Don’t you assume too much? And then pose as if uve just proven a brilliant point. I still stick to copying references when there arises a need. I ALSO POSTED NAMES OF SOME NOTABLE BOOKS, WHICH YOU JUST DIDN’T ACKNOWLEDGE IN UR LAST POST. YOU DON’T ACCEPT SITE REFERENCES. AND YOU CHOOSE TO REMAIN SUSH ABOUT BOOKS REFERENCES TOO. And let me inform you that I , and neither any person of average intellect is about to accept a 3rd option your mind may show the brilliance of. If ur striving to prove something wrong, u sure will search for something contrary to it. That’s what uve been doing all along. Instead of picking facts as I present them and isolating its parts to analyse them- ur mostly re-pasting some generic stuff I wrote like “This is over” or the part where I happen to actually have ridiculed YOU. This is the first sign of incompetence.

I am no math junkie, but when I searched the definition of theorem, it was something like this.

THEOREM
“A theorem is a statement that can be demonstrated to be true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments. In general, a theorem is an embodiment of some general principle that makes it part of a larger theory. The process of showing a theorem to be correct is called a proof.Although the proof is necessary to produce a theorem, it is not usually considered part of the theorem. And even though more than one proof may be known for a single theorem, only one proof is required to establish the theorem's validity."


Nowhere does it mention that its difficult to prove it. Instead, it says you CAN prove it through logic and arguments. However, when I try to prove it through arguments, your Highness deems it too long! How convenient. Now, how do u prove something? By known history of trends. By common sense. By isolating different parts of the puzzle and bringing it together. Uhh, no u haven’t been successful in doing any of that. You’re just harping on and on about our agency’s failures. Yeah, youre just a cynic. You should read some famous quotes on that one btw. I am counting their numerous successes- with due references. Although logic dictates that quoting heavy site AND book references carries more weight than words in the air, here for a minute I am setting that aside. That still doesn’t PROVE YOUR point. The most it does is make it NULL and VOID. In that case, as I said earlier, this is a useless debate.




Now for the Gen. Petraeus link. Perhaps you haven’t studied the guy’s history. He is a hardcore neo-con who believes all cooperation with Pakistan should halt, and that surgical strikes be conducted THROUGHOUT the country to hunt out terrorists. That’s just Phase 1 by the way. Phase 2, if required (prolly will be) would call for a systematic incursion of the Pakistani territory to achieve objectives. He and the ‘conservatives’ in US administration claim that all talibans are the same, and this is why they urge Pakistan to hunt em all down within its own territory. All this, while US is aiding Pak Taliban from the backdoor, while that’s the opposite with A-taliban. That was in fact the original dilemma. His predecessor in A-tan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was fired because of his views on A-tan being distinct from his govt back home, i.e, he was a proponent of COIN strategy-a much softer, negotiative strategy. That, and the fact that he told his govt to leave the Pakistani govt alone to deal with Taliban in its territory (because US resources are stretched too thin) and the US should deal with A-taliban separately. If we claim that US is aiding Pakistani Taliban against Pakistan- why would they or their closely affiliated think tanks admit that the 2 taliban on each side are the same? Silly right! You were warning someone else here about quoting out of context. You’ve just made the same boo-boo here.

Afghan Taliban do not harm Pakistan themselves because Pakistan is also aiding them in fighting US in A-tan (funds in Pak banks, training, weapons, and often, manpower). Simple as that. I hope you still remember the meaning of the term “symbiotic”, Dexter. In the absence of a large scale opium trade, Taliban also had to find benefactors. Think logically. What theyre doing in A-tan requires immense funding and resources. Whose providing them with that? If they were really blowing Pakistani cities up, does it make sense if our army keeps channeling funds to them in return? Aakhir aur larai kyaa hai? US yehi to kehta hai, keh Pakistan aid kar raha hai Taliban ko.





You remember 1971 debacle. It was not just the army’s fault. It was a long standing deprivation of the Bengalis by the Western wing in all regards. Secondly, our army did commit atrocities there, and I wont defend any of it. But a major factor was indeed the geographical discontinuity. India did train the Mukti bahani in its vicious campaign against the state. Knowing many friends parents who ran away from there in ’71, they say that the average Bengalis never wanted the dismemberment. As a result of the activities of Mukti Bahani and Mujeeb ur rehman, Pak army did commit excesses.
About their achievements. Kargil War, highly frowned upon lately by many, was Pak army’s good attempt turned sour by the then leadership. I will quote 2 references here. You need to study Shireen Mazaris book on Kargil, Separating Facts from Fiction. And the latest report by the Indian administration on Kargil War. They have themselves admitted to several failures. India’s Outlook magazine had published the report findings ranging from a total intelligence failure to non-acclimatization of troops to late military response to inadequate troop maintenance for conventional warfare with Pak- and a lot more. Despite all this, they have the nerve to claim, they ‘won’ the war, when in fact they had lobbied in the US to inflict pressure on Pak to withdraw. The Daily Times replicated Outlooks report in an article, the link of which (if u aren’t too tetchy abt them) is Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
In 1948, despite very scarce resources, Pak army did push the Indians back to the extent that we see some part of Kashmir intact with us today. The fact remains that India was the first one to go to UN crying ‘ceasefire’.
Similarly, you give the US credit for pushing away the Soviets and yet none to Pakistans ISI. Come on, lets not sound absurd. This is a fact that even Americans acknowledge. Americans were there in proxy only. It was merely channeling funds and weapons to Pakistan, as contributed by several countries. Training, logistics, and strategy was done entirely by Pakistan. If CIA was so good, they didn’t need to lick Pakistans feet (demonstrated by Zia’s “this is peanuts” remark) to fight the war in Afghanistan. War journals are full of this information.



I did not claim previously that ISI is better than Mossad. I was myself surprised at the possibility. However, I do claim that ISI is better than CIA, due to its success rate. I have already pointed several of their failures. FBI, was created only after the CIA was deemed too incompetent to handle national and international issues in one go. Read why it was created and youll know. The Pentagon doesn’t reserve a separate budget for monitoring the activities of any agency-except ISI. Think why. Don’t reply that its cuz they see us as a threat. They see Syrians, and the North Koreans and the Iranians as a threat too.
Set site references aside for a sec. Ponder over real world instances ive shown u, and ‘make sense’ as you love to.

Im not being emotional when I claim the above. Did I claim for instance, that our SSG is better than Navy Seals? Or that ISI is better than Mossad? That’s bcuz in both the cases, they are better hands down although not miles apart in the previous example. Im not day-dreaming but neither am I an apologist for my nation, like you. We need to however, monitor our agencies’ failures so that we don’t repeat mistakes, like we did recently. That has set a good example. But don’t go about hammering them down now. Emotional people dont give concrete examples or references. They basically, 'assume'.


I wont answer for the last 3 parts of ur post. Ill take them as ur emotional outbursts. There is nothing to be talked about in them because thats ur 'getting even' part of the post. And I thought women do that more? And to think, that we arent EVEN yet.