Blast outside POF

[sunny_aus]

Countless nations, including the sole superpower of today, have 'overlooked grievances and the basic rights of their citizens'. Pakistan does not even come close to the slavery and segregation practiced by the United States government against its citizens.

Almost all nations make mistakes while evolving, and Pakistan was no different. The difference between Pakistan and the US however was that there was a hostile nation with a leadership that espoused a hatred for Pakistan so deep (read Indira Gandhi's quotes about 'never accepting Pakistan), that it chose to exacerbate that domestic tension and fan the flames of discontent - I will not go into detail on that here, but I argued that very point in the "Pakistan should apologize to Bangladesh" thread, and Sam Manekshaw's statements are the most damning of all when it comes to Indian complicity and intent in East Pakistan.

"Bad policies" did not break Pakistan - the roots lay in Bengali nationalism and the geography of the country, bad policies did widen the divide between East and West, but whether those differences could have been bridged we will never know since India chose to step in and inflame the situation.

Whatever reasons you want to attribute to India's intervention in East Pakistan, the fact is, as you admit, that India intervened without any near term threat to it from Pakistan. I have used the same argument to justify possible Indian intervention in Pakistan in the present, without any major threat to India from Pakistan currently (as was the case in 1971), and pointed out similar sentiments in Indian circles (to those of Indira's non-acceptance of Pakistan) of a 'prosperous Pakistan' being against India's interests.

Sir, a type of jealous and competition is very likely between neighbouring countries. Pakistani and Indians both have to accept this as a human nature. And no wonder why India is competitive with china also and try to achieve a growth rate like china. But, for example, even if Thailand is bigger in size than Malaysia, an Islamic country, Malaysia is better developed than Thailand. Until your neighbours don’t interfere in your internal matters, only you are responsible to make your country better than others.

India’s intervention in East Pakistan was on the invitation of the people of Bangladesh who were facing cruel behaviour from Pakistani military. 1000s of murder and rapes were done from Pakistani military in East Pakistan. More than a million had to be displaced to India also. I don’t have to give reference of the websites, you may just go to Google and find out the pictures of the cruel behaviour of Pakistan with Bangladeshi people. Bangladeshi government still demands apology from Pakistani government for what Pakistan did in Bangladesh.

And here, one healthy advice I may give you. Bangladesh is a free democratic nation, why not Pakistan tries to convince Bangladesh to join with Pakistan again? no one can stop two free nations to come together. try.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sir, a type of jealous and competition is very likely between neighbouring countries. Pakistani and Indians both have to accept this as a human nature. And no wonder why India is competitive with china also and try to achieve a growth rate like china. But, for example, even if Thailand is bigger in size than Malaysia, an Islamic country, Malaysia is better developed than Thailand. Until your neighbours don’t interfere in your internal matters, only you are responsible to make your country better than others.

India’s intervention in East Pakistan was on the invitation of the people of Bangladesh who were facing cruel behaviour from Pakistani military. 1000s of murder and rapes were done from Pakistani military in East Pakistan. More than a million had to be displaced to India also. I don’t have to give reference of the websites, you may just go to Google and find out the pictures of the cruel behaviour of Pakistan with Bangladeshi people. Bangladeshi government still demands apology from Pakistani government for what Pakistan did in Bangladesh.

And here, one healthy advice I may give you. Bangladesh is a free democratic nation, why not Pakistan tries to convince Bangladesh to join with Pakistan again? no one can stop two free nations to come together. try…..

Competition does not involve destabilizing another country and sponsoring violent groups within it, as India did in 1971. The debate on Bangladesh can be continued on a separate thread, such as the one I pointed out to LogicNote, but the fact is that India militarily intervened in another sovereign nation with the intent to destabilize and damage, if not destroy, it.

If it did it once, there is no reason it would not do so again.

Your last two paragraphs are utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[vish]

How come everybody misses out on the most important aspect of terrorism: PR

The attacks were carried out for publicity/propaganda/fear. The message to the common man is... "your government's" most important installations are unsafe... what is "your government" going to do to protect you...

The result: the common man becomes passive toward the terrorists...

 

[Contrarian]

Competition does not involve destabilizing another country and sponsoring violent groups within it, as India did in 1971. The debate on Bangladesh can be continued on a separate thread, such as the one I pointed out to LogicNote, but the fact is that India militarily intervened in another sovereign nation with the intent to destabilize and damage, if not destroy, it.

If it did it once, there is no reason it would not do so again.

Your last two paragraphs are utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You tell me, why shouldn't India have intervened when Pakistan had on 2 prior occasions launched wars on India with the same intent. You think it is only Pakistan who has a right to wage wars on neighbouring nations Agnostic?

Since 1971, it has been Pakistan again, which attempted another war with its Kargil initiative. The problem is not India, the problem is Pakistan itself and its desire to get Kashmir even if it destroys Pakistan in the process. Its point blank refusal to accept India's superiority.

It was Kashmir for which the 48, 65 wars were launched. It was Kashmir which Pakistan wanted but could not have militarily which made it ally with the US and recieve donations and military aid from them in return for their sovereignty. It was Pakistan which when realising no amount of military aid would help them tilt the conventional balance of power to get Kashmir that they decided to use the Jehad card.

In the end, you can see, it was about Kashmir and Pakistan's refusal to accept India as the bigger and more powerful neighbour. It was its desire to equal India that has sent it to this abyss.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You tell me, why shouldn't India have intervened when Pakistan had on 2 prior occasions launched wars on India with the same intent. You think it is only Pakistan who has a right to wage wars on neighbouring nations Agnostic?

Since 1971, it has been Pakistan again, which attempted another war with its Kargil initiative. The problem is not India, the problem is Pakistan itself and its desire to get Kashmir even if it destroys Pakistan in the process. Its point blank refusal to accept India's superiority.

It was Kashmir for which the 48, 65 wars were launched. It was Kashmir which Pakistan wanted but could not have militarily which made it ally with the US and recieve donations and military aid from them in return for their sovereignty. It was Pakistan which when realising no amount of military aid would help them tilt the conventional balance of power to get Kashmir that they decided to use the Jehad card.

In the end, you can see, it was about Kashmir and Pakistan's refusal to accept India as the bigger and more powerful neighbour. It was its desire to equal India that has sent it to this abyss.

Pakistan only 'launched a war in 1965', not in 1947, and in fact had the British Officers refuse to implement marching orders in 1947. Pakistan's wars were also over disputed territory, unlike what India did.

The problem arises because India refuses to implement its legal obligation of a plebiscite with respect to the Instrument of Accession, and its international obligations under the UN in terms of implementing UN resolutions that call for a plebiscite. Our demand for Kashmir is legitimate, your intervention in East Pakistan was a blatant violation of a nations sovereignty - there is a difference.

And as I argued with Logic, whatever justification you want to use, in 1971 there was no immediate threat to India, nor was India's aggression initiated in Kashmir (which as disputed territory might have been understandable). That therefore indicates that India is willing to destabilize Pakistan in its sovereign territory without any provocation from Pakistan - that is my central point.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How come everybody misses out on the most important aspect of terrorism: PR

The attacks were carried out for publicity/propaganda/fear. The message to the common man is... "your government's" most important installations are unsafe... what is "your government" going to do to protect you...

The result: the common man becomes passive toward the terrorists...

I agree with that, and eventually the association of the violence with the US WoT will increase pressure on the GoP to withdraw from it, or scale back cooperation, which is what the terrorists want.

 

[vish]

I agree with that, and eventually the association of the violence with the US WoT will increase pressure on the GoP to withdraw from it, or scale back cooperation, which is what the terrorists want.

The US WoT is only one of the factors; the other is your "moral support."

 

[Contrarian]

The problem arises because India refuses to implement its legal obligation of a plebiscite with respect to the Instrument of Accession, and its international obligations under the UN in terms of implementing UN resolutions that call for a plebiscite. Our demand for Kashmir is legitimate, your intervention in East Pakistan was a blatant violation of a nations sovereignty - there is a difference.

As i understand your war was not limited to Kashmir. Pakistan attacked areas other than Kashmir, airbases other than Kashmir. That constitutes a full fledged war on India. And thus it is a violation of our national sovereignty.

Your demand on Kashmir does not give you the right to launch wars unilaterally and not expect the same in return.

And as I argued with Logic, whatever justification you want to use, in 1971 there was no immediate threat to India, nor was India's aggression initiated in Kashmir (which as disputed territory might have been understandable). That therefore indicates that India is willing to destabilize Pakistan in its sovereign territory without any provocation from Pakistan - that is my central point.

Pakistan's wars also did not limit themselves to Kashmir. And there was no immediate threat to Pakistan also in 1965, infact India had just been handed a defeat from China a couple of years prior to that. Pakistan thought to take advantage of the situation at that time.

Same goes for Kargil.In the middle of a peace initiative, Pakistan chose to launch another war on India. At that time , Pakistan had no threat or provocation from India yet it chose to attack. That is the reason it got flayed from the world over.

So i can say the same-Pakistan is willing to destabilize India in its soverign territory without any provocation from India and it has been shown repeatedly i might add.

 

[Logic note]

Countless nations, including the sole superpower of today, have 'overlooked grievances and the basic rights of their citizens'. Pakistan does not even come close to the slavery and segregation practiced by the United States government against its citizens.

Almost all nations make mistakes while evolving, and Pakistan was no different. The difference between Pakistan and the US however was that there was a hostile nation with a leadership that espoused a hatred for Pakistan so deep (read Indira Gandhi's quotes about 'never accepting Pakistan), that it chose to exacerbate that domestic tension and fan the flames of discontent - I will not go into detail on that here, but I argued that very point in the "Pakistan should apologize to Bangladesh" thread, and Sam Manekshaw's statements are the most damning of all when it comes to Indian complicity and intent in East Pakistan.

"Bad policies" did not break Pakistan - the roots lay in Bengali nationalism and the geography of the country, bad policies did widen the divide between East and West, but whether those differences could have been bridged we will never know since India chose to step in and inflame the situation.

Whatever reasons you want to attribute to India's intervention in East Pakistan, the fact is, as you admit, that India intervened without any near term threat to it from Pakistan. I have used the same argument to justify possible Indian intervention in Pakistan in the present, without any major threat to India from Pakistan currently (as was the case in 1971), and pointed out similar sentiments in Indian circles (to those of Indira's non-acceptance of Pakistan) of a 'prosperous Pakistan' being against India's interests.

Dear AM

Either you dont understand or you dont want to understand ..
Blaming India has become an excuse for lack of courage to introspect .

Blasts in Pakistan are the result of Pakistani effort to create monsters (islamic fundamentalism )to trouble its neighbours .
unfortunatly Pakistan can never come out of this mentality . it is rooted in its own purpose to exists as a nation .. Purpose which is based on segregation of humans based on narrow faith ..
Monsters of selfish narrow faith cant be controlled .. they thrive on barbarity and at the expense of humanity ..
they have come back to haunt its own creator ..

and You dont have a Leader .. May be this ideology will never support a leader . because leadership means unity .. unity which is based on tolerance , forgiveness and Humanity irrespective of faith , caste race and religion ..

and Pakistan is contradiction to this tolerance ..

so as I said Before
Taliban is a logical conclusion of Pakistan

 

[General Fujita]

Dear AM


Blaming India has become an excuse for lack of courage to introspect .

Lol this is rich coming from you. As far as I see it, India's always whinging and pointing the finger at Pakistan like their going through "that time of the month."

 

[Logic note]

Lol this is rich coming from you. As far as I see it, India's always whinging and pointing the finger at Pakistan like their going through "that time of the month."

Dear Fujita
Not only Indians but Afghanistan and the Entire world was saying this ..

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9514/

and unfortunately the same people have come back to haunt you in FATA and SWAT

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/08/taliban_suicide_bomb_5.php

 

[General Fujita]

Pakistan is leading the fight against terrorism so it seems daft that we would incite terrorist activities. Its like shooting yourself in the foot with your own gun. Wheres the "logic" in that?

 

[Flintlock]

Pakistan is leading the fight against terrorism so it seems daft that we would incite terrorist activities. Its like shooting yourself in the foot with your own gun. Wheres the "logic" in that?

Its your own baby which has grown up to turn on you.

 

[Spring Onion]

Its your own baby which has grown up to turn on you.

Karzai and his drug dealers are Indian boot lickers grown in India

 

[Logic note]

Karzai and his drug dealers are Indian boot lickers grown in India

oh Jana

Why dont this world Listen to Jana's indepth reserch ?