Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 06 Feb 2010 11:13

Rangudu wrote:
Anujan wrote:Genuine question:

How is this round of "Lets start talking" different from what ABV did?
Superficially - not that much different. But..

A very critical difference: in May-June 2002, GoI was able to conduct the first democratic elections in J&K since militancy began in 1990. International observers certified the elections as free and fair, depriving the Pakis of the most essential diplomatic weapon they had been using to internationalize J&K and legitimize their support of terrorists there: the alleged abuse of Kashmiris' fundamental rights by India. These elections could be held with a vastly successful turnout only because Parakram had forced Musharraf to close the Jihadi tap.

We could never have used Parakram mobilization to go to war against Pakistan; the prevailing environment of US involvement there made this a foregone conclusion. By pressuring Pakistan not to interfere in the J&K elections, Parakram served it's purpose as well as it could have been expected to. ABV agreeing to talks in October 2002 came from a genuine position of strength in the wake of a major victory that had deprived the Pakis of justification for their long held stand on Kashmir. This MMS debacle is not even comparable, at any level, to what ABV achieved then... If anything it reverses whatever gains the NDA govt made by making terrorism the central issue in Indo Pak dialogue.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 06 Feb 2010 11:14

Shiv:

Nothing complicated, but "core Indian nationalist" means that when it comes to TSP, seeing the evil state that it is, visa vi India. A core Indian nationalist cannot empathitcally believe that TSP is a victim of terror due to its own dalliance with terrorists in the manner in which India is a victim of TSP sponsored terror. No core Indian nationalist can repeatedly aver that "India's & TSP's destinies are linked" despite the path chosen by TSP in 1947 and its use of terror as an instrument of state policy against India for most of the time period since then. No core Indian nationallist will shy away from declaring passionately that J&K is an integral part of India. No core Indian nationalist will sing paens on British colonial rule no matter what collateral benefits India inherited. No core Indian nationalist will go out of his/her way to express profuse outrage at a private sports franchise deciding not choose a Paki; and this when memories of 26/11 are still alive and there seems to be little if any moral outrage among the so called civil society in TSP over the sheer gargantuan nature of the crime committed by their compatriots. No core Indian nationalist who professes to be secular will jump to instant conclusions that RSS was responsible for 1984 Sikh riots even if you disagree with their political views. Finally, the mother of core nationalist traits: No core Indian nationalist will ever contemplate SeS, let alone sign on the dotted line, and no core Indian nationalist will pick up the phone and call TSP to make love even as TSP's lethal terrorist orgnanization responsible for Mumbai and other countless terror attacks is holding a rally right under the nose of TSP's ruling establishment and calling for Jihad agianst kufir India.

I think you get the picture.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 06 Feb 2010 11:20

Since India has hitched itself to American bandwagon in an attempt to counter China, India does not really have much option if US exerts a lot of pressure. Maintaining friendly ties with US would be seen as more important than not talking to Pakistan.

India does have the ability to defy US diktat, that is a fact. If India wants to grow economically, on key issues of interest to US India will have to defer to US. Otherwise, India has to be ready to take a hit economically, something that the Indian leadership and the people are not willing to do.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 06 Feb 2010 11:27

Rudradev wrote: We could never have used Parakram mobilization to go to war against Pakistan; the prevailing environment of US involvement there made this a foregone conclusion. By pressuring Pakistan not to interfere in the J&K elections, Parakram served it's purpose as well as it could have been expected to. ABV agreeing to talks in October 2002 came from a genuine position of strength in the wake of a major victory that had deprived the Pakis of justification for their long held stand on Kashmir. This MMS debacle is not even comparable, at any level, to what ABV achieved then... If anything it reverses whatever gains the NDA govt made by making terrorism the central issue in Indo Pak dialogue.

Really? They should have told us about this great strategy!

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 06 Feb 2010 11:30

Just a week or so ago, Nirupama Rao was decaling that TSP is just that a terrorist state, and no talks. A vigilant media will ask tough questions as to what changed in week to go from the position to readiness to talk about all issues. Can you how the US media, which Indian media models itself after, will go bersk if a US administration exhibits such whimsical behavior?

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 06 Feb 2010 11:35

Toilet is a gora newspaper.

Read this about Toilet and enjoy.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FE18Df05.html

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 06 Feb 2010 11:36

Rudradev:

Come on, lets not kid ourselves, Parakram produced at best miniscule benefits for India. Both ABV with his "India and US are natural allies" BS and MMS have come under US spell. I am definetly not saying that India antagonize US, but as Larry Pressler said, India needs to show robust disagreement with US over its TSP policy instead of going along supinely. And both ABV and MMS are guilty of this.

amol.p · Post by **amol.p** » 06 Feb 2010 11:38

negi wrote:Well SS is indeed a trouble spot but in context of Indo-Pak relations they have no significance apart from serving as a fodder for rhetoric mullahs and the 'equal equal' media bunnies in desh.

Hi Negi...would like to correct the same...the signifinace of SS is that it has maintained balance....whenever there has been any riots those are the first to come at protect & stand on the streets....niether the police nor the congress can do it...you can take example of Mumbai, solapur,aurangabad......also there are instances when congress MLA has taken shelter in SS offices during riots in solapur,aurangabad, dhule.......
The common people see SS as there protector.....while media & celebrities have to never face riots in their life hence all SS bashing going on.........

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 06 Feb 2010 11:41

As expected, the gloating and with good reason IMO.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 06 Feb 2010 11:47

abhishek_sharma wrote:
Rudradev wrote: We could never have used Parakram mobilization to go to war against Pakistan; the prevailing environment of US involvement there made this a foregone conclusion. By pressuring Pakistan not to interfere in the J&K elections, Parakram served it's purpose as well as it could have been expected to. ABV agreeing to talks in October 2002 came from a genuine position of strength in the wake of a major victory that had deprived the Pakis of justification for their long held stand on Kashmir. This MMS debacle is not even comparable, at any level, to what ABV achieved then... If anything it reverses whatever gains the NDA govt made by making terrorism the central issue in Indo Pak dialogue.
Really? They should have told us about this great strategy!

If you were keeping abreast of what was going on at the time you could have figured it out for yourself. We could never have mounted an offensive against TSP during the Parakram mobilization : that was made clear when Colin Powell shared satellite intel about our troop movements with TSPA. We would have ended up fighting the US too if we had tried. But no one can deny that Parakram was instrumental in holding the Kashmir elections. Too bad if the DDM didn't "tell you about" it clearly enough for your edification .

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 06 Feb 2010 11:47

Gus wrote:
Anujan wrote:39 year-old Staff Sergeant Mark Alan Stets, Jr. (pictured) was assigned to Alpha Company of the 8th Psychological Operations Battalion out of Fort Bragg, N.C.

errrr...what's a psychological operations battalion? what are they doing in peestan.

Activated on 27 November 1990, the United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (USACAPOC) is responsible for overseeing two lesser known areas of Special Operations whose contributions are no less valuable than Special Forces or Rangers. Used during peacetime, contingencies and declared war, these activities are not a form of force, but are force multipliers that use nonviolent means in often violent environments. Persuading rather than compelling physically, they rely on logic, fear, desire or other mental factors to promote specific emotions, attitudes or behaviors. The ultimate objective of U.S. military psychological operations and civil affairs is to convince enemy, neutral, and friendly nations and forces to take action favorable to the United States and its allies.

Mission
The mission of the 4th Psychological Operations Group (Airborne) is to deploy anywhere in the world on short notice, and plan, develop, and conduct Civil Affairs and Psychological operations in support of Unified Commanders, coalition forces, or other government agencies as directed by the National Command Authority.

http://www.psywarrior.com/psyop.html

How many of these dudes are active in India, especially in the English media? Is "Aman ki Asha" one of these operations?

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 06 Feb 2010 11:50

CRamS wrote:Rudradev:

Come on, lets not kid ourselves, Parakram produced at best miniscule benefits for India. Both ABV with his "India and US are natural allies" BS and MMS have come under US spell. I am definetly not saying that India antagonize US, but as Larry Pressler said, India needs to show robust disagreement with US over its TSP policy instead of going along supinely. And both ABV and MMS are guilty of this.

Whatever boss, if it makes you feel better to do an equal-equal, who am I to put facts in your way.

khan · Post by **khan** » 06 Feb 2010 12:10

I have been thinking about these "Talks" for a while now and what follows is my 0.02:

Call me a dove, a pigeon or a pussy - I think that the talks are good. Talks give GOI options. The unilateral offer for talks makes GOI look downright magnanimous.

GOI will get to set the agenda, if the Paki's disagree on the agenda, GOI can back out claiming the moral high ground. To prevent that the Paki's will have to give some ground to the agenda that GOI dictates - if nothing else foreign pressure on the Paki's will ensure this.

Should another Mumbai outrage occur, it gives GOI more options to handle the fallout. Some people might be of the opinion that giving GOI an easy way out of a terrorist outrage is a bad thing. I disagree with that assessment. If GOI (under both the BJP and Cong-I) was of the opinion that war against TSP was something to be avoided unless the provocation was extremely grave, and nothing has changed on the ground with to our military capabilities, it is foolish for us to force ourself into a situation where the only way out is to use military force we do not have.

Personally, I think that it is stupid to not talk to the Paki's - even if we have the military capability punish them efficiently. Talking to the Paki's will inevitably divide them. There is a peace constituency in Pakistan and talking to them will both strengthen that constituency and inevitably split them from the more rabid populace. If for example GOI is able to make a deal with the civilians and the deal is publicized, the hard-liners will have to launch a coup or do something just as obvious to stop it. This will bring the actual motivations of the Paki army into sharp relief to the common Abdul.

Should another Mumbai outrage occur, I think that it would be stupid to cut off talks with the Paki's as an escalatory measure. Instead we could use the outrage to bring terror to the top of the agenda. Should the Paki's refuse to deal with the terror issue (or even talk about it), air strikes should follow - that will bring terror to the top of agenda real quick. These talks should be conducted with full transparency. India has very little to hide, our part of Jammu and Kashmir is free and democratic, theirs hasn't been for 60 years. The Northern areas of J&K (In Pakistan) are downright oppressed. If anything the Paki's have more to hide about J&K than we do. Transparency will favour India.

The current strategy of dealing with Pakistan (and J&K) has resulted in a bit of a stalemate. What MMS is trying to do is shake things up. India is stronger than ever before in every way - military, diplomatic, economic - you name it. Pakistan is at its weakest. We should take full advantage of it - in both diplomatic terms and military terms.

The worst case scenario is that the talks break down and we are back to where we are at today. With all the terror in Pakistan, there is no way in hell Pakistan is "winning" this or any future diplomatic initiative (by making GOI look bad).

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 06 Feb 2010 12:29

Rudradev wrote: If you were keeping abreast of what was going on at the time you could have figured it out for yourself. We could never have mounted an offensive against TSP during the Parakram mobilization : that was made clear when Colin Powell shared satellite intel about our troop movements with TSPA. We would have ended up fighting the US too if we had tried.

If we could not have mounted an offensive against Pakistan, we should not have mobilized. Deploying hundreds of thousands of troops for 10 months and then asking them to go home is strange.

Many soldiers died during clearing mines and the cost of mobilization was immense. The GoI has conducted many elections in Kashmir since 1989 without significant costs.

Rudradev wrote: Too bad if the DDM didn't "tell you about" it clearly enough for your edification .

Yeah, I am glad they did not enlighten me on the cost/benefit analysis of Operation Parakram.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 06 Feb 2010 12:34

Rudradev wrote: This MMS debacle is not even comparable, at any level, to what ABV achieved then... If anything it reverses whatever gains the NDA govt made by making terrorism the central issue in Indo Pak dialogue.

I am not a fan of S-e-S joint statement. However, I don't think terrorism was the central issue in Indo-Pak dialogue when NDA was in power.

India-Pakistan Joint Press Statement, Islamabad
06/01/2004

The President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India met during the SAARC summit in Islamabad.

The Indian Prime Minister while expressing satisfaction over the successful conclusion of the SAARC summit appreciated the excellent arrangements made by the host country.

Both leaders welcomed the recent steps towards normalisation of relations between the two countries and expressed the hope that the positive trends set by the CBMs would be consolidated.

Prime Minister Vajpayee said that in order to take forward and sustain the dialogue process, violence, hostility and terrorism must be prevented. President Musharraf reassured Prime Minister Vajpayee that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan's control to be used to support terrorism in any manner. President Musharraf emphasised that a sustained and productive dialogue addressing all issues would lead to positive results.

To carry the process of normalisation forward, the president of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India agreed to commence the process of the composite dialogue in February 2004. The two leaders are confident that the resumption of the composite dialogue will lead to peaceful settlement of all bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, to the satisfaction of both sides.

The two leaders agreed that constructive dialogue would promote progress towards the common objective of peace, security and economic development for our peoples and for future generations.

Islamabad
January 6, 2004

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 06 Feb 2010 12:37

Talks are not necessarily bad as long as India does not unilateral concessions on Kashmir or any other issue to Pakistan. Chai biscoot would be fine otherwise US would try to get involved.

Since India is strong now relatively, why should India offer concessions to a nation that is weakening and supporting terror against India.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 06 Feb 2010 12:44

csharma wrote: Since India is strong now relatively, why should India offer concessions to a nation that is weakening and supporting terror against India.

Certainly true. We did not offer concessions even in 1962.

Even the PM talks about "non-territorial" solution. So the net area of our country is not going to change.

The only problem is that we would probably agree to some type of "joint governance" of Kashmir. What would that entail?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 06 Feb 2010 12:45

khan wrote: Personally, I think that it is stupid to not talk to the Paki's - even if we have the military capability punish them efficiently. Talking to the Paki's will inevitably divide them. There is a peace constituency in Pakistan and talking to them will both strengthen that constituency and inevitably split them from the more rabid populace.

The problem is that India has not evolved any capacity to apply carrots and sticks to any constituency in Pakistan.

Even Afghans say "we love India but fear Pakistan, and fear is the stronger emotion". There is nothing to be gained by being the good guy always.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Feb 2010 13:09

Adm.Verma,CNS,has just said during the on-going international MILAN naval meet in the Andamans,that while the US (in the context of recent statements) wants India to Police the IOR,the IN will not be the "headmaster" of the IOR! This brings to mind another incident where a visiting US admiral was told by his Chinese host that they could share the sea thus,"the US takes the Pacific,while we Chinese take the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean".It underscores the desire of Uncle Sam and the PRC,to control global affairs to their liking,using nations according to their whims and fancies.Sadly,spineless jellyfish masquerading as our leaders are selling the cuntry short,especially with rgrd to pak,who are now puting KLashmir on the table for talks instead of their heinous acts of terrorism.Pak is equating its use of terrorism against India as the price we have to pay for holding onto kashmir,every Indian's birthright.

AS for the US interlopers who are armtwisting us into meeting with the Paki leadership with their bloody hands,we shouldve countereed by telling them that we would meet with the Paki scum after they invited Osama to the White House.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 06 Feb 2010 13:10

khan wrote:I have been thinking about these "Talks" for a while now and what follows is my 0.02:

Call me a dove, a pigeon or a pussy - I think that the talks are good. Talks give GOI options. The unilateral offer for talks makes GOI look downright magnanimous.

GOI will get to set the agenda, if the Paki's disagree on the agenda, GOI can back out claiming the moral high ground. To prevent that the Paki's will have to give some ground to the agenda that GOI dictates - if nothing else foreign pressure on the Paki's will ensure this.

Ok my turn!
Over the past 60 years, Pakistan has got away with committing sins of barbaric and genocide levels. What punishment has Pakistan or rather the ruling elite who have run Pakistan endured. NIL.

For a person committing a crime, a law which states "imprisonment for 20 years" is the a deterring factor. However, Pakistan has experienced no such punishment. The deterrent factor has not been there and this emboldens Pakistan. With the recent $3.2B aid, it shows that despite this extremely dangerous and irrational behavior, the ruling elite of Pakistan still get rewarded.
Pakistan is living upto MA Jinnah's ideals.Now, if I were part of RAPE, I would get the money, pocket it, throw crumbs into what they are intended for, wait for things to settle down and repeat the same thing over and over again.

Gen. Kapoor's recent statement rattled the c****nes of the Pakis. A loss of face and a possible tryst with a lamppost as a result of a Indian punitive strikes is something they fear. Which is why post Mumbai, they cowered and fawned. They waited. They wanted talks. They waited. They got bolder and bolder since no Indian reaction was coming. When finally they realised that they have gotten away scot-free, all the bravado returned. See the recent speeches by Gilani and 10% .

No talks and the fear of strikes should be the single thing that should be running in their minds.

I believe that India should act is such a way that all players in the neighbourhood are made very uncomfortable. The heat must be felt by US and NATO troops in Afghanistan as Pakistani troops move east.

What is happening now is that the US is taking the easy way out by extracting peace in the east and concentrating in the west. This should be denied and the focus should always be _inside_ Pakistan.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 06 Feb 2010 13:12

abhishek_sharma:

Please cut this crap. Lets view every situation on its own merit. Are you trying to score some silly points or what. What NDA did or did not do, and as I myself concede ABV was no hawk, has no releance now. Mumbai was so diabolical that MMS caving in is abject surrender, period. What perverse comfort do you draw as an SDRE that there is some equivalence between this and what ABV did?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 06 Feb 2010 13:16

CRamS wrote:abhishek_sharma:

Please cut this crap. Lets view every situation on its own merit. Are you trying to score some silly points or what. What NDA did or did not do, and as I myself concede ABV was no hawk, has no releance now. Mumbai was so diabolical that MMS caving in is abject surrender, period. What perverse comfort do you draw as an SDRE that there is some equivalence between this and what ABV did?

I think this discussion started when the following question was asked by Anujan :

"Genuine question: How is this round of "Lets start talking" different from what ABV did?"

Talk to him. Okay?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Feb 2010 14:47

csharma wrote:Since India is strong now relatively, why should India offer concessions to a nation that is weakening and supporting terror against India.

I will take your second point first. The question to ask here is when was India not relatively stronger than Pakistan ? IMHO, the problem comes from us being merely a status-quo power unwilling to revise the situation to our advantage and consistent with our power and desire to play a positive role certainly in the region and probably beyond. We have this constant fear that our economic & military power, overwhelming it is vis-a-vis Pakistan, might just not be enough. We will never overcome this feeling even when we become the third largest economy and Pakistan slides even further. That is the hanuman-syndrome. This a mindset that needs to be reset and the time for that is even passe. Status-quo powers, if drawn into a conflict, tend to absorb a lot of blows and present a sorry and meek picture. Let me quote what I have posted here before.

Under normal circumstances, the preponderant state, in this case India, should have been able to set the course for the conflict and probably should have brought it to a quick conclusion. Usually, the conflict prolongs, interminably in some cases, only when the two opposing states are equally poised. In the India-Pakistan situation, India was (and remains) far superior to Pakistan in almost every factor that can be set to define the strength of the nation, namely, demographic (National and Urban Population), production of Iron and Steel, military strength and expenditure, and energy consumption. These six variables define the Composite Index of National Capability (CINC). The overall CIN Capability has been consistently at a 4:1 ratio in favour of India at a minimum and even reaching a 7:1 ratio at times and yet India has been unable to translate such a superiority into a tangible resolution of its conflict. The status quo power, India, has generally tended to leave the revisionist power Pakistan to set the agenda for the conflict and has been merely reactive, thus defying the generally accepted principles of conflict resolution.

Talks are not necessarily bad as long as India does not unilateral concessions on Kashmir or any other issue to Pakistan. Chai biscoot would be fine otherwise US would try to get involved.

'Chai & biscoot' are *not* fine anymore. After all, we want to see terrorism against us stopped, and the terrorists in Pakistan punished. So, how can 'chai & biscoot' be fine ? We want Pakistan to vacate PoK (our maximalist position and our Parliament has a unanimous resolution on J&K). Why should we even be happy that our netas have not conceded anything unilaterally ? These are defeatist mindsets. Pakistan knows that we approach talks with such timidity that they demand one-on-one where our leaders normally concede ground. No Indian leader till today is an exception to this.

KaranR · Post by **KaranR** » 06 Feb 2010 15:41

negi wrote:^ Chanakian hat on , that was a gesture for dammage control as far as public opinion is concerned , sort of 'oops he did it by mistake' .

As for Rahul gandhi he is a typical chawwanni chaap page 3 poster boy indulging in 1980's era publicity , media is covering his visits to girls college , some pre aranged visits to Amethi , Rae bareli and now the local train tamasha . Come to think of it if he becomes the next PM of India he would be the least qualified individual to have assumed the chair in history of India whether it be education or political acumen.

** Deleted **

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 06 Feb 2010 15:44

Neela wrote:The heat must be felt by US and NATO troops in Afghanistan as Pakistani troops move east.

I think you have a point. If it is Unkil who is taking decisions in matters of India-TSP relations now, then a change can be brought about only from that angle. Negotiate with the khan directly instead of doing euqual-equal with wh0re munna. Make it very clear that fak-ap policy is going to suffer if Indian concerns are not addressed, exactly the game TSP plays (only that they have more leverage). Put the onus on to the khan to make TSP deliver on its promises.

Well.. if our leaders had that much balls then this chaman ki tamasha wouldnt have happened.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 06 Feb 2010 16:07

Pak identifies 'eight issues' for meaningful, sustained dialogue with India

Islamabad, Feb.6 (ANI): Responding to New Delhi's overture, Pakistan has said that it wants a sustained and meaningful dialogue with India, and has identified 'eight issues' for discussions, which also include the Kashmir issue and water disputes.

Addressing the media after holding a meeting with Foreign Secretary for nearly an hour, Malik said:

"We are not going to shy away on the issue of terrorism. We will discuss it, as we also have issues related to terrorism."

He also said that Pakistan would raise the Kashmir issue with India on every forum possible.

On Thursday, India had proposed foreign secretary level talks with Pakistan, and said a key issue that could be discussed during the talks would be counter-terrorism. {Whatever the phuck that means}
According to sources, India would approach the talks with a positive frame of mind to create an atmosphere of peace and stability in the region.

I have no words to describe how disgusted I am right now . Ack thoo..

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Feb 2010 16:10

Dilbu wrote:I have no words to describe how disgusted I am right now . Ack thoo..

Wait please. You a'int seen anything yet.

RamaP · Post by **RamaP** » 06 Feb 2010 16:23

deleted by moderator
Considering the way he has run the foreign affairs, there is little doubt that the people in State Department are feeling more comfortable about the South Asian affairs. There are a host of examples which proves that when it comes to foreign policy, to quote Mr K.C Singh, "MMS acts in a stealth manner". The mandarins in Congress were unaware, or at least they pretended to be so, as far as MMS's S-e-S fiasco was concerned. The whole nation was visibly stunned. The Jee-Huzoor in U.K also might indicate towards this Pro-Anglo Saxon stance.

Even in the area of arms deal, Americans have found it much easier to deal with the MMS led UPA regime. Whether it is the P3C recon aircraft or the upcoming MRCA deal, Americans are now in the big league of defense deals. TSP is bound to be emboldened when its adversary is making such moves. The threshold of anger of Indian public has been lowered, thanks to Aman ka Tamasha and the sudden outpouring of love by the Indian media (especially English language) towards Pakistan. The Aam Aadmi will either fall for this charade or will remain indifferent. In either case, the political fallout will be much less in case there is another mischief by TSP.

KaranR · Post by **KaranR** » 06 Feb 2010 16:33

KaranR wrote:
negi wrote:^ Chanakian hat on , that was a gesture for dammage control as far as public opinion is concerned , sort of 'oops he did it by mistake' .

As for Rahul gandhi he is a typical chawwanni chaap page 3 poster boy indulging in 1980's era publicity , media is covering his visits to girls college , some pre aranged visits to Amethi , Rae bareli and now the local train tamasha . Come to think of it if he becomes the next PM of India he would be the least qualified individual to have assumed the chair in history of India whether it be education or political acumen.
** Deleted **

SSridhar

** Delete **

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 06 Feb 2010 16:34

Well, i think we have seen this happen before. We conceded to an composite dialogue after Kandahar without any hijackers getting arrested or a sham trial underway. We did so after Kaluchak and the parliament attack when we invited a pariah Musharaff to Agra. And we are doing it now. The reasons for the establishment to undertake were based on the following 4 premises:

1. There are no alternatives to talk.
2. We have to live next door to this neighbour.
3. Desire for Statesmanship whether Gujral, ABV, MMS.
4. Desire to get started on a block of common interests in SAARC, like trade etc.

1 and 2 were commonly given as excuses for 3. Hardly anyone disputed the the fact 'Pakistan will always be a next door neighbour forever' or that 'a Peaceful, stable Pakistan is in India's best interests'.

With the recent Afghanistan situation and UK's convincing US and others of dealing with the Taliban show up one major thing of interest. That Pakistan will never allow stability in Afghanistan. It will ruin it too.

This clearly shows that Pakistan as a State will always mean trouble for it's neighbourhood. This must and shold make clear to a large section that Pakistan must not be allowed to exist in it's present form. It's a clear and present danger that will remain so.

I don't accept Point 2 being doled out. A significant section of our establishment should have by now realized that it's possible that Pakistan can be eliminated as our neighbour permanently. Sindh, Baluchistan and Pakjab can be our new neighbours. I feel the time for this realization coming into the broader picture in the mainstream media has come. Aman ki Tamasha type events delay this a bit. I now feel it's becoming inevitable to realize Pt 2 is bogus.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 06 Feb 2010 16:50

Should India hold talks with Pakistan? Rediff

One apt comment from a poster:

Aman ki Asha = Yamraaj Ka Pasha

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 06 Feb 2010 16:56

you are correct in the point 1. that you have stated. There are no alternatives to talk , even for the Adoption of a more Chanakian policy wrt TSP it is imparative for us to talk , if not for anything else then atleast for the fact that we must project ourselves as peace loving , concerned about the mindless slaughter in TSP , concerned about their Economy blah blah blah.

Now that we are re-engaging againg , I hope against hope that we are more assertive in our claim of PoK everytime TSP barks Kashmir , about time we use our Dams to make TSP a desert (slowly but surely) , keep US away from TSP As much as possible and also keep up diplomatic preassure by saying that terror from TSP remians a constant threat and terror infra. remains intact.

In short , be nice to them from the outside but use a tough posture in bilateral negotiations , these basters only understand force and intimidation.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 Feb 2010 17:06

Pious Pakistanis chastising less pious Pakistanis....

New video shows Taliban flogging men in Pakistan

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 06 Feb 2010 17:27

I had a strong feeling...from the last couple of days.
There will be another major tragedy like Mumbai soo sooner.Look at this way,since India stopped having a dialogue with porkistan Indians are living happily with no terrorists activities for the last couple of years or so. And I will bet on my musharaff, soon the talks begin,there will be hordes of talaq talaqs crossing the border and swimming across the ocean to create an utterly panic state of living for the folks in cities and metros.
India better fares with no talks to pakistan and declaring it as a terrorist nation.May be if US can shovel the shit out of Iran ,why not India do the same with Pakistan?
Just F**king sanction the companies that deal with pakistan........tell them,either you want porki business or ours?

Day by day,I myself personally loosing the ********* on congress.May be one day I might have to aim my ***** on them.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Feb 2010 17:30

The current "talks" between India and Pakistan seem to belong to two different genres.

1) A bilateral India-Pakistan meeting between PC and a Paki minister on the sidelines of the SAARC home ministers meeting in Islumbad. India has a long standing rule hat it will not make any bilateral discussions from a multilateral meeting like SAARC.

The India Pakistan talks are going to be held at foreign secretary level between a kafir woman and a TFTA Paki.

KaranR · Post by **KaranR** » 06 Feb 2010 17:30

deleted

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 06 Feb 2010 17:43

7 injured in Quetta explosion

QUETTA: A bomb blast occured near Imdad Chowk, Quetta Saturday.

At least seven persons are reported to be injured.

The blast was followed by firing. A motorcycle is found totally destroyed. It is suspected that the bomb was planted there. Another car is found totally destroyed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Feb 2010 17:52

You know people if you look at India as a human and the GoI as the brain (or mind) of the human, what would you rate Pakistan's action against India as, and what rating do you think the GoI gives the injury the nation receives from Paquiland. Please expand with reasoning if possible.

Let me give you a rating scale:
I) Dangerous/Grave injury threatening loss of life?
II) Grievous injury that threatens loss of a limb or eye?
III) Severe injury like a deep cut that can lead to severe blood loss or reduced function of a body part?
IV) Trivial injury that can be sustained indefinitely?
V) Bee stings?
VI) Mosquito bite?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Feb 2010 17:54

shravan wrote:7 injured in Quetta explosion

QUETTA: A bomb blast occured near Imdad Chowk, Quetta Saturday.

At least seven persons are reported to be injured.

The blast was followed by firing. A motorcycle is found totally destroyed. It is suspected that the bomb was planted there. Another car is found totally destroyed.

Cheers. What happened to the TV? Or the bulb? No news of that yet?

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 06 Feb 2010 17:56

sorry wrong thread