Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2011

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
aditya
BRFite
Posts: 144
Joined: 18 Dec 2005 03:15
Location: Sub-sector Jingopura

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by aditya »

Folks, TSP must already be preparing an equal-equal to avenge H&D for the Gulfam Hassan episode that is playing out. Wonder what form that will take?

The only worrying possibility I can see is increased harassment of Indian diplomats in Isloo.

I mean, no sensible person would travel to TSP at this time anyway, would they?

So the only option is to grab hold of 10 SDRE types of the WKK variety on their next "peace trip" to TSP (assuming halal exchange rate of 1 TFTA : 10 SDRE), but then that would be a welcome development from SDRE pov.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by CRamS »

A_Gupta wrote:Firstly, Sharm-el-Sheikh did not bring about an equivalence of 26/11 with the Samjhauta bombing. Other events did.

Secondly, 26/11 is not history. Discussing 26/11 is a condition for further talks.
Where is the evidence for this, unless MMS called you personally and re-assured you. As per official statements, India has agreed to discuss all issues without calling it composite dialouge (and I don't what this terminology cicrcus is about). No conditions were set.
atma
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 04 Jun 2006 23:37
Location: Frozen Tundra

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by atma »

A_Gupta wrote:Major takes on Ejaz Haider:
http://majorlyprofound.wordpress.com/20 ... r-at-home/
I too love columns of Ejaz Haider and after careful reading, I think I have reverse engineered the recibe!! The secret is simbal. The recipe has 5 major combonents: Demand Money–Act as if terrorism is normal–Show bravado–High sounding grabagic nonsense—Toilet/Adult jokes.
Major's own.....
Expecting Pakistan to serve US interest for the money will only put region into chaos. Terrorism is a reaction which is justified because it is the leverage of the weaker against the stronger, in any case it is one of the 5 tools of statecraft. US cannot achieve strategic goals without Pakistan. An informed reading of Carl von Clausewitz will indicate to an enlightened reader the nature of game theoretic achievement of Nash equilibrium. There is a long glorious erection of flagpole outside my window. Tee heee. –Ejaz Haider.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by RajeshA »

surinder wrote:our biggest problem then is the Indians who have been South Asianized (rhymes with Euthinized). This is where our real weakness is.
I have been speaking out at every opportunity, that we should insist on calling the region "Indian Subcontinent", and where it hurts the other so much, that they may have a problem of sharing a platform, to take a step back and shorten it to "Subcontinent", but we should always talk/shout down the other party for referring to the region as "South Asia".

India is not in "South Asia". We don't know where "South Asia" is!
saket
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 03:19

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by saket »

A_Gupta wrote:Secondly, 26/11 is not history. Discussing 26/11 is a condition for further talks.
This is a definite climbdown from the earlier Indian position that action on 26/11 would be a pre requisite for restarting the dialogue.
There has been ZERO action on 26/11 by the pakis and yet we have this shameless govt literally begging the pakis to restart the chai paani.
saket
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 03:19

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by saket »

By the way, on Samjhauta blasts, why the hell is India answerable to the pakis?
The blasts occurred on Indian soil on an Indian train. Its an internal matter of India for Indians to handle. Any self respecting govt would have told the pakis to STFU about Samjhauta.

Did pakistan share the details of the Pan Am hijack attempt in Karachi in 1986, which left 20 odd Indians dead? They infact released the hijackers, and have now the gall to lecture India.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12056
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by A_Gupta »

Since talks don't accomplish anything - there have been talks going on forever - the starting/stopping of talks has leverage only in the mind, not in reality. It is all meaningless posturing. It is something like the 50-move rule in chess and when it is best to start a new game.
The fifty-move rule in chess states that a player can claim a draw if no capture has been made and no pawn has been moved in the last fifty consecutive moves (fifty moves by each side).


India and Pakistan negotiators are like these two players who lack the material or strength to advance their positions, but keep playing past the fifty-move limit.

India needs more bite. You're all complaining about the bark.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12056
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by A_Gupta »

Yes, the developments around the Samjhauta Express case and the way GOI is handling it are very troubling. Continuing the game metaphor, it is a self-goal. But that has nothing to do with Sharm-el-Sheikh.
Brad Goodman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2426
Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by Brad Goodman »

Survival, dignity of Pakistan lies with two nation theory: Babar Awan
ISLAMABAD: Law minister Babar Awan has said Pakistanis who share songs of love with neighboring countries should keep in mind that survival and dignity of Pakistan lie with two nations theory.

Law minister said this while talking to media men here in parliament house Monday.

He went on to say that detention of Rahat Fateh Ali Khan had proved that love songs were meant for singing only and no one could eliminate partition of India through songs.

"We are grieved over the arrest of Rahat Fateh Ali Khan. Those who want their recognition is Pakistan they prefer Pakistan in the expression of their views", he held. One should learn lesson from it, he added.

Responding to a question Babar Awan said he had met president Asif Ali Zardari who had set up 4-member committee to hold All Parties Conference (APC). This committee comprised Mian Raza Rabbani, Raja Pervez Ashraf, Jahangir Badar and he, Law minister told. Committee would meet president Asif Ali Zardari this week and apprise him of the contacts made by them with other parties about to APC, he added.

The date for holding the APC is likely to be fixed after the meeting of president Asif Ali Zardari with members of committee , he added.
saket
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 03:19

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by saket »

A_Gupta wrote:Since talks don't accomplish anything - there have been talks going on forever - the starting/stopping of talks has leverage only in the mind, not in reality. It is all meaningless posturing. It is something like the 50-move rule in chess and when it is best to start a new game.
The fifty-move rule in chess states that a player can claim a draw if no capture has been made and no pawn has been moved in the last fifty consecutive moves (fifty moves by each side).


India and Pakistan negotiators are like these two players who lack the material or strength to advance their positions, but keep playing past the fifty-move limit.

India needs more bite. You're all complaining about the bark.
What India is playing is a one sided game with pakistan, which is purely defensive.
There is no concept of a checkmating of pakistan, whereas India can get checkmated (handing over of Kashmir).

It is like playing chess with a kingless player whom you cannot defeat.

India needs to evolve a possible checkmate scenario of pakistan:
One way to do this - scrap the Indus Water Treaty, demand the waters be shared equally (currently it is 80-20 in paki favour).

Make sure that pakis realize that there is an outcome which is hugely disadvantageous to pakistan.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by abhishek_sharma »

A_Gupta wrote: Objectively speaking, what all has India lost because of Sharm-el-Sheikh?
:eek:
A_Gupta wrote: Secondly, 26/11 is not history. Discussing 26/11 is a condition for further talks.
Can you cite some reports which support your claim?
Charlie
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 12 Nov 2009 05:49

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by Charlie »

Dawood's second daughter ties knot with Pak-American
MUMBAI: Underworld don Dawood Ibrahim's second daughter secretly tied the knot with a Pakistani-American in Karachi's tony Clifton area recently.

Mahreen married Pakistan-born Ayub on February 4 and the reception was held at Dawood's palatial bungalow a day later.Sources said the wedding was a low key affair and that a few selected guests including some Pakistan army and ISI officers attended it. "It was a closed door affair at Dawood's palatial bungalow," a source said. Sources said a number of cars were parked outside Dawood's bungalow that day.

Former Pakistan cricketer Javed Miandad, whose son is married to Dawood's first daughter, Mahroof, attended the wedding with his family. "Besides the Miandads, Dawood's brothers and Chhota Shakeel were also present at the wedding," the source said. A few businessmen also attended the wedding that was earlier scheduled for May. "The date was changed after Dawood suffered a massive heart attack a few months ago. He had been insisting on Mahreen's early wedding after recovering," the source said.

Top Mumbai police officers say Dawood is living under ISI's protection. He has been living under a fake identity in Karachi since 9/11 when the US declared him a global terrorist. Pakistan government had repeatedly denied Dawood's presence in the country.

Dawood is wanted for masterminding the March 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, the second biggest urban terrorist attack in the world after 9/11.

Dawood, who rose rapidly through the ranks of Mumbai underworld, escaped to Karachi after engineering the Mumbai serial blasts that killed 300. The Indian government has repeatedly asked Pakistan to extradite him.

Dawood managed to take his family — wife, four daughters and a son as well as certain close associates and their families — out of Mumbai. One of his daughters died of malaria in Pakistan. Dawood has not visited Dubai after 9/11, from where he controlled his illegal operations for a long time.

Read more: Dawood's second daughter ties knot with Pak-American - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... z1DyTW2hp5
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Indo-Pak thaw helps Rahat avoid arrest

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 498320.cms
Both the Customs Act and FEMA have provisions for arrest that could certainly have been invoked against an Indian caught in the same circumstance as Rahat. But with Pakistan seeking to turn his detention into a test case of India's desire for revival of dialogue, Rahat and others detained with him may get away by paying penalty provided for under the relevant laws.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12056
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by A_Gupta »

A_Gupta wrote: Secondly, 26/11 is not history. Discussing 26/11 is a condition for further talks.
Can you cite some reports which support your claim?[/quote]

Yes, the first set of talks is between the Home Secretaries, which will include 26/11.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 491065.cms

I don't suppose the talks will go forward unless these talks happen first.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12056
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by A_Gupta »

saket wrote:There is no concept of a checkmating of pakistan, whereas India can get checkmated (handing over of Kashmir).
The only possible force that can get India to hand over Kashmir is the Kashmiris themselves.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by ramana »

Pioneer gives more detailsof Rahat case:

LINK

The singer Aadesh Srivatsava and his siblings are involved. They paid Rahat for his services and the latter converted the money into dollars in hawala and was going back to TSP.

Looks like someone tipped off the DRI. The outrage in TSP is because they don't follow laws and are used to carry suitcases full of money.
jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 872
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by jrjrao »

FWIW.

Waiting for Pindi
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/waiti ... i/750019/0
Last week’s announcement that New Delhi and Islamabad will resume their talks, stalled since the Mumbai terror attacks at the end of 2008, raises a number of questions about the terms of India’s engagement with Pakistan.

Has India given up its insistence that the plotters of the Mumbai attack must be brought to justice before the renewal of a full-fledged dialogue with Pakistan? The answer is yes. Has India accepted Pakistan’s conditions for an early visit of its foreign minister to Delhi? The answer is yes again. Are these Indian diplomatic “concessions” fundamental in any sense? The answer should be no.
...
...
the most important reason for talking with Pakistan is not that it might produce reasonable returns in the short term. In fact, the new dialogue might not even survive the first major terror attack after Mumbai. Delhi must engage all sections of Pakistan because its deepening internal crisis, an escalating conflict on its western borders, and the sharpening contradictions with the United States and the international community over Afghanistan could have lasting effects on India’s national security.

There will be many dangers and a few fleeting moments of opportunity that Pakistan will present us in the coming year. To forestall the former and seize the latter, India needs a comprehensive and unsentimental engagement with Pakistan.
jash_p
BRFite
Posts: 374
Joined: 03 Feb 2008 05:56

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by jash_p »

Code: Select all

jrjrao wrote:
Pakis begin their well-practiced downhill skiing:

Pakistan Starts to Pave the Way for Detained American's Release

Pakistan ruling party softens over US gunman

Davis enjoys immunity: Fauzia Wahab
Quote:
Fauzia Wahab further said that United States is the biggest market of Pakistani products. A large number of Pakistanis are living there, she said and added that 80 percent remittance of Pakistan came from the US.

I guess the US threat to really start making the Pakis eat grass in the year 2011 was just too terrifying for the Pakis to contemplate....
some reliable Paki told me that uncle has promise to slumber dronacharya in levu of Davis
Charlie
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 12 Nov 2009 05:49

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by Charlie »

Image

Mard to Mard Valentines Day :rotfl: :rotfl:
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6088
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by sanjaykumar »

A country is known by its herrows.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by surinder »

RajeshA wrote: I have been speaking out at every opportunity, that we should insist on calling the region "Indian Subcontinent", and where it hurts the other so much, that they may have a problem of sharing a platform, to take a step back and shorten it to "Subcontinent", but we should always talk/shout down the other party for referring to the region as "South Asia".

India is not in "South Asia". We don't know where "South Asia" is!
I personally do not like the term South Asia, I refer to the greater India as the Indian Subcontinent, and I read somewhere Swami Vivekananda refer to it as the Indian Continent. So subcontinent it is, for me.

South Asia as a term was made by Kissinger and you will find books prior to 1960 or so never use that term (always using Indian Subcontinent). But nowadays the term is common enough that book titiles use it too.

Indian are more than a billion, if they refuse to use a term, it can *NEVER* gain currency. The most vital crowd that needs to be convinced to not use that term is Indian themselves.

If we don't check it, pretty soon the Indian Ocian will be called "South Asian Ocean". In the 1950's and 60's Pakistan tried to rename it.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by abhishek_sharma »

A_Gupta wrote: Secondly, 26/11 is not history. Discussing 26/11 is a condition for further talks.
A_Gupta wrote: Yes, the first set of talks is between the Home Secretaries, which will include 26/11.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 491065.cms

I don't suppose the talks will go forward unless these talks happen first.
Now I understand. You mean temporal constraints ensure that India will talk about 26/11 before other issues, right? Very few people would interpret this temporal order as a "condition".
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by CRamS »

A_Gupta wrote:Yes, the first set of talks is between the Home Secretaries, which will include 26/11.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 491065.cms

I don't suppose the talks will go forward unless these talks happen first.
Thats not evidence of your claim. Its your speculation. According to Raja Mohan in the IE report, India has sidelined 26/11.
jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 872
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by jrjrao »

Latest:

Breaking: Sen. John Kerry Heads to Pakistan to Calm Diplomatic Tensions
Sen. John Kerry has left for a trip to Pakistan today, according to his spokesperson on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry left tonight for Pakistan where he will meet with senior Pakistan government officials to reaffirm support for the strategic relationship between the two countries,” spokesman, Frederick Jones said.
So, the deal is in place. Kerry will go and reaffirm, on Paki soil, the dhimmi baksheesh of billions (and perhaps some additional billions more), all to make the Pakis warm, cuddly and happy. And in return, the Pakis will make a herrow out of Kerry by letting Raymond Davis fly back to the US on Kerry's plane.
jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 872
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by jrjrao »

Marc Grossman to take Holbrooke's AfPak job.

Clinton to announce new envoy to Afghanistan, Pakistan
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has chosen a new special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, after months of delay and disagreements between the White House and the State Department over the parameters of the job that became vacant with the December death of Richard C. Holbrooke, senior officials said.

Retired diplomat Marc Grossman is expected to take over...

Two potential candidates - Nicholas Burns, who served in the same job as Grossman in the second Bush administration, and Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state in the Bill Clinton administration- were thought to be too closely identified with U.S.-India relations to serve as viable interlocutors with Pakistan.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by ramana »

Kerry will also say no need to go into N Waziristan.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Already posted :oops:
Last edited by abhishek_sharma on 15 Feb 2011 08:20, edited 1 time in total.
saket
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 03:19

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by saket »

A_Gupta wrote:
saket wrote:There is no concept of a checkmating of pakistan, whereas India can get checkmated (handing over of Kashmir).
The only possible force that can get India to hand over Kashmir is the Kashmiris themselves.
Lo ji, waat logic ..
The only possible force that can get USA to hand over California is Californians themselves (I doubt even that), so will the USA start negotiating with Mexico?
Does Russia negotiate on Chechneya?
Does China negotiate on Tibet?

India cannot afford to have a dialogue which does not have a possible cost to pakistan. Period.
What does pakistan have to lose in such a dialogue? Absolutely nothing, unless India places something new on the table - such as Indus Water Treaty.

Why the hell should India play a game in which pakistan never loses (it either wins or the game is a draw)??
saket
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 03:19

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by saket »

Even if the assertion that "discussion" on 26/11 is part of the Indo-Pak dialogue is accepted, this would be a huge climbdown from the earlier position of India which required credible action against JuD et al before any resumption of the dialogue.

On top of all this the dialogue itself is flawed - it has no costly outcome for pakistan.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by shiv »

CRamS wrote: But there is a reason why some level of subtlety is needed. And thats because of the sheer potency of "South Asianitis". The only gathering where US heavyweights appear to rub shoulders with SDREs is during "South Asia" events. Very rarely will you find state dept heavyweights, ex-diplomats etc appearing in any NRI nationalist gathering.

Clearly, there is a spectrum of political opinions among Indian Americans and "South Asianitis" seems to be the dominant force.

In my personal opinion the best way to damage South Asianitis in America is to join the group and subvert it from the inside. For example, create an Indian American taqiya group to support a Pakistani viewpoint. The Pakistanis do have a valid viewpoint on the Davis affair. Poor Pakis - they have been so soo helpful to the US and the man has no business killing those two men. It goes against all norms of international behavior. And a nuclear deal. Pakistan is short of energy. They need a nuclear deal. The Taliban are good Muslims. They will never harm anyone with nuclear weapons. This should be stated from within a South Asian forum or as articles written in Southasianitis publications - using pseudonyms - Ravi Hashmi, Liz Ahmad or Sangeeta Saeed. The seeds of confusion and subversion should be sowed rather than being so uptight and rigidly honest about ways and means of dealing with this which seems to me the preferred route of the "nationalists"

JMT
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8236
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by disha »

shiv wrote:The seeds of confusion and subversion should be sowed rather than being so uptight and rigidly honest about ways and means of dealing with this which seems to me the preferred route of the "nationalists"
For that to happen, "nationalists" need to understand subtleties. Most "nationalists" are maximalists and creates its own set of issues.

Anyway, the Davis issue looks like Pakis have climbed up a date palm. How can they be made to get down is going to be interesting. Wishing for more such Davis affairs.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by abhishek_sharma »

We could say: Nationalists need to "understand" "subtleties".
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8236
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by disha »

jrjrao wrote:So, the deal is in place. Kerry will go and reaffirm, on Paki soil, the dhimmi baksheesh of billions (and perhaps some additional billions more), all to make the Pakis warm, cuddly and happy. And in return, the Pakis will make a herrow out of Kerry by letting Raymond Davis fly back to the US on Kerry's plane.
Sirji, how is that different from Kandahar hijack when Jaswant Singh went with mithais? Is it possible that the bakis staged this (what is with 2 pawns getting accidented) to get more mithais?
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by arun »

abhishek_sharma wrote:Indo-Pak thaw helps Rahat avoid arrest

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 498320.cms
Both the Customs Act and FEMA have provisions for arrest that could certainly have been invoked against an Indian caught in the same circumstance as Rahat. But with Pakistan seeking to turn his detention into a test case of India's desire for revival of dialogue, Rahat and others detained with him may get away by paying penalty provided for under the relevant laws.
Is the “thaw” unidirectional with only India needing to demonstrate bonhomie while the Islamic Republic of Pakistan need not?

Or is it a case of affluent singers benefiting from the "thaw" while poverty stricken fisherman have no such benefits under the “thaw”?

Or is it just the spin that Times of India has decided to impart to the release? :

Pakistan arrests 16 Indian fisherman
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by abhishek_sharma »

arun wrote: Is the “thaw” unidirectional with only India needing to demonstrate bonhomie while the Islamic Republic of Pakistan need not?

Or is it a case of affluent singers benefiting from the "thaw" while poverty stricken fisherman have no such benefits under the “thaw”?

Or is it just the spin that Times of India has decided to impart to the release? :

Pakistan arrests 16 Indian fisherman
See, that is your problem! Why can't you be "subtle"? There is no need for "maximalism" or "rigidity". Let it go.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by ramana »

jrjrao wrote:FWIW.

Waiting for Pindi
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/waiti ... i/750019/0
Last week’s announcement that New Delhi and Islamabad will resume their talks, stalled since the Mumbai terror attacks at the end of 2008, raises a number of questions about the terms of India’s engagement with Pakistan.

Has India given up its insistence that the plotters of the Mumbai attack must be brought to justice before the renewal of a full-fledged dialogue with Pakistan? The answer is yes. Has India accepted Pakistan’s conditions for an early visit of its foreign minister to Delhi? The answer is yes again. Are these Indian diplomatic “concessions” fundamental in any sense? The answer should be no.
...
...
the most important reason for talking with Pakistan is not that it might produce reasonable returns in the short term. In fact, the new dialogue might not even survive the first major terror attack after Mumbai. Delhi must engage all sections of Pakistan because its deepening internal crisis, an escalating conflict on its western borders, and the sharpening contradictions with the United States and the international community over Afghanistan could have lasting effects on India’s national security.

There will be many dangers and a few fleeting moments of opportunity that Pakistan will present us in the coming year. To forestall the former and seize the latter, India needs a comprehensive and unsentimental engagement with Pakistan.
I wonder what he is alluding to?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by shiv »

disha wrote: For that to happen, "nationalists" need to understand subtleties. Most "nationalists" are maximalists and creates its own set of issues.
Possibly OT here - but this group described by CRamS as "nationalists" actually do show very Indian behavior in being upright, up front and honest. As someone stated earlier in this thread the behavior displayed by India the nation too is somewhat like this - preachy and unsubtle, perched on the moral high ground.

It is ironic and amusing in a sad way to find someone who purportedly represents the sentiments of the "nationalists" in America to complain about Indian preachiness and naivete because, from this side of the pond, the behavior of the "nationalists" appears preachy, rigid and unable to play the dirty games that Pakis sitting in "South Asian" groups play. And an inability to see it when the same games are played by Indians.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by arun »

Charlie wrote:Image

Mard to Mard Valentines Day :rotfl: :rotfl:
Strange that pure and pious Muslim Momin's think it somehow Halal and Shariah compliant in an IEDological Muslim state and Islamic Republic like Pakistan to openly flaunt homosexual orientations :roll: .
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12056
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by A_Gupta »

CRamS wrote:
Thats not evidence of your claim. Its your speculation. According to Raja Mohan in the IE report, India has sidelined 26/11.
According to the communique issued at Thimpu, Home Secy. talks go first.

Text at the bottom of this post:
http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot. ... ement.html
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12056
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Feb. 12, 2

Post by A_Gupta »

saket wrote:India cannot afford to have a dialogue which does not have a possible cost to pakistan. Period.
What does pakistan have to lose in such a dialogue? Absolutely nothing, unless India places something new on the table - such as Indus Water Treaty.

Why the hell should India play a game in which pakistan never loses (it either wins or the game is a draw)??
India shouldn't. But India has nothing but "talks" to put on the table - either to offer or to withdraw. There is nothing but bureaucratic H&D involved in these games.
Locked