India-US News and Discussion

[A_Gupta]

deleted [duplicate]

[A_Gupta]

The EJ lobby in full force

On religious discrimination, India next only to Iraq: US thinktank

Pew report available from here:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1443/global ... n-religion

Part of the "social hostility" is simply the number of terrorist attacks that India suffers from. Whether the terrorism is internally generated or externally imposed does not factor into the index. See below, emphasis added.

Basically, if you understand what the index actually measures, then it is not wrong.

Terrorism and war can have huge direct and indirect effects on religious groups, destroying religious sites, displacing whole communities and inflaming sectarian passions. Accordingly, the Pew Forum tallied the number, location and consequences of religion-related terrorism and armed conflict around the world, as reported in the same primary sources used to document other forms of intimidation and violence. However, war and terrorism are sufficiently complex that it is not always possible to determine the degree to which they are religiously motivated or state sponsored. Out of an abundance of caution, this study does not include them in the Government Restrictions Index. They are factored instead into the index of social hostilities involving religion, which includes one question specifically about religion-related terrorism and one question specifically about religion-related war or armed conflict. In addition, other measures in both indexes are likely to pick up spillover effects of war and terrorism on the level of religious tensions in society. For example, hate crimes, mob violence and sectarian fighting that occur in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or in the context of a religion-related war would be counted in the Social Hostilities Index, and laws or policies that clearly discriminate against a particular religious group would be registered on the Government Restrictions Index.

For the purposes of this study, the term religion-related terrorism is defined as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents that have some identifiable religious ideology or religious motivation. Readers should note that it is the political character and motivation of the groups, not solely the type of violence, that is at issue here. For instance, a bombing would not be classified as religion-related terrorism if there was no clearly discernible religious ideology or bias behind it.

Religion-related war or armed conflict is defined as armed conflict (a conflict that involves sustained casualties over time or more than 1,000 battle deaths) in which religious rhetoric is commonly used to justify the use of force, or in which one or more of the combatants primarily identifies itself or the opposing side by religion.

PS: I think all "inter-caste" violence and things like dowry-related violence would be counted as religious violence, as these are all part of the "Hindu religion" rather than socio-economic conditions. Analogous to counting all wars indulged in by European sovereigns as religious wars because those kings ruled by "divine right" - making their disputes religious - rather than correctly understanding them as political/economic disputes.

[RamaY]

PS: I think all "inter-caste" violence and things like dowry-related violence would be counted as religious violence, as these are all part of the "Hindu religion" rather than socio-economic conditions. Analogous to counting all wars indulged in by European sovereigns as religious wars because those kings ruled by "divine right" - making their disputes religious - rather than correctly understanding them as political/economic disputes.

Good observation Gupta-ji

We see this type of correlation applied on BR

[vera_k]

If we accept this logic, any war where the UK army participates such as Gulf War 1, Iraq war or Afghanistan war would be a religious war. There must then be some subnational socially hostile background that eventually escalates and erupts into an international religious war.

So then, how come the US and UK fare so well in that report? More importantly, is modernisation in Europe necessary to tamp down the various religious wars that these countries seem to get into?

[svinayak]

If we accept this logic, any war where the UK army participates such as Gulf War 1, Iraq war or Afghanistan war would be a religious war. There must then be some subnational socially hostile background that eventually escalates and erupts into an international religious war.

This is true and Iraq war is a religious war. Atleast Afghan war is to retaliate against the 911.
In their eyes it is a religious war and Indians and other asians do not understand this and fail to recognize the religious war.

[A_Gupta]

If we accept this logic, any war where the UK army participates such as Gulf War 1, Iraq war or Afghanistan war would be a religious war. There must then be some subnational socially hostile background that eventually escalates and erupts into an international religious war.

So then, how come the US and UK fare so well in that report? More importantly, is modernisation in Europe necessary to tamp down the various religious wars that these countries seem to get into?

vera_k,

The current condition is that every phenomenon in India is seen through the distorting lens of the "Hindu religion". Ever since the 18th century or so, Europe and America have moved away from seeing their issues as "Christian". I was simply illustrating the fallacy with respect to India, by applying it to Europe.

[Manny]

Should India now follow Obama's sensitivity and refer to Terrorists as just "extremists" and the attempt to blow up an aircraft over detroit as "Man made disaster"?

[Hari Seldon]

US cautions its citizens to threats of attacks in India

Apprehending Mumbai-type terrorist attack in various parts of India, the US on Wednesday alerted its citizens to be cautious during their visit to that country and asked them to defer their travel to Andhra Pradesh as violence continues over issue of separate Telangana state.

This is the third travel alert issued by the United States in quick session(sic).

'succession'?

"The US Government continues to receive information that terrorist groups may be planning attacks in India. Terrorists and their sympathisers have demonstrated their willingness and capability to attack targets where Americans or Westerners are known to congregate or visit," the travel alert said.

"In addition, there continues to be a possibility of violence in the south-central Indian state of Andhra Pradesh over the contentious issue of creating a separate state," the State Department said.

This alert replaces the Travel Alerts dated October 29 and December 9, 2009, and expires on January 31, 2010, it said.

[Mort Walker]

This can mean one of two things:

1. The US intel has information about terrorist activities in India, but won't share the info since it may give away US operatives in Pakistan. Which really blows a hole in the argument that the Obama administration is more cooperative.

2. The anti-India Democratic party assholes are back in charge at the Dept. of State and are using this to punish India by trying to drive away tourism and FDI. Which also blows a hole in the argument that the Obama administration is more "friendly" than the past administrations.

[derkonig]

The urge for houris was too strong for the Nigerian muslim terrorist.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/terror-suspe ... ml?from=tn

[Umrao Das]

Mort ji as usual I chip in
Uncle is a part of the problem we nourish and facilitate with our great virtue of imcompetency and corruption. Anybody with an iota of common sense would not share any intelligence. Read the Russian KGB generals book how Indian ministers were a great source of two way traffic for KGB and CIA. The French, British and their third party agents are also very very active in India. Why for that matter now telengana agiation is completely penetrated by PRC agents. Look at the flag of Moaits CPM flag (of Naxals) which resembels Mozambique flag. With AK-47 prominantly displayed.

Our Chidambarams, pillais narayanans are very busy brick by brick dismantelling India.

The story of rathore, Soren, langada patty are comic relief. India consulates in US should along with PIO should also sell AB cards namely Anticpatory Bail application, one never knows when that might work wonders like Sanjeevini.

"A Million mafia ruling a billion lawless people"

[Nandu]

USPS to issue Mother Teresa stamp in 2010.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02015.html

[abhishek_sharma]

From Howard Schaffer's book on "The Limits of Influence: America's Role In Kashmir"

From page 29

After McNaughton's efforts had failed and before Dixon undertook his, the State department prepared for the first time and authoritative memorandum spelling out the main points in Washington's approach to the Kashmir issue. Drafted by two assistant secretaries, George C. McGhee, who was responsible for South Asia policy, and John D. Hickerson, who supervised the department bureau that dealt with international organizations, it was remarkably candid and comprehensive document that is an important benchmark in the long U.S. effort to deal with the problem.

...

McGhee and Hickerson held that a resolution of the Kashmir issue was essential to South Asia peace and security and considered Indian intransigence primarily responsible for delaying a settlement. ... . Assessing India's case, they quoted from a memorandum, prepared by the Office of Legal Adviser of the State department, in coming to the judgment that the maharaja's signing the instrument of accession did not settle the accession issue.

From Notes on page 222

The legal adviser's opinion was that "[E]xecution of an Instrument of Accession by the Maharajah in October, 1947, could not finally accomplish the accession of Kashmir to either Dominion, in view of the circumstances prevailing at that time; the question of the future of Kashmir remained to be settled in some orderly fashion under relatively stable conditions; this question is an important development in the dispute; and, in proceedings before the Security Council, neither party is entitled to assert that were finally determined by Maharajah's execution of an instrument of Accession." The McGhee-Hickerson memorandum also noted the British position on the accession: "It is the view of the United Kingdom Attorney General and Foreign Office Legal advisers that the Maharajah's execution of the Instrument to India was inconsistent with Kashmir's obligation to Pakistan, and for that reason perhaps invalid". The section of the memorandum on the accession issue ("Legal aspects of Kashmir's contested accession to India") concludes that "because as a matter of law India is not entitled to assert that rights in Kashmir were finally determined by the Instrument of Accession executed in October, 1947, the Security Council should not permit this question to divert it from its basic task of bringing about a political solution of the Kashmir problem." FRUS 1950, V, pp. 1378-82

[abhishek_sharma]

From Howard Schaffer's book cited above:

From page 32

Washington also considered asking the Security Council to request the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the legality of Maharaja Hari Singh's signing the instrument of accession. A State department memorandum argued that a court finding that the accession was invalid would "knock out" one of India's principal arguments supporting its occupation of Kashmir. The memo noted that the British Foreign Office and the department's legal adviser had tentatively concluded that the court would make this judgment but warned that an approach to the court had serious disadvantages. All initiatives on Kashmir would have to be suspended while it took its time coming to a decision. Moreover, the court might judge in India's favor. In the end, nothing came of the idea. "

[vera_k]

The McGhee-Hickerson memorandum also noted the British position on the accession: "It is the view of the United Kingdom Attorney General and Foreign Office Legal advisers that the Maharajah's execution of the Instrument to India was inconsistent with Kashmir's obligation to Pakistan, and for that reason perhaps invalid".

What is this obligation?

[abhishek_sharma]

The McGhee-Hickerson memorandum also noted the British position on the accession: "It is the view of the United Kingdom Attorney General and Foreign Office Legal advisers that the Maharajah's execution of the Instrument to India was inconsistent with Kashmir's obligation to Pakistan, and for that reason perhaps invalid".

What is this obligation?

It is not clear from the first 48 pages of the book what this obligation could be.

The British were worse than the Americans during the period 1947-1952. During this period Americans deferred to the British on Kashmir issue. Things changed in 1953 when Eisenhower became president and Dulles was fascinated by the "martial qualities" of the Pakistanis.

Schaffer also claims that the British wanted a federally united India.

[Prem]

Not onlee what was Kashmir's obligation to Pakiland but who signed for those obligations on behalf ofJ&K and under what authority? And how did Paki invasion of the newly State of India makes their claim legal?

[Rudradev]

Not onlee what was Kashmir's obligation to Pakiland but who signed for those obligations on behalf ofJ&K and under what authority? And how did Paki invasion of the newly State of India makes their claim legal?

The "obligation" being referred to here might be the Standstill Agreement proposed by the Maharaja and the GoTSP on 12th August '47. Pakistanis like to claim that, because India did not immediately accept the Standstill Agreement (as Pakistan did on 15th August), Pakistan had a right to feel suspicious of India's intentions to secure accession of J&K and therefore the "tribal" invasions were justified. This has been thoroughly debunked as by Prof. Ram Krishen Bhatt here:

Standstill Agreement

Three days before the transfer of power, the Maharaja of Kashmir sent telegrams bearing identical dates, asking for Standstill Agreement on 12 August 1947 to both the Dominions India and Pakistan [2] to maintain the normal amenities of life such as post office, communications and so on.[3] The agreement, as provided in the Indian Independence Act 1947, would guarantee that till new agreements were made all existing agreements and administrative arrangements would continue[4]. Any dispute in regard to this would be settled by arbitration and "nothing in this agreement includes the exercise of any paramountcy functions [5]" Pakistan immediately accepted the agreement on 15 August through a telegraphic communication.[6]. But the Government of India asked the Prime Minister of Kashmir to fly to Delhi to negotiate the Agreement, or to send any other authorised Minister for the purpose. The non-acceptance of the Standstill Agreement [7] by India immediately aroused suspicion in the minds of Pakistan and it complained that India's failure to conclude the agreement was indicative of some plan to effect the accession immediately[8]. Before any Minister could reach Delhi, the Pakistan sponsored tribal invasion had altered the situation altogether[9].

The tribal invasion by pakistan on Kashmir was as indication of the fact that it wanted to annex Kashmir by force. Its contention that India wanted accession and therefore did not sign Standstill Agreement, is untenable. If it would have been her intention, she should have concluded the Standstill Agreement posthaste as a perlude to accession proper. Pakistan thought that by entering into an agreement it might persuade Jammu & Kashmir State to acceed to it, but totally forgot that " Standstill Agreement " was purely provisional, facilitating the continued inflow of existing traffic and goods pending final accession[10]: Whereas India waited, Pakistan signed the agreement but felt dissatified[11], when it came to know that "Standstill Agreement" meant the continuation of existing arrangement.

http://www.kashmir-information.com/Misc ... hatt2.html

To any rational observer, Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir makes utter nonsense of any continuing "obligation" that Kashmir might have had to the GoTSP under the Standstill Agreement. However, the myth of such "obligation" persists because of the Anglo-American axis' willigness to accept the Paki interpretation of this agreement.

[JE Menon]

"Moreover, the court might judge in India's favor. "

The above sentence from the book clarifies the matter. Neither the US, nor Britain, wanted to do anything that might possibly jeopardise their support for Pakistan. It was a clear cut consideration of interest. As for their legal opinions on the matter, they were and are free to hold them. The only consideration they need to make now is whether or not it is in their interest to push India on the matter. They are free, meanwhile, to continue holding the same legal opinions

[Mort Walker]

Mort ji as usual I chip in
Uncle is a part of the problem we nourish and facilitate with our great virtue of imcompetency and corruption. Anybody with an iota of common sense would not share any intelligence. Read the Russian KGB generals book how Indian ministers were a great source of two way traffic for KGB and CIA. The French, British and their third party agents are also very very active in India. Why for that matter now telengana agiation is completely penetrated by PRC agents. Look at the flag of Moaits CPM flag (of Naxals) which resembels Mozambique flag. With AK-47 prominantly displayed.

Our Chidambarams, pillais narayanans are very busy brick by brick dismantelling India.

The story of rathore, Soren, langada patty are comic relief. India consulates in US should along with PIO should also sell AB cards namely Anticpatory Bail application, one never knows when that might work wonders like Sanjeevini.

"A Million mafia ruling a billion lawless people"

Spinster,

There is much truth in what you say, but there is reason to be optimistic seeing the current generation of kids in their 20s, like the DCH crowd, that are generally demanding of a functioning government.

Throughout the cold war, the CIA and KGB intersected in India since it was/is an opportune place for them, but you can't fault them as they didn't become great powers by not being aggressive.

[svinayak]

The British were worse than the Americans during the period 1947-1952. During this period Americans deferred to the British on Kashmir issue. Things changed in 1953 when Eisenhower became president and Dulles was fascinated by the "martial qualities" of the Pakistanis.

Find out what the Soviet Union did to US in 1953 to find out why Dulles became fascinated by Pakis.

[abhishek_sharma]

From page 59 of Schaffer's book:

This is about a package offered by USA

As originally drafted, the Kashmir component of the package called for New Delhi and Karachi to agree that Azad Kashmir would go to Pakistan, Jammu to India, and a plebiscite in the Valley after ten years; or preferably--and even less realistically--a permanent partition of the state along the existing cease-fire line with minor, mutually acceptable adjustments in Pakistan's favor to compensate for India's retaining the Valley. Ambassador Bunker (US Ambassador to India) sharply criticized the delayed-plebiscite option. He wisely argued that because the package was based on the assumption that India was so eager to retain the Valley that it would be willing to "buy" a settlement by making concessions elsewhere, deferring a decision on the Valley's political future for ten years would defeat the purpose of the plan and keep tensions alive. But both Bunker and the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, James M. Langley, a New Hampshire newspaperman close to Sherman Adams, Eisenhower's powerful chief of staff, agreed to the initiative and helped refine it.

From notes on page 230 (about the proposal discussed above)

Arthur Z. Gardiner of the Office of South Asian Affairs appears to have been the only senior naysayer in the State Department. Gardiner had recently returned from an assignment at Embassy Karachi and was known for his pro-Pakistan views. He held that the proposal would cause problems for the United States with the Pakistanis, run counter to the principle of Kashmiri self-determination, and denigrate the position of the United Nations. (Gardiner memorandum to William Rountree, November 15, 1957, FRUS 1955-1957, VIII, p. 152)

From page 59

The section on Kashmir had been substantially changed by the time the package was approved. The final text spoke at some length about the principles that should govern the partition of the state if this was a mutually acceptable solution. (Washington was convinced that it should be.) It stated that considerations of the partition line should not be related in any way to the existing military cease-fire line "but rather should provide a fresh approach to the dispute, divorced from its long and acrimonious history under the United Nations resolutions." This seemed to favor India, which had effectively long since written off the resolutions. But the criteria listed that were to be used in determining the new line were a mixed bag. Some could be read to favor Pakistan; other seemed pro-Indian.

From notes on Page 231 (about the criteria discussed above)

The provisions included regard for religious concentrations whenever possible; contiguity of geographic area; existing district and administrative boundaries; terrain and natural communications and trade routes; existing and potential irrigation and hydroelectric projects; national security, with particular reference to the northern frontiers; and control over river segments or headwaters in relation to any settlement of the Indus water dispute. Many of these criteria were vague and ambiguous. Did regard for religious concentrations "whenever possible" offer an out that would provide a basis for India's retaining the Valley? Did particular reference to the northern frontiers mean that India should have access through the Valley to the areas in Ladakh it disputed with Communist China? Did the natural communications and trade routes refer to the pre-1947 situation, when the Valley's connection with the rest of undivided India was through areas that became part of Pakistan, or did the phrase also take into account new construction, including the building of a tunnel and the upgrading of roads that connected the Valley with present-day India through Jammu? See Rountree-Dulles memorandum, April 10, 1958, FRUS 1958-1960, XV, p. 75.

[Sanjay M]

Entrepreneurs Want US to Create Startup Visa

So the idea would be that you can be fast-tracked into the USA if you're willing and able to start up a company there. I can still see this leading to scams, as have occurred with H-1B.

[vera_k]

^^^

Of course. It is all about cost control for the VC industry. The thresholds of investment proposed are less than 4 years of wages for a entry level H1B hire.

[Jarita]

The British were worse than the Americans during the period 1947-1952. During this period Americans deferred to the British on Kashmir issue. Things changed in 1953 when Eisenhower became president and Dulles was fascinated by the "martial qualities" of the Pakistanis.

Find out what the Soviet Union did to US in 1953 to find out why Dulles became fascinated by Pakis.

Please explain

[Mort Walker]

Both the US & USSR did some nasty things in 1953. I don't know which specific incident Acharya is referring to, but my guess would be:

1. Direct Soviet influence in Hungary.
2. Soviet actions in east Berlin.
3. The acquisition of the H-bum by the Soviets.

US Actions:

1. Dulles and his brother in charge of the CIA, formerly chairman of United Fruit Company, overthrow the democratic government of Iran in Operation Ajax with the help of Churchill.
2. Intensified military support of the French colonialist against Ho Chi Minh.
3. Formation of SEATO which was formalized in 1954.

[Jarita]

^^^^ Yup
Also add to it British absence in Vietnam (churchill)
Hard to figure out what specific event triggered that. I was under the impression that Truman was a pro churchillite

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1762.html
It was Dulles' policy that the United States should curb Soviet expansion with the threat of massive atomic retaliation. His critics blamed Dulles for hurting relations with communist countries, thereby deepening the Cold War's effects. Dulles recognized the dangers of brinksmanship,* but argued that it was still safer than appeasement.

In an article for Life Magazine, Dulles wrote about brinksmanship, “The ability to get to the verge without getting into the war is the necessary art." In actual practice, he was unable to roll back any of the gains that the communists had made during the Truman years, and he found no way to support uprisings in East Germany in 1953 or Hungary in 1956.

The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), which Dulles helped to organize, was formed in 1954. The treaty, signed in Manila by the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines, obliged all its signatories to help defend against aggression in the Pacific region.

Dulles promoted the idea strongly and believed it would be a bulwark against further communist expansion. Unfortunately, the agreement proved to be ineffective when the United States alone had to defend attacks by the Viet Minh against three non-communist states, in 1963.

Dulles's humanitarian contributions included:


co-founder and former chairman of the Federal Council of Churches,

board chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,

a former trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, and

a founding member of the Council of Foreign Relations

[Haresh]

I have just found this website, named after the first white, english child born in what is America.

http://www.vdare.com/

Do a search for India and you get this:
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-a=00 ... a&sp-p=all

They don't like non white much, but some of their contributors are non white.

[Mort Walker]

Truman wanted to contain communist growth and he was known for stopping the Soviets expansion into Greece following WWII. Dulles was thinking along these same lines and so the same policies continued. India had no place in the thought of Truman, who left office in Jan. 1953, and issues regarding the subcontinent were referred to the British for guidance.

Note John Dulles and his brother Allen Dulles worked in a Republican administration, but foreign policy was similar to the Democrats. This is true today, but the difference is a more sophisticated window dressing. Dulles was big proponent of forming alliances and pacts to counter the Soviets, so when Nehru and Nasser formed NAM, Dulles was infuriated. He came to India and met Nehru saying that NAM was a bad idea and that the USSR and China would gang up against India. Nehru told him there were too many differences between the Chinese and the Russians to do any such thing and basically ignored Dulles. After 1954 the courtship of Pakistan intensified with the showering of billions in aid. At the time the British foreign secretary came up with the saying, "dull, duller, Dulles".

[abhishek_sharma]

From page 77 of Schaffer's book:

This is about events around/after 1962 Indo-China war:

If the administration's immediate goal was securing assurances from Pakistan that it would not cause problems for India, its broader, more ambitious objective was to make use of what Kennedy called "the fleeting ...one-time opportunity" the Sino-Indian war offered for a reconciliation between the two countries.

From page 78

Washington believed that it was particularly important that India adopt a more accommodating position. As Secretary of State Dean Rusk observed, "The United States cannot give maximum military support to India while most of India's forces are engaged against Pakistan over an issue where American interest in self-determination of the peoples directly concerned has caused us since 1954 to be sympathetic to Pakistan's claims." President Kennedy made this even more explicit when he told the Indian ambassador that "whether we like it or not, the question of Kashmir is inescapably linked to what [the United States] can do to assist India militarily."

About First round of talks (December 1962)

From Page 82:

The discussions opened on a decidedly unpromising note. President Ayub had already welcomed the Indian delegation, led by Minister of Industries Swaran Singh, a Punjabi Sikh politician known for his imperturbability, when the visitors heard on Pakistan radio that China and Pakistan had reached an agreement on the location of line dividing the parts of Kashmir each controlled. ... Ambassador McConaughy berated Ayub for the timing but accepted his claim that the blame rested with the Chinese: the president told him they had skillfully mouse-trapped the Pakistanis in order to create a formidable roadblock to the India-Pakistan negotiations. Washington was furious about the agreement but also chose to go along with the Ayub's benign interpretation. The Indian delegates considered scrapping the talks and returning home. Fortunately, McConughy and Sir Morrice James, the skillful and experienced British High Commissioner to Pakistan, persuaded Ayub and Swaran Singh to conciliatory positions, and the discussions went forward. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto,...,headed the Pakistan delegation in the absence of Foreign Minister Mohammed Ali Bogra, who was gravely ill.

As Washington had anticipated, the first round of negotiations made little progress. Each side spent a great deal of time reasserting long-standing positions, which the other side refuted using equally familiar arguments. According to High Commissioner James, the possibility of Kashmir's partition was raised toward the end of conference. But it is not clear who did so or what precisely they had in mind as the location of an international frontier. The delegations then agreed to hold another session in New Delhi January 16-19.

[pgbhat]

'Underwear Bomber's' Alarming Last Phone Call

It has previously been reported that the man's father, prominent Nigerian banker Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, went to Nigerian and American officials Nov. 19 to warn them that his son had been radicalized by Islamic militants in Yemen.

Details have emerged about Abdulmutallab's final phone call that highlight President Obama's statement that there were "systemic failures" of the country's security system.

ABC News' sources said that during Abdulmutallab's final call, he told his father the call would be his last contact with the family. He said that the people he was with in Yemen were about to destroy his SIM card, rendering his phone unusable.

A senior U.S. official briefed on the matter tells ABC News that the phone call prompted the father to contact Nigerian intelligence, fearing that his son might be planning a suicide mission in Yemen. The Nigerian officials brought Mutallab directly to the CIA station chief in Abuja Nov. 19.

A senior U.S. official briefed on the matter tells ABC News that the phone call prompted the father to contact Nigerian intelligence, fearing that his son might be planning a suicide mission in Yemen. The Nigerian officials brought Mutallab directly to the CIA station chief in Abuja Nov. 19.

The next day the embassy sent out a thin report to U.S. embassies around the world warning Adbulmutallab may be associating with extremists in Yemen.

The CIA official compiled two more robust reports following the meeting with the suspect's father. One was sent back to CIA's Langley, Va., the other remained in draft form in Nigeria and was not circulated until after the attempted attack on Christmas Day, according to a U.S. official.

In what has been seen as a possible failure to stop the bomber from boarding a U.S.-bound plane, the alert prompted counterterrorism officials to put Abdulmutallab's name into a database of more than half a million others that the U.S. suspects of ties to terrorism, but they did not put him on the country's no-fly list. The information also was not shared with Yemeni intelligence officials, the Yemen government has said.

[Prem]

Is it still linked or Bush Jr mended the policy?

From page 78


Quote:

Washington believed that it was particularly important that India adopt a more accommodating position. As Secretary of State Dean Rusk observed, "The United States cannot give maximum military support to India while most of India's forces are engaged against Pakistan over an issue where American interest in self-determination of the peoples directly concerned has caused us since 1954 to be sympathetic to Pakistan's claims." President Kennedy made this even more explicit when he told the Indian ambassador that "whether we like it or not, the question of Kashmir is inescapably linked to what [the United States] can do to assist India militarily."

[Karna_A]

There is no point in keeping these kind of people in jails in western world. They should be summarily executed after a military trial.
It costs 50K a yr to keep one of these in jail. Too many of these can bankrupt the jails in western world.
They should be tried and executed as there is precedent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

[quote="pgbhat"]'Underwear Bomber's' Alarming Last Phone Call

[abhishek_sharma]

Is it still linked or Bush Jr mended the policy?

From page 78


Quote:

Washington believed that it was particularly important that India adopt a more accommodating position. As Secretary of State Dean Rusk observed, "The United States cannot give maximum military support to India while most of India's forces are engaged against Pakistan over an issue where American interest in self-determination of the peoples directly concerned has caused us since 1954 to be sympathetic to Pakistan's claims." President Kennedy made this even more explicit when he told the Indian ambassador that "whether we like it or not, the question of Kashmir is inescapably linked to what [the United States] can do to assist India militarily."

If they don't like Indian policies then they would bring back this rhetoric. William Burns used the phrase "with the wishes of Kashmiri people" last year.

[Karan Dixit]

Kashimiris are Indians and they are not up for barter. Insallah, this simple truth will be impressed upon everyone, one at a time.

[Chinmayanand]

Fall of The Republic

Birathers, this is a superb documentary, an eye opener.If you have time,do watch it, though its a bit long about 2hrs but it's worth it.

[Mort Walker]

Durgesh,

I watched a few minutes of the video, but I don't see the relevance of it in this thread. Could you please post the times where discussion or mention of India is? Generally, the video seems like US right wingnut fears and both sides of the political spectrum in the US have made slick video productions criticizing the other.

[Jarita]

The case of Saipan (US territory)
Next time they try to get us on labor conditions


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saipan

Saipan (pronounced /saɪˈpæn/) is the largest island of the United States Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a chain of 15 tropical islands belonging to the Marianas archipelago in the western Pacific Ocean (15°10’51”N, 145°45’21”E) with a total area of 44.55 sq mi (115.4 km2). The 2000 census population was 62,392.[1]

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) immigration system is antithetical to the principals that are at the core of the US immigration policy. Over time, the CNMI has developed an immigration system dominated by the entry of foreign temporary contract workers. These now outnumber US citizens but have few rights within the CNMI and are subject to serious labor and human rights abuses. In contrast to US immigration policy, which admits immigrants for permanent residence and eventual citizenship, the CNMI admits aliens largely as temporary contract workers who are ineligible to gain either US citizenship or civil and social rights within the commonwealth. Only a few countries and no democratic society have immigration policies similar to the CNMI. The closest equivalent is Kuwait. The end result of the CNMI policy is to have a minority population governing and severely limiting the rights of the majority population who are alien in every sense of the word."

On March 31, 1998,[18] US Senator Daniel Akaka said:

The Commonwealth shares our American flag, but it does not share the American system of immigration. There is something fundamentally wrong with a CNMI immigration system that issues permits to recruiters, who in turn promise well-paying American jobs to foreigners in exchange for a $6,000 recruitment fee. When the workers arrive in Saipan, they find their recruiter has vanished and there are no jobs in sight. Hundreds of these destitute workers roam the streets of Saipan with little or no chance of employment and no hope of returning to their homeland. The State Department has confirmed that the government of China is an active participant in the CNMI immigration system. There is something fundamentally wrong with an immigration system that allows the government of China to prohibit Chinese workers from exercising political or religious freedom while employed in the United States. Something is fundamentally wrong with a CNMI immigration system that issues entry permits for 12- and 13-year-old girls from the Philippines and other Asian nations, and allows their employers to use them for live sex shows and prostitution.


Worker barracks at a garment factory on Saipan, 2006.Finally, something is fundamentally wrong when a Chinese construction worker asks if he can sell one of his kidneys for enough money to return to China and escape the deplorable working conditions in the Commonwealth and the immigration system that brought him there.

There are voices in the CNMI telling us that the cases of worker abuse we keep hearing about are isolated examples, that the system is improving, and that worker abuse is a thing of the past. These are the same voices that reap the economic benefits of a system of indentured labor that enslaves thousands of foreign workers – a system described in a bi-partisan study as "an unsustainable economic, social and political system that is antithetical to most American values." There is overwhelming evidence that abuse in the CNMI occurs on a grand scale and the problems are far from isolated.

[sanjaykumar]

So Saipan makes it to BRF! Jai ho.


Well there are NO Chinese garment factories on Saipan now.

[Chinmayanand]

Mort, That video is not about Democrats or Repulblicans.It is about both.It's about the New World Order as planned by Bilderberg Group,Council For Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission.Its about how Rockfeller ,Rothschild etc make the agenda and the US Presidents from either parties execute it.Its about the economic collapse that we are seeing, the crude rally, the carbon tax and so many other things.It's about how European Union was planned and how North American Union is being planned through NAFTA and an Asian Union.Have we not discussed the Asian bloc here in BRF where the folks here say ,India should see it's not left out.There is so much information in there.It's worth the two hours .If you see the full video, you can understand it better and maybe throw some light on it.