Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
Geezer: do you have any evidence on this? internationally all fingers are pointing to Pakistan as a terrorist haven.
however, if you still want to keep denying it, its your prorogative.
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
Geezer: i actually thought you were one of the 'thinkers', and i replied to you as such. if you had posed a genuine question, i would have been happy to honestly answer you.
The first genuine question that comes to mind after reading your posts: How old are you? :D
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
Its not a question of which army is better, its about the difference in circumstances.
Which army was better in Vietnam? Vietcong or US/allied?
Which army is better in Afghanistan, taleban or Nato?
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
meeting ones objectives, determines which army is better.
however, i do not believe that once Pak army sets its mind to destroy the terrorists, it cannot do it.
there has to be a reason, why the terrorists are allowed to continue with their nefarious agenda, or do some still think like Geezer that india is doing this?
if yes, all the more reason for pakistan to destroy these terrorists!!
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
So by your logic the Taliban are better than the combined strength of NATO.
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
Are you asking me? 
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
I am Tamil and have some knowledge of the 'support for LTTE in Tamil Nadu'
There has been undisguised political support to the LTTE amongst fringe parties in TN. The major ones say that they support the Srilankan Tamils in general (as against the LTTE specifically). The popular support for the LTTE in the early 80s vanished post the assasination of Rajiv Gandhi.
What has the Govt. of India done? Over the past decade, it has helped arm the Srilankan army. Towards the closing stages of the war, newspaper reports had it that the Indian intelligence agencies operated special aircraft in aid of the Srilankan army. Immediately after the war, the SL government acknowledged (with no specifics) the support and cooperation of the Indian government.
The SL people are of course not happy with India because India also voted against SL in the UN. It is expected to vote against it again (the US sponsored human rights issue). Particularly after the release of photographs of Prabhakaran's 12 year old son shot to dead point blank. The GOI is walking a tight rope and Srilanka is helping nobody's cause by not using the end of the war to push through a political resolution of the issue.
India does not support the bifurcation of SL in spite of some popular support for this in TN. With one or the other of the two major political parties in TN being part of the national coalition, there will be some noise against SL, but no action will be taken that could piss of SL too much
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
The reason why the Sri Lankan army was able to win was by committing massive atrocities on the Tamil people of Sri Lanka, such as mass executions of all Tamil males in an area to ensure the Tamil Tigers amongst them died, or unleashing massive artillery strikes on civilian areas in order to ensure the destruction of Tamil Tiger positions within them.
Recent evidence this month suggests that after arresting the 12-year old son of the LTTE leader, the Sri Lankan army executed the defenseless boy in cold blood - the Army claims that he died in a firefight before being captured, but photos of the boy under arrest have emerged.
Pakistan's army has at times taken actions which have led to civilian deaths. But Pakistan's army's own culture and experienced, shaped by the results of 1971, have shaped the army to reject strategies that require the mass deaths of civilians.
Examples include how, for example, after surrounding towns under militant control, the Pakistan army first allows civilians to leave - this also enables militants to leave under the guise of refugees. The Sri Lankan army would not give civilians the chance to leave - they would seal off an area and then pummel it with bombs and artillery, refuse to let the Red Cross enter, and keep the siege up for weeks, months, or in the case of Jaffna, years.
Behaving morally is costing the Pakistan Army the ability to win the war - defeating guerrillas in battle liek the Sri Lankan army did requires mass deaths of civilians.
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
^ good points raised
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
One traditional guerilla victory commonly cited is the Afghan defeat of the Russians. But reality shows that until 1986, the Russians were very close to victory. Only the 1986 steady supply of anti-aircraft weapons (which TTP do not have) and the availability of a safe haven for the Mujahideen and their families and communities (in Pakistan) led to the Russian defeat.
So given that the TTP does not have the advantages that the Afghan Mujahideen did, why can Pakistan not defeat them like how the Russians were winning?
The Russians would exterminate the populations of areas where they lost soldiers. If there was an ambush near a village, the russians would destroy it by bombardment.
Russia killed 1% of the Afghan population, and maimed or crippled over 10% of the population.
Kandahar, a centre of Anti-Russian opposition was reduced from 250,000 residents to just 25,000. It was bombed for years.
To starve the Mujahideen, Russia destroyed irrigation and fields. Half the farmers in the country had their fields destroyed, 1/4 the farmers had their animals killed.
To stop the Mujahideen from moving around, Russia turned larged chunks of the country into minefields.
Chemicals weapons are known to have been use against civilian areas.
The only reason these measures were not able to achieve success is that the Mujhideen were able to move their families abroad to avoid punishment actions and get food, enabling them to operate in Afghanistan without supply of family problems. And the 1986 availability of anti-aircraft weapons let them remove Russian air protection, enabling direct engagement of Russian troops and inflicting massive casualties that Russia could not politically sustain.
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
^ Afghans are long known for their guerrilla tactics, plus the landscape there works to their favor as well. Before the fall of Russia, the British tried thrice and they failed. Even now the NATO have not achieved much, the taleban are virtually ruling the East (bordering Pakistan). The same nightmares Pakistani army is going through in FATA. The open borders between the two countries is another issue (like you mentioned in your post), if Pakistan clears its side of the border the TTP just melts into other areas of the country or across the border and then start re appearing again (after a while).
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
good points raised by mad- scientist. however, i feel the pak army has not fully commited itself to destroying these terrorists.
Perhaps PA feels that despite the daily bomb blasts, killings, the 'mujahid' ultimately would give Pakistan the strategic depth in afganistan, after the US forces leave.
so the Shia/Hazara, Ahmedia etc killings are perhaps an acceptable loss, compared against their Asset value in the long run.
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
Nope speaking with reference to Aussindian. The taliban have reached their objective in Afghanistan.
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
the objective of the USA was to get osama bin laden.
the USA asked the ruling taliban to hand him over.
the taliban refused and soon they were routed, the northern alliance won.
Pakistan was given an ultimatum " either you are with us or against us."
pakistan ditched their own creation,"taliban" whom they had recognised as the legitamate government of afganistan.
USA got OBL and are now planning to withdraw. they have achieved their objective.
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
the objective of the USA was to get osama bin laden. the USA asked the ruling taliban to hand him over. the taliban refused and soon they were routed, the northern alliance won. Pakistan was given an ultimatum " either you are with us or against us." pakistan ditched their own creation,"taliban" whom they had recognised as the legitamate government of afganistan. USA got OBL and are now planning to withdraw. they have achieved their objective.
If the US leave a job half done, there would be other Osama's rearing their heads in the future. Besides who created OBL in the first place? Even now the war began from Afghanistan and almost half of the Islamic countries have been destabilized a result. Thats not a success from any standards.
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
Aussindian that is not the job done. The US made it clear they don't want Afghanistan to go back to its state in 1996 to 2001. They are now negotiating with the Taliban to bring them back to power. How is that a job done?
Re: is Pak Army better than sri lankan army
the usa wanted OBL, once they got him, their objective has been achieved. the reality is USA does not have any strategic values in afganistan. no oil.
USA time and again has shown that if anyone acts against them or their interests, they will militarily intervine. if Taliban forms the government again in afganistan, that would be OK by USA - as long as it does not act against it or its interests!