pakistan?
China did not adopt a string of pearls around india?
China did not support terrorists communist movements in northeast?
China is not stealing waters of the Brahmaputra ?
China us not stealing territory in ap?

Oh yes it is the west? China is completely innocent.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
i do agree with you when you say that a non-(re) active role against pak army is unable to ......etxc etc
and i geve it a like for the logic flow and overall composition of the post

but i would word it differently ...... what we must avoid is a passive response to pak army

however to take them on head on and in direct fashion is almost asking for suicide


because, while their civilian systems are in a mess, not so with their military
they have had a military attitude, religion and culture far more advanced than our peaceful one and
for far longer , centuries longer
the military approach is their area of strength , indeed, their only one
and when you fight another in their areas of strength , you give them an unnecessary strength
if not advantage

and indirect approach is not weak , it can be strong, tough , just that
avoids playing on the adversary's turf

so an indirect approach more like the rug under their feet is the way
take their army on head on and we may suffer unduly for it

do it another way , their are many ways instead of the tunnel-visoned approach of
direct military respoinse .......indeed i think india has been doing it already , if not deliberately
then rather by virtue of circumstance in india's favour

what we need to do is enhance those indirect approaches
while at the same time holding out a genuine olive branch, ....to packland !
My point was that until now, you've been preventing Pak Army's ability to achieve victory (by staying ahead in the arms/numbers game). You must instead prevent Pak Army's ability to "achieve" attempts. The attempt is the achievement.

Of course I'm not suggesting that we go 'head-on' in the sense of engaging them in battle, but a systematic destabilization of the organization, inside-out. Pak Army's allegiance to Islam is as partial as its allegiance to itself is.

Pakistanis aren't Klingons (theirs is not a militant religion). They are aggressive against pacifism, but skittish in the face of aggression.
 
Last edited:

Redhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
578
Likes
263
Pakistan still remains most allied Non-Nato ally of West,( at least its military rulers are). Civilian leaders have been and still ,are under the thumb of Generals who are addicted to western money and weapons. The irony is that 95% Pakistanis have, now become west haters in spite of receiving biliions of dollars of donations and free or subsidized weaponry. It will be interesting to see how West will deal with this Frankenstein monster which it created.
What a lot of crap! Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand are the "most allied [sic] Non-Nato ally of West [sic]".

Pakistan is such a bad ally of the U.S. and the West and such a hindrance to the West's goals and objectives that she is, for all practical purposes, a de facto enemy. Pakistan was bought by the U.S. during the Cold War so the U.S. could have air bases near the Soviet Union and Pakistan was kept on the U.S. payroll; it was bought or bribed again after 9/11 so the Americans could have overland access to Afghanistan as Afghanistan is a landlocked country and the U.S. forces' supply route had to go through Pakistan. And that is why Pakistan has been kept on the payroll: because of its geography, pure and simple.

The West has little or nothing in common with Moslem Pakistan, unlike multi-ethnic, multi-religion India where we do have much in common.

Many Western people have a great interest in India, her civilisation, and her culture. Much of the language I am writing in now is descended from Sanskrit through Latin and Greek. The figures from 0 to 9 used in the West are erroneously called Arabic numerals in the West when they should be called Indian numerals. The Arabs pinched Indian numerals from you, the Indians, and we pinched them from the Arabs, hence the misnomer Arabic numerals. But interested and educated folk all know that they were of Indian provenance.

One of the big "ifs" of history for me is I wonder what would have happened if one or all of the Dharmic religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, had spread West out of the Subcontinent to western Asia and Europe instead of East to China, Japan, and through South-east Asia. I wonder what would have happened if the Semitic Abrahamic and polytheistic religions of Europe had to compete with the Dharmic religions of India and with a greater measure of Indian thought in philosophy. That is one of the fascinating "what-ifs" of ancient history.
 
Last edited:

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
One of the big "ifs" of history for me is I wonder what would have happened if one or all of the Dharmic religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, had spread West out of the Subcontinent to western Asia and Europe instead of East to China, Japan, and through South-east Asia. I wonder what would have happened if the Semitic Abrahamic and polytheistic religions of Europe had to compete with the Dharmic religions of India and with a greater measure of Indian thought in philosophy. That is one of the fascinating "what-ifs" of ancient history.
Dharmic religions don't spread through conquest. They spread through reasoning. You have Dharmic religions as far away as Japan, while West Asia was a fountainhead of religions that spread through conquest.
 

Redhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
578
Likes
263
Dharmic religions don't spread through conquest. They spread through reasoning. You have Dharmic religions as far away as Japan, while West Asia was a fountainhead of religions that spread through conquest.
Yes, I realise that. The Dharmic religions could have passed to the West by means of reasoning. I am mistrustful of religions that are spread by the sword. They are inherently insecure. The Graeco-Bactrian Kingdom had many Buddhists, many were ethnic or "oriental" Greeks.
 
Last edited:

Redhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
578
Likes
263
Excellent article by Kapil Komireddi. Well worth reading.

The demise of Pakistan is inevitable
Kapil Komireddi

Pakistan's fight against the Taliban is an illusion. The world may view it as a battle for Pakistan's soul, but the generals in Rawalpindi, with whom real power rests, are not so sure. If they were, 200,000 of their finest fighters wouldn't be chewing grass on the eastern border with India while the so-called battle for Pakistan's survival rages on in the north-west.

Blackmailing the world by threatening imminent collapse is vintage Pakistan. Recently, President Asif Ali Zardari told Der Spiegel that the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal depended entirely upon how well the world supported democracy in his battered country. "If democracy in this country fails, if the world doesn't help democracy," he warned, "then any eventuality is possible." Having placed the burden of Pakistan's recovery from the mire of its own making on the world's shoulders, Zardari listed the "help" that his government expected: "billions of dollars".

But Pentagon documents released earlier this month give an alarming account of where the benignant billions of aid dollars poured into Pakistan's coffers over the last decade have ended up: on the most modern weaponry – combat aircraft, laser-guided kits, anti-ship missiles, air-to-air missiles – for use against India. Under the cloak of this conflict, Pakistan has equipped itself for battle with its traditional enemy, rapidly increasing its nuclear weapons at the same time.

The Taliban's recent targets have unsettled their erstwhile paymasters, but nothing seems to deter Islamabad from continuing with its policy of patronising Islamic extremists – so long as they are devoted to destroying India. Punjab is littered with these groups. In Lahore last month, Yahya Mujahid told me that his group, the banned Jamat-ud-Dawah, would continue to fight against Indian rule in Kashmir. The operations "have gone somewhat cold", he admitted. But he spoke confidently and strode assuredly – a man who knew things would turn in his favour.
Advertisement

Three weeks later, Hafiz Saeed, Jamat-ud-Dawah's leader, who had been detained after India produced several dossiers linking him to last November's Mumbai attacks, was freed. Among the reasons cited by the Lahore high court in ordering Saeed's release was this bolt from the blue: "The security laws and anti-terrorism laws of Pakistan are silent on al-Qaida being a terrorist organisation." The trial was a farce, a repetition of Pakistan's time-tested tactic of appearing to act against anti-India jihadis while not taking any action at all.

Mani Shankar Aiyar once described Pakistan as a country "divided against itself, but united against India". From that delusional feudal megalomaniac Zulfi Bhutto's pledge to wage a "thousand-year war" against India to General Pervez Musharraf's desperate attempt in 1999 to nuke it, hatred of India has been the constitutive sine qua non for Pakistan's survival. It is the one bugbear that makes Pakistanis out of Sindhis and Baluchis, Pathans and Punjabis.

Many Pakistanis I spoke to agreed that their country has gone to the dogs. But Kashmir still evokes the romantic idea of a Muslim nationhood. Pakistan continues to be defined by the struggle that created it – a struggle founded upon the premise that Muslims and Hindus cannot co-exist in one nation. With all of India's social failings, its success at forging a nationality out of its diversity stands as a towering repudiation of this idea, and merely by being itself, impeaches the logic of partition. Pakistan cannot justify its existence as long as India accommodates religious diversity. It is not enough that Pakistan is a Muslim country: for its creation to be truly vindicated, the country it was carved out of must be Hindu. As long as Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state, remains part of India, Pakistan will view partition as unfinished business and itself as its incomplete product.

But the Pakistan that was created in 1947 ceased to exist in 1971 with the creation of Bangladesh – in a manner that doesn't just cast deep moral questions on Pakistan's claim to speak for Kashmiri Muslims, but also offers an object lesson against indulging procrustean nationalisms, of which Pakistan remains a paragon. Created expressly to safeguard the Muslims of the subcontinent, Pakistan perpetrated the biggest genocide of Muslims since the arrival of Islam in south Asia. At least 3 million East Pakistanis in what is now Bangladesh were slaughtered by West Pakistani soldiers within the space of a few months in 1971. The Islamic bond which animates Pakistan's jihadist policy in Kashmir was absent during this massacre. It was secular India, its forces led entirely by non-Hindus – a Muslim air marshal (Idris Latif), a Sikh commander of ground forces (JS Aurora), a Parsi chief of army (Sam Manekshaw), and a Jewish strategist and principal negotiator (JFR Jacob) – which intervened to liberate Pakistanis from the madness of Pakistan.

What remained of Pakistan in 1971 became a plaything of the military-feudal-political elite who turned it into a back office for the outsourced wars of big powers. Three decades later, Pakistan represents state failure, religious extremism, terrorism, nuclear proliferation. Few dispensations have failed their people on the scale that Pakistan has: it exists solely to provide subsistence to the military establishment.

Within the next 20 years, Pakistan as we know it today will probably not exist. Built on the idea that differences between people must ultimately culminate in permanent division, Pakistan has become a victim of the very logic that created it: from Karachi in the south-east to Peshawar in the north-west, Jinnah's children are carrying his divisive message to its logical extreme. The tragedy is that this is not an aberration, but the acme, of the idea of Pakistan.

"¢ This article was amended on 21 December 2011. It originally stated that at least 7 million East Pakistanis were killed by West Pakistani soldiers in 1971. This has now been corrected
The demise of Pakistan is inevitable by Kapil Komireddi
 
Last edited:

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top