Pakistan’s ISI from the inside

[AAtish]

Pakistan and ISI need to get rid of USA and its allies their friendship has caused some serious damages to Pakistan and its agencies

Now that's called hitting the nail right on the head!!

 

[Pride]

I am just trying to connect the dots which I hear in PDF very frequently:-

1) Soviet attacked Afghanistan and next was Pakistan's No.

My POV:Is this case of Premonition? Then we should also be happy that after winning Af USSR might come to India as well. People miss the point that then ruling party "Invited" Soviet to support their case and Soviet's didnt want to capture it in USSR but keep as an ally in Cold war.

2) ISI make to lose USSR or become a cause of USSR Split.

My POV: ISI was just an implementer or executionar. Total Idea, Design Fight, money the way execution happened was done By USA. ISI or Pak just supported that or executed the Plan. Stinger Missiles which were main cause of defeat of USSR was also from US. So it is sort of mistake to invite giant on fight.

Will come up more later on...

 

[TaimiKhan]

I am just trying to connect the dots which I hear in PDF very frequently:-

1) Soviet attacked Afghanistan and next was Pakistan's No.

My POV:Is this case of Premonition? Then we should also be happy that after winning Af USSR might come to India as well. People miss the point that then ruling party "Invited" Soviet to support their case and Soviet's didnt want to capture it in USSR but keep as an ally in Cold war.

2) ISI make to lose USSR or become a cause of USSR Split.

My POV: ISI was just an implementer or executionar. Total Idea, Design Fight, money the way execution happened was done By USA. ISI or Pak just supported that or executed the Plan. Stinger Missiles which were main cause of defeat of USSR was also from US. So it is sort of mistake to invite giant on fight.

Will come up more later on...

Point 1: After having captured it was not a compulsory step that USSR would have physically attacked or tried to capture Pakistan, it would have used proxies in the shapes of insurgency in Baluchistan and the raising of the old issue of Durrand line and giving support to the Pukhtun nationalists for the Pukhtunistan cause. And both of these things did happen, with the active support of the USSR with its Afghan puppet govt in Kabul.

So there was imminent danger to Pakistan at that time and ISI/Pakistan acted accordingly and correctly.

Point 2: CIA/US did not came into the equation till a few years after Afghanistan occupation, they were brought in or came after some pursuance from this side as well as from within the US. The war on the ground was being fought by the Afghans and some Pakistanis with PA/ISI men making the tactics and strategies for the COIN, US had minimal role in that, they were heavily involved in supplying weapons and getting the money, while the weapons were being distributed by ISI and whole strategy of the Afghan was being developed and given to the Afghan mujaheddin by us.


But, since you are an Indian, it would be very hard for you guys to digest the reality.

And plzzz don't come up with more as it will derail the thread as the best you can do is utter nonsense, just like the above one.

 

[VCheng]

Point 1: After having captured it was not a compulsory step that USSR would have physically attacked or tried to capture Pakistan, it would have used proxies in the shapes of insurgency in Baluchistan and the raising of the old issue of Durrand line and giving support to the Pukhtun nationalists for the Pukhtunistan cause. And both of these things did happen, with the active support of the USSR with its Afghan puppet govt in Kabul.

..........................

I agree with both your points.

My issue, to stay on topic, is that why was the ball dropped afterwards by the ISI, since the use of proxies and the resultant increase in insurgent activity in both Baluchistan and KPA is still an issue?

 

[AAtish]

I agree with both your points.

My issue, to stay on topic, is that why was the ball dropped afterwards by the ISI, since the use of proxies and the resultant increase in insurgent activity in both Baluchistan and KPA is still an issue?

In simple words? Personal Vendetta!

BLA came into light in 2000 after it 'claimed' bombings..

There were no 'Taliban' problem in Pakistan pre-2001 either..

and as you know 2000 came long after USSR was dissolved..

Effects of this? destabilized Pakistan..

And it is No Rocket Science to understand who is benefiting from it, and who's personal vendetta and interests we are talking about..

Just my two cents...

PS: For details, please read my post # 156, section 'USA'..

 

[VCheng]

In simple words? Personal Vendetta!

......................

PS: For details, please read my post # 156, section 'USA'..

Personal? Between who? Can you please post a link to #156, before these posts get deleted? Thanks.

 

[AAtish]

Personal? Between who? Can you please post a link to #156, before these posts get deleted? Thanks.

Here you go bro..

 

[VCheng]

Here you go bro..

Thanks, you meant #156 in this thread.

Question is, what should Pakistan as a country do? There are four possible scenarios..

1. Act as a puppet for current master – USA
2. Select a new friend (read master) – China
3. Create a ring for both giants to wrestle – China & USA (your suggestion)
4. Look purely for Pakistan’s benefit – Pakistan

#4 is the correct thing, but #1 will continue to be the reality.

Back to the topic, what has the ISI got to do with any personal vendetta? Secret services don't go by such petty considerations.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Okay, I have a serious question:

Given the admission that the whole of society is so rotten that it does not matter anymore who is to blame, then please tell me the basis for stating that this situation will get better, because I surely cannot see how a solution is possible, unless some really drastic happens, internally or externally?.

Changing 'minds' will have to come later - what is needed first and foremost are effective institutions and processes - government and institutions in which people have confidence.

I still maintain that the vast majority of Pakistanis are 'moderates' and have no interest in participating in, or seeing perpetuated, 'honor killings, tribal punishments, blasphemy killings' etc., but this majority has been cowed into silence and acquiescence by those committing the above sins and crimes, since the criminals and sinners have force and brutality on their side, while the institutions such as law enforcement and government that are expected to protect the 'moderate majority' are corrupt, ineffective, and at times complicit in these crimes.

The 'moderate majority' can be empowered without changing a single part of the constitution, by merely implementing the existing laws.

So the 'solution' (or the beginning of the solution at least) lies in somehow putting a government in power that will act to strengthen institutions and the rule of law, and win the confidence of Pakistanis, and allow the 'moderate majority' to speak up without fear. It is because of the dire need of such a government that I am willing to support Imran Khan and give him and his party a chance, though I disagree with him on various ideological issues. Ideology, secularism, 'de-Islamization of the State' - these all need to take a back seat for now. We need to get back to basics and simply get the current laws implemented across the board and get our institutions working FOR Pakistanis, free of political influence.

The independence of the superior judiciary and the media, from political pressure (for the most part) is a good step in that direction, even if we may not agree with the positions they take on occasion.

 

[Pride]

Point 1: After having captured it was not a compulsory step that USSR would have physically attacked or tried to capture Pakistan, it would have used proxies in the shapes of insurgency in Baluchistan and the raising of the old issue of Durrand line and giving support to the Pukhtun nationalists for the Pukhtunistan cause. And both of these things did happen, with the active support of the USSR with its Afghan puppet govt in Kabul.

So there was imminent danger to Pakistan at that time and ISI/Pakistan acted accordingly and correctly.

There are Plenty of "Would have" in the statements as identified in earlier statements. If there were a direct conflict involved between USSR and Pak then It would be great to justify the case.
There were not imminent danger directly for Pak due to USSR attacking AF but indirectly Yes being Pak ally of US during cold war.

What ISI did was as per the situation was in effect of collaboration of Mr Zia Ul Haque With US and his perspective and later on Twist on the tale told to Fellow civilans.

Point 2: CIA/US did not came into the equation till a few years after Afghanistan occupation, they were brought in or came after some pursuance from this side as well as from within the US. The war on the ground was being fought by the Afghans and some Pakistanis with PA/ISI men making the tactics and strategies for the COIN, US had minimal role in that, they were heavily involved in supplying weapons and getting the money, while the weapons were being distributed by ISI and whole strategy of the Afghan was being developed and given to the Afghan mujaheddin by us.

I think you need to revisit the history again. Whenever international geo political equation changed in South Asia. Pakistan first rushed to USA. Let it be 1962 war of Indo-China or involvement of US Navy. So the day, USSR step a foot in AF, US and Pak were having hand in the same gloves and this was the reason Zia even become ready to take weapons from arch enemy Israel. Before even US got involved openly in the game, they already had a small troup in name of Mujahideen.

But, since you are an Indian, it would be very hard for you guys to digest the reality.

Dont worry about My ethnicity, POV is a POV. Being an Admin of the forum You need to lead learn that else that makes you a Biased one.

And plzzz don't come up with more as it will derail the thread as the best you can do is utter nonsense, just like the above one.

You thought all these as utter nonsense and invested your valuable minutes of Replying, Isn't that Qualify as per your High IQ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Everything is wrong with that, starting with the motto, and ending with the religiously framed fighting in FATA, pitching marde-momin in uniform against marde-momin out of uniform and ending up with shaheeds on both sides.

Ask the government, media and civil society to change the narrative and frame it differently then.

No one is stopping them from doing so, and they are, more than the army, 'representative of the the people'.

Why expect an 'un-elected institution', one that is under fire from both 'secularists' and 'islamists', for different reasons, to become the 'harbinger of change'? That is not its job. As vocal members of Pakistan's 'civil society', lead the charge for the government and media to change the 'narrative'. In the end it is they, not the military, who can most effectively shift the course of Pakistan.

 

[VCheng]

Thank you for that post. You make some great points.

Changing 'minds' will have to come later - what is needed first and foremost are effective institutions and process - government and institutions in which people have confidence.

Effective institutions of governance are indeed critical. Please take ANY government department as an example, and tell me how one would increase its effectiveness? Assume that you were made in-charge of any department that you would like to, and let's discuss what can and cannot be done, one step at a time. Please convince me that I am wrong in thinking that I do not see any reason for optimism rather than just calling me names. (We can take this discussion to another thread if you wish.)

I still maintain that the vast majority of Pakistanis are 'moderates' and have no interest in participating in, or seeing perpetuated, 'honor killings, tribal punishments, blasphemy killings' etc., but this majority has been cowed into silence and acquiescence by those committing the above sins and crimes, since the criminals and sinners have force and brutality on their side, while the institutions such as law enforcement and government that are expected to protect the 'moderate majority' are corrupt, ineffective, and at times complicit in these crimes.

I agree with this absolutely. The majority of the people of Pakistan are some of the best people on Earth.

The 'moderate majority' can be empowered without changing a single part of the constitution, by merely implementing the existing laws.

Yes, but how to implement existing laws. To go back to my point above, would you like to assume that you are the CJ, or Law minister, or any other office you choose, and let's talk about step by step implementation of your planned line of attack?

So the 'solution' (or the beginning of the solution at least) lies in somehow putting a government in power that will act to strengthen institutions and the rule of law, and win the confidence of Pakistanis, and allow the 'moderate majority' to speak up without fear.

Forgive me, but that is a tall order indeed. My contention, for which I am derided again and again, is that it is not possible, unless a major and drastic change occurs. Please prove me wrong, with logical counter-arguments either here or in a new thread.

It is because of the dire need of such a government that I am willing to support Imran Khan and give him and his party a chance, though I disagree with him on various ideological issues.

IK is indeed a hope, and I wish him well, but I know that, if elected, he will be just as big a disappointment as many before him.

Ideology, secularism, 'de-Islamization of the State' - these all need to take a back seat for now. We need to get back to basics and simply get the current laws implemented across the board and get our institutions working FOR Pakistanis, free of political influence.

Okay, let's talk about how. 1,2,3.... and discuss.

The independence of the superior judiciary and the media, from political pressure (for the most part) is a good step in that direction, even if we may not agree with the positions they take on occasion.

Yes, there are some glimmers of hope for the judiciary and the media, but overall, this is a carefully managed mechanism for letting off steam and will not be the harbinger of better changes to come.

I apologize for my candor beforehand.

 

[AAtish]

Thanks, you meant #156 in this thread.



#4 is the correct thing, but #1 will continue to be the reality.

Back to the topic, what has the ISI got to do with any personal vendetta? Secret services don't go by such petty considerations.

Personal vendetta is not from ISI, it is the other way around.. ISI and PA have been fighting to stop this personal Vendetta, As i have mentioned in post # 156, Stabilized Pakistan is NOT in best interest of USA and its future plans.. thus, all its resources are being used to destabilize it... And you have to cut a slack for ISI, after all, they might be the most intelligently executed, top of the world secret service, but they lack on technological side.. when it is fighting against so many different rivals, it is going to lack one side or the other.. combine it with persistent media campaign by 'so-called' analysts.. it has to keep its face in front of the nation too..

Too less support for the poor chaps IMHO..

 

[VCheng]

Ask the government, media and civil society to change the narrative and frame it differently then.

No one is stopping them from doing so, and they are, more than the army, 'representative of the the people'.

Why expect an 'un-elected institution', one that is under fire from both 'secularists' and 'islamists', for different reasons, to become the 'harbinger of change'? That is not its job. As vocal members of Pakistan's 'civil society', lead the charge for the government and media to change the 'narrative'. In the end it is they, not the military, who can most effectively shift the course of Pakistan.

Because right now, the government, the media and the civil society are like the three monkeys who hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil, despite everything that is in front of them.

Because, for all my scathing attacks, the Pakistan military is the best collection of patriots I have seen ever, except the very top.

Because the military themselves have a duty to put right what they have had a great role in putting wrong in the first place.

 

[AAtish]

Changing 'minds' will have to come later - what is needed first and foremost are effective institutions and processes - government and institutions in which people have confidence.

I still maintain that the vast majority of Pakistanis are 'moderates' and have no interest in participating in, or seeing perpetuated, 'honor killings, tribal punishments, blasphemy killings' etc., but this majority has been cowed into silence and acquiescence by those committing the above sins and crimes, since the criminals and sinners have force and brutality on their side, while the institutions such as law enforcement and government that are expected to protect the 'moderate majority' are corrupt, ineffective, and at times complicit in these crimes.

The 'moderate majority' can be empowered without changing a single part of the constitution, by merely implementing the existing laws.

So the 'solution' (or the beginning of the solution at least) lies in somehow putting a government in power that will act to strengthen institutions and the rule of law, and win the confidence of Pakistanis, and allow the 'moderate majority' to speak up without fear. It is because of the dire need of such a government that I am willing to support Imran Khan and give him and his party a chance, though I disagree with him on various ideological issues. Ideology, secularism, 'de-Islamization of the State' - these all need to take a back seat for now. We need to get back to basics and simply get the current laws implemented across the board and get our institutions working FOR Pakistanis, free of political influence.

The independence of the superior judiciary and the media, from political pressure (for the most part) is a good step in that direction, even if we may not agree with the positions they take on occasion.

Beautifully said, couldn't have said it better!