India's Role in Quetta Bombing; Official "Muslim Terror" Stats

[Riaz Haq]

Who is responsible for the Quetta hospital bombing that killed 70 lawyers in Pakistan? Can the Pakistani security establishment get away by blaming RAW for the attacks? Who is ultimately responsible for the security of the Pakistani citizens?

Source: South Asia Terrorism Portal

Are the culprits of terror attacks in Pakistan entirely homegrown? Who funded them? Is the Pakistani security establishment serious in fighting the Taliban? Is there foreign involvement? Are Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies involved? Should the Pakistani citizens now talk directly talk to the foreign intelligence agencies and ask the foreign hand for mercy? What has Indian NSA Ajit Doval said about using the Taliban to wage proxy war against Pakistan? Should the Pakistan Army let things happen the way Doval wanted things to happen? What have American officials and analysts been saying about India's role in Pakistan terror? Should Pakistanis use this as an excuse for the ongoing terrorist attacks?
What did Indian agent Kulbhushan Yadav tell the Pakistani authorities? Does that statement prove the might of the Indian intelligence agencies and the impotence of the Pakistanis? What can and must Pakistan do to end this reign of terror?

Is it true that all terrorists are Muslims, especially in the last two years? What do the official statistics say about Muslims' involvement in terrorist attacks in Europe and America? Are those statistics valid for the last two years? Why do the older official stats differ so much from the news media reporting of acts of terror in the West, in the recent past? Is there disproportionate media coverage of terror acts involving Muslim perpetrators?

Viewpoint From Overseas host Faraz Darvesh discusses these questions with panelists Ali Hasan Cemendtaur and Riaz Haq (www.riazhaq.com)


https://youtu.be/tVIQ9U8jOEs





https://vimeo.com/178837620



India's Role in Quetta Bombing; Official 'Muslim Terror' Stats from Ikolachi on Vimeo.


Related Links:

Haq's Musings

India's Sponsorship of Terror in Pakistan

Indian Agent Kulbhushan Yadav's Confession

Has Modi Stepped Up India's Covert War in Pakistan?

Ex India Spy Documents Successful RAW Ops in Pakistan

London Police Document Confirms MQM-RAW Connection Testimony

Ajit Doval Lecture on "How to Tackle Pakistan" 

Talk4Pak Think Tank

VPOS Youtube Channel

VPOS Vimeo Channel

VPOS Dailymotion Channel

[Riaz Haq]

Indian involvement in sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan is not a "conspiracy theory". There is large and growing evidence of it. Ex US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has talked about it. Several US analysts have detailed it. Kulbhushan Yadav, a serving Indian Navy Officer, arrested in Balochistan has confessed to it. Revelation of London Police documents linking MQM leader to Indian funding shows it. Statements made by Ajit Doval back in 2014 and his later appointment as Prime Minister Narendra Modi's lend credence to it. So does India's past behavior against Pakistan as acknowledged in "Mission R&AW", a book by ex RAW officer R.K. Yadav.....Pakistan can not win its war against terrorism by just fighting the various terrorist groups including the Taliban militants and Baloch insurgents and their allies engaged in frequent large-scale carnage on Pakistani soil. These groups are merely tools of India's covert war machine. Pakistan must beef up its counter-intelligence efforts to defeat India's intelligence operations by infiltrating them. Pakistan must do everything possible to defeat India's covert war. http://www.riazhaq.com/2016/08/indias-role-in-quetta-bombing.html

[K.M.REHMAN]

Yes ,the last solution if Indian they wont stop we have to heat them from their ground.There are many possibilities  inside India if they still think to continue .

[Riaz Haq]

#India PM Narendra #Modi brings up #Pakistan's #Balochistan in his #IndependenceDayIndia speech in #Delhi The Hindu

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/in-policy-shift-narendra-modi...

Diplomats say the Prime Minister’s decision to raise the topic in his Independence Day speech was an ‘unprecedented’ move

In a significant shift in policy on Pakistan, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a reference to the Baloch freedom struggle in his Independence Day speech, saying the people in the conflicted Pakistani state of Balochistan, as also in Gilgit and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, had reached out to him. Pakistan responded by saying the statement “confirmed” India’s role there.

“Today from the ramparts of Red Fort, I want to greet and express my thanks to some people. In the last few days, people of Balochistan, Gilgit, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir have thanked me, have expressed gratitude, and expressed good wishes for me. The people who are living far away, whom I have never seen, never met — such people have expressed appreciation for Prime Minister of India, for 125 crore countrymen,” Mr. Modi said.

The reference comes a few days after the Prime Minister vowed to take up atrocities by the Pakistani government in these three areas on the international stage, when he spoke to an all-party delegation about the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. Since then, government officials say Mr. Modi had received many messages on social media from Baloch groups and Kashmiris around the world and in Pakistan thanking him for his support.

In sharp contrast
Repeating the charge against Pakistan on its support to terror groups in Kashmir, Mr. Modi accused the Pakistan government of glorifying terrorists, saying the Sharif government’s actions came in sharp contrast to India’s empathy with Pakistanis over terror attacks there, as after the Peshawar school massacre of 2014. “On the other side, terrorism is being glorified. When innocent people are killed in terrorist attacks, there are celebrations. How governments are formed through inspiration of terrorism. The world will understand this difference clearly,” he said.

Within hours, Pakistan’s government responded to the Prime Minister’s comments on Balochistan. “PM Modi’s reference to Balochistan, which is an integral part of Pakistan, only proves Pakistan’s contention that India through intelligence agency RAW has been fomenting terrorism in Balochistan,” Foreign Affairs Adviser Sartaj Aziz said on Monday.

[Riaz Haq]

What explains #Modi government kicking up a row over #China #Pakistan Economic Corridor (#CPEC) now? 

http://scroll.in/article/814059/what-explains-modi-government-kicki... … via @scroll_in

By MK Bhadrakumar

The big question is: How do the Chinese assess the Modi government’s proclivity to count the trees instead of seeing the woods? Do they sense this might be a matter of conscious choice?

What rankles most in the Indian mind is China’s relations with Pakistan. The Modi government demands that China should suspend the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor on the plea that Gilgit, Baltistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir are Indian territories.

In reality, though, we have a classic situation where it is entirely up to India to raise dust (or not to raise dust). It is even baffling how economic development of those neglected regions would hurt Indian interests. After all, the people inhabiting those regions are also Indians, isn’t it?

The sensible thing would have been to let the Chinese loosen their purse strings to develop our territories that happen to be inside Pakistan temporarily so that when we finally make them part of Akhand Bharat, they won’t be the impoverished terrorist-infested swathes of land that they are today.

Frankly, India is taking an illogical stance. The Modi government estimates that Economic Corridor is “India-centric”, whereas, it is a strategic initiative by China in self-interest.

China has a good reputation for putting money only where the mouth is – and $46 billion is a lot of money. The Chinese motivations are not difficult to comprehend.

The Economic Corridor boils down to project exports by Chinese industry, which is saddled with excess capacity.
Two it opens up efficient communication links with markets in the Gulf and Africa.
It fuels the economy of Xinjiang.
It mitigates to some extent China’s “Malacca Dilemma” – the fact that 80% of China’s oil imports have to pass through the strait en-route from West Asia and Angola.
It creates leverage to balance the traditional American dominance over Pakistan.
Indeed, finally, it cannot be overlooked that One Belt One Road Initiative has a geopolitical dimension insofar as it counters the US’ strategy to encircle China and "contain" it.
Conceivably, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor will galvanise Pakistan’s economy. Now, isn’t that a nice thing to happen if it prods our western neighbour to understand that getting rich is the smart thing to do?

If China succeeds in transforming Pakistan as a modern middle-income economy like Turkey or Malaysia, it can only strengthen regional security. But then, a paradox arises: If Pakistan does not collapse as a “failing state” and instead becomes a more prosperous country than India, what happens to Akhand Bharat?

The smart thing would have been to offer to the Chinese an economic corridor through our territory. It is advantageous to be a transit country.

[Riaz Haq]

PM #Modi of #India sends warning shot to #China, #Pakistan on #CPEC, territory spat. #Gilgit #Kashmir #Balochistan http://www.stripes.com/news/indian-prime-minister-sends-warning-sho... …

From the sandstone walls of the 17th-century Red Fort in India's capital, Prime Minister Narendra Modi sent a warning shot this week to his counterparts in Islamabad and Beijing.

Modi's reference to disputed territories on Monday during his annual Independence Day speech -- his most high-profile appearance of the year -- signaled that India would become more aggressive in asserting its claims to Pakistan-controlled areas of Kashmir. The region is a key transit point in the $45 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor known as CPEC that will give Beijing access to the Arabian Sea through the port of Gwadar.

"This is a recalibration" after Modi's overtures to Pakistan and China failed to yield results, says Harsh V. Pant, a professor of international relations at King's College London. It's also a message to China: "You may be investing a lot in Pakistan, and think that CPEC is a done deal, but without India's approval you might find it difficult to follow through."

A more vocal India threatens to raise tensions in a region rife with deep-seated historical animosity that has made South Asia one of the world's least economically interconnected regions. Various insurgents and militant groups threaten both China's investments in Pakistan and progress in India-controlled Kashmir, where recent violence has killed about 60 people.

While India is more likely to redouble efforts on developing transport links with Iran and Afghanistan than sabotage China-Pakistan projects, the saber-rattling may deal a setback to investor confidence in the region, according to Michael Kugelman, senior associate at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.

"The bottom line is that in a volatile region like South Asia, you don't need actual aggressive actions to cause economic consequences," he said. "Mere threats can have a very real effect on the economic state of play as well."

In a bold rhetorical move on Monday, Modi overtly referred to the region of Balochistan, a resource-rich, insurgency-riven Pakistani province that is home to the strategic deep-water port of Gwadar. He also mentioned Gilgit, a Pakistan-administered region that borders China and Afghanistan -- the northernmost edge of the planned economic corridor.

"I want to express my gratitude to some people -- the people of Balochistan, Gilgit and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir -- for the way they whole-heartedly thanked me, the way they expressed gratitude to me, the way they conveyed their goodwill to me recently," Modi said in his speech.

The mention of Balochistan was particularly provocative. Pakistan has long accused India of backing rebels in the region, a charge governments in New Delhi routinely denied even while they blamed Pakistan for backing militants in Kashmir. While Pakistan condemns Indian security forces in Kashmir, human rights groups have expressed concern about disappearances and extrajudicial killings in Balochistan by Pakistan's military, intelligence and paramilitary forces.

Modi's comments prove Pakistan's contention that Indian intelligence agencies are "fomenting terrorism in Balochistan," Pakistan's foreign ministry said in a statement on Monday. It also said the remarks were meant to divert attention from protests in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, where dozens of protesters have been killed in the past month.

[Riaz Haq]

#Terrorism Killed More Westerners in 1970s and 1980s than after #911. #America #Europe #Islamophobia http://nyti.ms/2aQaUXA  via @UpshotNYT

If it feels as if terrorism deaths are rising in the West, it’s because they are. Yet the numbers remain relatively small, and globally, deaths from terrorism appear to be declining, not rising.

According to two big databases, the number of people who died in terror attacks in North America and Western Europe rose markedly in 2015, claiming more than 200 lives. This year, according to one count, it is on track to be even worse.

But terrorism in the West is rare. In the parts of the world where it is more common — deaths in those regions are in the thousands rather than the dozens — terror attacks appear to be decreasing.

And as bad as terrorism has been in the West recently, it was worse in the 1970s and 1980s.

High-profile attacks in cities that include Brussels; Paris; Orlando, Fla.; and San Bernardino, Calif., have fed public fears of terrorism in the United States and made it a big issue in the presidential campaign. President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump have all highlighted the risk of terrorism at home.

Analysts who monitor terror attacks around the world note that risk perception doesn’t always correspond to actual risk. The groups committing acts of terrorism over time have changed, of course. But data from the Global Terrorism Database at the University of Maryland, which has cataloged terrorist attacks since 1970, shows last year’s terrorism death toll would have been fairly typical for an earlier era.

Terrorism Killed More Westerners in the 1970s and 1980s

The death toll from terrorism increased in the West last year, with large attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., and Paris. But terrorism was more deadly in decades past.

Terrorism fatalities in North America and Western Europe

800

600

400

200

0

228

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

↑ 3,056 fatalities in 2001

Source: Global Terrorism Database

The Global Terrorism Database releases public data on attacks once a year. That means the accompanying chart doesn’t include any information about 2016, omitting the big attacks in Brussels; Nice, France; Orlando; and several smaller ones in Europe.

IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center, which monitors terrorist events in real time for militaries, intelligence agencies and defense contractors, is one source of more recent numbers. The Jane’s numbers for 2015 are different from those in the Global Terrorism Database, so it’s impossible to make a direct comparison. But Jane’s documented a total of 204 terrorism deaths last year in North America and Western Europe, compared with 219 through Aug. 3 of this year, meaning this year’s total is on track to be higher than last year’s, according to this count.

All methods of measuring terrorism involve imperfect data and rely on judgment calls. Analysts must comb through news media and other credible reports of violence, then decide what is terrorism and what is more typical criminal attacks. The counters generally look for violence committed by nonstate actors conducted for a political purpose.

They don’t always agree. Jane’s included the Nice attack in its total for 2016. But Erin Miller, the program manager for the Global Terrorism Database, said analysts there were still waiting for more information from the event’s investigation before they made a final decision on whether the attack had a political motivation necessary to count as terrorism.

Because the number of terrorist fatalities in the West are small, individual decisions can make a big difference. If you don’t count the Nice attack, which killed 86 people, including the perpetrator, the Jane’s 2016 number would look a lot smaller.

Tactics associated with the Islamic State have made these judgments particularly tricky. The group, which commits acts of direct violence primarily in Iraq and Syria, has encouraged sympathetic individuals to carry out attacks overseas in the group’s name. While the Islamic State has trained terrorists who have carried out attacks in the West, like those involved in the Paris attack last year, more Western attacks were carried out by people who have described their violence as “inspired” by the group. The result is that some acts of violence are now more likely to be presumptively described as terrorism.

“Increasingly these days, the operating assumption is it is likely to be terrorism,” said Matthew Henman, the top analyst at Jane’s. “Especially if the attacker fits a certain profile.”

Several recent crimes in Europe, initially described as terrorism, were ultimately determined not to be. In a past era, such crimes might never have been covered as terrorism or even considered by analysts for inclusion.

In the United States, the terrorism threat is even smaller than it is in the West generally. With the exception of the huge Sept. 11 and Oklahoma City attacks, there is no year since 1970 when terrorism killed more than 50 people in the United States. Last year, the number was 44, according to the Global Terrorism Database. That means that terrorism typically kills about as many Americans as lightning strikes do.

Terrorism Deaths in the United States Remain Rare

Thousands of Americans died in the Sept. 11 attacks, and 170  in the Oklahoma City bombing. But there is no other year since 1970 when more than 50 Americans died from terrorism at home.

Terrorism fatalities in the United States

150

100

50

0

44

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Oklahoma City

↑ 9/11

San Bernardino

Source: Global Terrorism Database

The vast majority of terrorist events in the world occur in a handful of countries experiencing civil unrest. More than three-quarters of all terrorism fatalities over the last five years took place in six countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria and Yemen.

Terrorism Is a Big Problem in a Few Countries

More than three-quarters of terrorism deaths in recent years have occurred in six countries. On this scale, the increase in the West isn’t even visible.

Terrorism fatalities

40k

30k

20k

10k

0

North America and Western Europe
 

Total

Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Syria and Yemen

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Global Terrorism Database

Because of the way the Global Terrorism Database has measured terrorism over time, its numbers throughout history are not all equivalent, but data from the last few years show a big peak in 2014, in part because of continuing conflict in Iraq and Syria and the aftermath of the Arab Spring. Last year, global terrorism deaths declined by 12 percent. Data from this year won’t be available until after the year is complete.

Jane’s provided numbers on terrorism deaths in the world through Aug. 8. They show a decline relative to similar periods last year and the year before. Analysts at Jane’s draw on reports of terrorism from a wider array of sources than the Global Terrorism Database, which means they count more deaths every year.

Tracking terrorism globally is even more challenging than doing so in the West. The big differences between the counts from Jane’s and the Global Terrorism Database — both widely respected sources — highlight the challenges. To count in the databases, the attacks must be reported and require verification from trusted sources.

That means that attacks in countries that lack a free press or are too dangerous for reporters (think Syria and Somalia) may go unrecorded. There are also risks of overcounting. Because most terrorism deaths occur in places with civil wars, it can be hard to untangle what counts as terrorism and what is traditional armed conflict.

“In a war like Syria and Iraq, you’re going to get a lot of terrorist attacks that are just part of fighting,” said Seth Jones, the director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation, which compiled its own database of terrorism through 2009.

[Riaz Haq]

Decline of #war and #violence. Death rate has fallen from 22 per 100,000 people in 1945 to 1.4 now http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/04/15/the-decline-war-and-v... … via @BostonGlobe

By Joshua S. Goldstein and Steven Pinker APRIL 15, 2016

QUIETLY, AMID the carnage and chaos in the daily news, 2016 is shaping up as a good year for peace in the world. You read that right. A significant escalation of war over the past few years is, at the moment, abating.

For nearly two-thirds of a century, from 1945 to 2011, war had been in overall decline. The global death rate had fallen from 22 per 100,000 people to 0.3. But then the Syrian civil war became the bloodiest conflict in a generation, with hundreds of thousands killed, millions displaced, and multiple foreign powers joining the fight or supporting their proxies. The UN Security Council deadlocked on what to do about it, and eventually ISIS carved out a territory and enlarged it into Iraq and beyond.

New wars cropped up elsewhere. The world’s youngest country, South Sudan, fell into grotesque tribal violence. Nigeria lost territory to Boko Haram, with its penchant for kidnapping girls and other ways of brutalizing civilians. A Christian-Muslim divide in the Central African Republic devolved into a horrific civil war. Russia grabbed Crimea from Ukraine in flagrant violation of international law. An inept Saudi bombing campaign has devastated Yemen, while Libya has split into pieces controlled by armed groups including ISIS. To top it off, in several countries, Islamist militants carry out spectacles of bombing and shooting. By 2014 (the most recent year with complete data), the death rate had climbed to 1.4 per 100,000 — still far lower than in the Cold War years, but a troubling U-turn from the world’s peaceward course.

Because most of these wars have not yet ended, and because lurid terrorism continues in many parts of the world, almost nobody has noticed a happy development that wafted in during the first quarter of 2016: The level of war violence has fallen markedly. The big event is the partial cease-fire in Syria, which has now lasted for six weeks. Fighting with ISIS and the Nusra Front continues, and violations recur, but much of the country is breathing a sigh of relief, and humanitarian access has expanded substantially.

[Riaz Haq]

#India’s secret war against #Pakistan. by Praveen Swami #KulbhushanJadhav #Balochistan #RAW #ajitdoval

http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/indias-secret-war/article1005512...

he implications of the questions raised by the Kulbhushan Jadhav case go far beyond Jadhav’s fate. It is time India reflects seriously on its expanding programme of covert action and its long-term consequences. By PRAVEEN SWAMI
FOR six hours, the hired car had driven through a forest of shadows, cast by the mountains of Iran’s Sistan-Baluchistan province—for generations, a refuge for smugglers, insurgents and spies. Heading towards Saravan, a town of 50,000 some 20 kilometres from the border with Pakistan, the car was carrying a businessman from Mumbai to a meeting. The men he wanted to meet were waiting, but there were others, too: like every spy story, this one ended in betrayal.

India knows something of what happened next: Kulbhushan Jadhav is now on death row, awaiting execution, after a hurried trial by a military court in Pakistan which found him guilty of espionage.

------------------------

Ever since 2013, India has secretly built up a covert action programme against Pakistan, seeking to retaliate against jehadists and deter their sponsors in the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate. Led by National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, and now by Research and Analysis Wing’s (RAW) Anil Dhasmana, the programme has registered unprecedented success, hitting hard against organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Muhammad. But the story of the man on death row illustrates that this secret war is not risk-free. Lapses in tradecraft and judgment, inevitable parts of any human enterprise, can inflict harm far greater than the good they seek to secure.


---------

the Kulbhushan Jadhav case ought to raise questions about whether India’s intelligence bosses are devoting the kind of granular attention that the issue requires to insulate the country from the potential risks. The questions over Jadhav’s passports, the opacity of his business operations and, most important, the lack of transparency about his connection to the Indian Navy, have all made it difficult for the government of India to dissociate itself from his cause—the usual, necessary fate of the spy. It is also not clear why, if he is indeed a spy, he was not withdrawn after Uzair Baluch’s arrest, an elementary precaution.

Perhaps more importantly, there ought to be a serious political debate cutting across party lines on the possible consequences of covert action.

--------

Precedents do exist to resolve situations like this. Gary Powers, the pilot of a CIA espionage flight shot down over the Soviet Union in May 1960—and reviled by his colleagues for not committing suicide—was eventually exchanged for the legendary KGB spy Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.

In both New Delhi and Islamabad, there are rumours the two capitals are working on just such a deal—possibly involving former ISI officer Lieutenant Colonel Mohammad Zahir Habib, alleged to have been kidnapped by India—or a wider deal, which could see the release of multiple espionage convicts.

Both countries have much to gain from a dispassionate conversation on the case—on the norms that ought to govern covert activity of the one against the other, and on the inexorable consequences of the secret war Pakistan has long run.

For that, the Kulbhushan Jadhav case needs to be elevated above prime-time ranting and opened up for rational discussion.