i am seeing alot of confusion here on behavior of states as many posts have treated states as individuals. That is not the case. States are not individuals to whom you can 'teach lessons' or 'learned their lesson' or 'favor for a friend'. States are driven by self interest and strategic evaluation. For example if an act backfired then that does not mean the state will not partake in that said act. It will. It may analyze why it backfired? or reasons behind as such but it will undertake all necessary steps for its strategic sphere which is also why we see strategic and intelligence departments to be the most ruthless and coldblooded of the lot.
If there is significant repetitive patterning/programming, in some jest we can certainly talk of some states with an individual character...especially in some particular scope.
This becomes all the more apparent if there is an atrophied power structure involving very few people, and largely of a certain disposition with a very precise inherited psychology from events that formed their country and then re-formed their country.
You seem to believe that a state will completely evaluate its strategic sphere and reasoning after each mistake...in some implied neutral fashion.
I doubt that for very many states, in fact all of them. Some have it worse than others given the intensity of said psychology limiting the window for re-analysis of mistakes and successes. All states did not inherit the same set of things, neither are they at the same stages of development in whatever subject at hand...this all affects real results for both what and how and why it effects things on its people and on other people outside it.
Here's example of another one I went into psychologically...fair warning to the quite somber subject covered:
defencehub.live
Coming to acceptance of China on Indian terrorism. One can also argue as to why China doesnt one up India and recognize Pakistan as the sole sovereign authority on Kashmir? wouldnt it be great considering the current situation? recognize Pakistan, have it sign off ladakh or a boundary agreement and then fight India by stating that we are fighting an occupier state? why doesnt China do that especially considering the events that have happened? Because it is not in China's interest to do that. To take a side and it has nothing to do with iron friendship or iron mountains but simply states driven on interests and where they wish to confront or fight conflict and where they wont. Its not even about evidences. Evidence is again individual aspect. States are driven by interests and when their interests are at stake, they will ignore evidences and when it isnt they will pursue evidences.
Well the subject here is about one politician accusing another one of undermining "The army" taking the assistance of an enemy country.
Sounds like an accusation of terrorism/anti-nationalism to me (or something along similar lines), hence a look into what has been proven and accepted on this subject involving these countries.
There is no real cross-over to recognition of sovereignty over parts of land, as that is by and large done peacefully in the world, in the geopolitical realm.
People don't die in cafes in Mumbai over it...from terrorists sent by another country across a sea stretch.
PRC isnt about to go to war with countries that dont recognise its sovereignty over land it controls (i.e the ones that recognise the ROC doing so instead), so what and how it reocgnises others on the issues governing that for their lands really doesn't fit into this conversation as far as I can see.
My focus is on civilians dieing by state terrorism actioned upon them deliberately.
If you are telling me China has received all evidence regarding purported Indian terrorism from Pakistan, and sits on it because "it isnt in its interests", then that's frankly ridiculous.
It is very much in China's interests if the damning clear-cut evidence was there at the quality and quantity needed (like say the Mumbai terror attacks for example) and then take that to the next level in the international fora. Simply put the evidence is not there.
Case in point is the removal of Pakistan from FATF in 2015 terror financing. Pakistan was placed in it in 2012 and removed in 2015. Does that mean that there was no evidence or was Pakistan adequately punished or was it removed as it was acquitted from terror financing? why? Is there suddenly more incriminating evidence on surface to ask for reopening of case? NO to all. State relations are different from Individuals as we see it. In 2015 Pakistan was not just removed because it had taken initiatives against financing but largely because it had promised to bring Taliban to the table and create for a better and more secure aspect for US interest. Where was mumbai bombing damning evidence then? was it not present? was it so flimsy that Pakistan was able to escape the so called 'Punishment' that would bring 'Untold Misery' on Pakistan? Sorry but this does not make sense. FATF is not just terror financing but money laundering and financial crimes as well which is why we find many nations like Iceland on the blacklist as well and alot of issues with FATF with Pakistan is with money laundering and the fact that it has inadequate money laundering financial controls. Dramatics are great but that is what they are dramatics.
I would suggest a look at what a "grey listing" actually involves. They are not all the same in sanctions....neither are their criteria severities (and hence why they can exit and re-enter a broad defined "grey" area on it).
Pakistan govt boasted the 2012 - 2015 one was just an "embarrasment" with no real effect.
Not quite the same for the grey listing from 2018 onwards. Severe bite was added given the depth of violations surfacing on sustained terror financing....and Pakistan progressively became more dependent on loans from international lenders for its economy.
This all has to do with a "grey list" not being an official term at all. It just indicates there ought to be ongoing compliance to issues raised in the previous meeting to not make the black list later (which is defined).
That's also why another country meeting compliances raised need not be facing the same economic pressure from it as Pakistan as it depends on its own set of circumstances. Just like Pakistan's were different in the 2012 process compared to what was brought up in 2018.
As for evidence value to incriminate India to terrorism. Again the world is not a court of law and states are not individuals as friends but run by their own interest. China doesnt need our help to declare India as a terror financer however doing so is against Chinese interest just as it is against their interest to declare Kashmir as Pakistan's Sovereign territory. What amount of evidence Pakistan has gathered has no relation to it at all. Considering the way the two nations are, India can literally say they support open terrorism in Pakistan and the world wont care. India has been involved in many terror groups in Pakistan. The two states have actively tried to subvert each other and We can go back in time saying who started what first but frankly it is a moot point. All of it is. India supports subversion in Pakistan through various groups however that is what India will do no matter what. After all that is the job of India's strategic center to keep the enemy marred in internal conflict. It is the duty of the state and its citizens to make sure that no such situation rises nor gains power where such subversion can be used by foreign elements. Now many confuse support with creation. No creation of subversion is something that is not possible and if it is then it is not easy. Support of subversion is what most groups do and that is far more effective and cheaper than creation of subversion. Case in point. The rise of ISIS in the region. ISIS formed from a defeated and cash starved TTP became as such to gain some semblance of support from the ISIS center in middle east and it did but its major support came from NDS which supplied and nurtured it to become an effective hand against the Taliban and while the former certainly got a bloody nose in nangahar and kunar, the latter survived thanks to the massive hatred for religious extremism and effective intelligence network. That is not to say that attacks didnt happen. They did but those attacks could never become 20% of what the TTP was and as we saw that through that support ISIS became a great enemy against Taliban and Afghanistan so why did it bite the handles? You see when you support or even create such a group, you control only a select few and the footsoldiers and many in command desire action and to make sure the group doesnt fall apart or become home to infighting, the commanders often either get swept away from the calls and bite the hand that feeds or they will allow for a few attacks to lower the temperatures.
Given Pakistan was pretty much always the instigator disturbing some earlier peace that existed (given its cabal's psychology had to prove its raison d'etre and narrative to its people):
1965 operation gibraltar
1971 brutal suppression and likely genocide perpetrated on half its population by extremely faulty reasoning, paranoia and frankly racist+bigoted decrepitude of large enough parts of its leadership disposition at the time towards Eastern Wing countrymen
1989 onwards, redeployment of militant training networks activated for AFG (for use against Soviets) towards Indian Kashmir
1999 Kargil, emboldened by nuclear tests
2008 Mumbai Attacks
I'm sorry but there is not an equal-equal here w.r.t India instigating things. These are all proven major instigations by Pakistan on the record.
Again you will have to make the case with other countries to convince them of Indian "involvement" in terrorist groups.
1971 by itself gives absolutely no leg for Pakistan to do so on its own claim alone (both the scale of what the cabal that still runs the country perpertrated and also how it reported it to the final days before the final reality sunk in Dhaka cantonment).
Others have to be convinced on the evidence chain for it to gain some semblance of a credibility. This is why I wont mention much past the Mumbai attacks for the FATF rationale, as many of those are claims from India only that it has not gotten much international support on.
Lastly this punishing countries and untold misery is devoid of logic since that is not how states work. It is how individuals work and not state. As for Yahya-ists well Calling them Yahya-ists is wrong. Yahya brought the most fair election in Pakistan history in 1970 and wanted to create a constitution which will run the country. If he wanted to secure power then the very constitution that he threw into the bin 1962 one, was the key to that power and if he wanted to rule the country then the one unit was the key for that. calling the military yahya-ists is again devoid of logic and is a reminder of how a country really needs to get out of the 1971 mindset
Its not untold misery. It is final resort to get action on the cabal the only way left...after this long history of unwarranted disturbing behaviour...where every other option using a carrot has failed....given the instigation and manner of instigation at each peaceful period that went on "too long".
Frankly something very different should have been acted upon this cabal after 1971 war finished...and likely it should have been finished completely not just eastern wing either.
It was a complete miscalculation on India's part that they would see sense after it by being nice to them (and treating their bengali victims frankly as worth very little).
But hindsight is 20/20.
And I really don't bring up Yahya and the Yahya-ists and Yahya-isms in any election capacity or constitutional foresight or whatever his political visions and desires were....that simply doesn't concern me as the fellow has long sullied anything regarding that completely by later actions and decisions.
That is to say I bring him up more for his boozing, orgies, degenerate dalliances and other magnitudes of hypocrisy in his inherent nature that later surfaced so brazenly w.r.t orders on fellow citizens, simply because he was in power and they were to be powered through....and spilling their blood and costing many of their lives...with willing cabal toadies like Tikka and co.
What was the final number, 300 thousand or 3 million....or something in between.
This is the hypocrisy that permeates this cabal to this day...given it refused to introspect and got away with it assisted by Indian disposition of the time sadly (and all quick cursory excuse made after that the easterners were never really part of the country and thus a divorce was "inevitable" anyway) with merely slap on the wrist given the scale of what it perpetrated.
This is the question that has always gotten me banned in PDF for merely suggesting it:
If a country was made in the name of the highest faith in God, the highest purity even, only one of its kind done so, why did that God break it?
This has not rested well in the psychology of not only the cabal but large number of your elitists...and I dont know how many of the common folk....given they have their daily trials and tribulations like the rest in the world to occupy themselves with much more.
While I respect and even admire lot of you as individuals, I cannot respect anything about the larger state of affairs, direction and overall guidance Pakistan has seemingly selected and charted for itself and doubled and tripled down upon.
It will be my last reply in this topic. It is not a nice one I wish to dwell and think on more.
@Joe Shearer
