Captured CST Terrorist

[Flintlock]

Home Minister has Resigned!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Great you gave shelter to terrorist

The terrorist risk their lives and and passenger life and hijacked IA plane to release other set of terrorist isn't this proof enough ? Now lets see what happened later.

1) Ignored India's reports on "Omar shaikh" allowed him to rome free paid the price of Daniel Pearl then put him in prison because Daniel Pearl was an American ?

2) Allowed Maulana Masood Azhar to form terrorist group "Jaish-e-Mohammad"
Even US has listed it as an Terroist Organization check (Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs))

We gave asylum to a man India released as part of an agreement. You should realize that this is entirely because of India's policy and decision to negotiate with terrorists. While that policy was in place, it would only work if the people who were released were safe after release. The terrorists would never have surrendered had they known that the country they were released to would put them on death row.

The asylum from Pakistan was the result of India's policy of negotiating with terrorists, its entirely your fault on that one. Now, if they commit another crime, credible evidence establishing their guilt exists, and India does not once again 'negotiate with terrorists' then they can be tried, as was Omar Shaikh.

If you live shelter terrorists do not expect them to be in love with you.

Yes, unfortunately they had to be given shelter to make the Indian policy of negotiating with terrorists and releasing them credible. If India has changed her policy, it shouldn't happen now. If they commit any more crimes and guilt is established, they should be tired and incarcerated like Omar Shaikh.

Omar Shaikh's trial and sentencing to death is in fact a good example of the point I am making (as I have already pointed out) - he was released by India as part of a deal, unfortunately he committed a crime again, and was consequently punished by Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I heard NSA adviser Narayanan offered his resignation as well.

 

[Vinod2070]

Well obviously it was much more than just shelter that was given to those guys.

They could not have got off to a running start that they did if it was just plain shelter. Pakistan was no part of the ransom agreement and could always have arrested them if it so wanted, at least kept them on watch as they knew their antecedents.

There is no doubt about the complicity at the highest levels of the Pakistan government in that hijack. Remember it was pre-9/11 and those in power in Pakistan were quite gung-ho about the success of this policy which had yet to blow back at that time.

 

[Goodperson]

We gave asylum to a man India released as part of an agreement. You should realize that this is entirely because of India's policy and decision to negotiate with terrorists. While that policy was in place, it would only work if the people who were released were safe after release. The terrorists would never have surrendered had they known that the country they were released to would put them on death row.

The asylum from Pakistan was the result of India's policy of negotiating with terrorists, its entirely your fault on that one. Now, if they commit another crime, credible evidence establishing their guilt exists, and India does not once again 'negotiate with terrorists' then they can be tried, as was Omar Shaikh.

These guys were serving prison sentences in India, for terrorist acts Now you blame Indian policy ? Ok then you did see their true colors. Maulana Masood Azhar is still roaming free in Pakistan with restricting due to US pressure.

Yes, unfortunately they had to be given shelter to make the Indian policy of negotiating with terrorists and releasing them credible. If India has changed her policy, it shouldn't happen now. If they commit any more crimes and guilt is established, they should be tired and incarcerated like Omar Shaikh.

Omar Shaikh's trial and sentencing to death is in fact a good example of the point I am making (as I have already pointed out) - he was released by India as part of a deal, unfortunately he committed a crime again, and was consequently punished by Pakistan.

You are making me repeat what I said above, He was serving prison sentence
prior to the deal both were release in Afganisthan soon found way to Pakistan treated like hero. And you still blame Indian policy ?

What message do you send to the world? No wonder majority of Indian people think Pakistan is hand-in-glove with the terrorists.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well obviously it was much more than just shelter that was given to those guys.

They could not have got off to a running start that they did if it was just plain shelter. Pakistan was no part of the ransom agreement and could always have arrested them if it so wanted, at least kept them on watch as they knew their antecedents.

There is no doubt about the complicity at the highest levels of the Pakistan government in that hijack. Remember it was pre-9/11 and those in power in Pakistan were quite gung-ho about the success of this policy which had yet to blow back at that time.

Some country had to accept the released people, and the militants had to be 'safe' in that country after release - that is implicit and necessary in the process of 'negotiating release' for it to work.

Pakistan has its own social, economic and institutional challenges, and it can't even control basic crime very well, let alone monitor the plethora of groups functioning under various guises. It would be absurd to think that the GoP knew that OS would behead a foreign journalist or something else of the sort, and still let him roam free. His actions caused irreparable harm to Pakistan. Perhaps there was too much faith in his 'word' and his activities should have been restricted more than they were, but that is in hindsight. Again, the greatest damage from his actions after release was caused to Pakistan, and had that been apparent, he would likely have been controlled more.

Without evidence there is nothing but 'doubt' over the complicity of the GoP in the hijack, your assertion of guilt is nothing but spurious speculation, and you know that. Please refrain from making such outlandish claims without evidence lest this thread go the direction of others.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

These guys were serving prison sentences in India, for terrorist acts Now you blame Indian policy ? Ok then you did see their true colors. Maulana Masood Azhar is still roaming free in Pakistan with restricting due to US pressure.

You are making me repeat what I said above, He was serving prison sentence
prior to the deal both were release in Afganisthan soon found way to Pakistan treated like hero. And you still blame Indian policy ?

What message do you send to the world? No wonder majority of Indian people think Pakistan is hand-in-glove with the terrorists.

You still don't understand - it was India's policy to negotiate with terrorists and release them. You could not have successfully done that unless there was a 'safe haven' these people could go to. Israel does the same thing when it releases militants in exchange for its own soldiers, civilians or dead - they are given safe haven somewhere. If these people are killed in the territory they are released to, or captured and sent back to Israel, then that policy falls apart, and negotiations will never take place again.

The same principle applied to the release of the militants after the hijacking, which is why I lay the blame on India's doorstep for its policy of negotiating, at that time at least.

If those people commit crimes again, they can be arrested and tried if evidence exists, and that is what was done in the case of OS. If they go to India and commit a crime again, and India arrests and negotiates their release again, they will have to be given safe haven again. Hopefully with tighter controls on their activities, but lets hope that particular Indian policy is dead and buried.

 

[Goodperson]

Some country had to accept the released people, and the militants had to be 'safe' in that country after release - that is implicit and necessary in the process of 'negotiating release' for it work.

Pakistan has its own social, economic and institutional challenges. It would be absurd to think that the GoP knew that OS would behead a foreign journalist or something else of the sort, and still let him roam free. His actions caused irreparable harm to Pakistan. Perhaps there was too much faith in his 'word' and his activities should have been restricted more than they were, but that is in hindsight. Again, the greatest damage from his actions after release was caused to Pakistan, and had that been apparent, he would likely have been controlled more.

Without evidence there is nothing but 'doubt' over the complicity of the GoP in the hijack, your assertion of guilt is nothing but spurious speculation, and you know that. Please refrain from making such outlandish claims without evidence lest this thread go the direction of others.

The some country was Afganisthan ruled by Taliban. Pakistan purposefuly allowed them to enter Pakistan and gave them Heroes welcome. If some country had to accept why did Pakistan force the Hijacked plane to leave Pakistan ? They only wanted to show they did not support the terrorism.
But finally they did. There is no speculation it was clear indication of Pakistans support to the Hijackers and released Prisoners .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The some country was Afganisthan ruled by Taliban. Pakistan purposefuly allowed them to enter Pakistan and gave them Heroes welcome. If some country had to accept why did Pakistan force the Hijacked plane to leave Pakistan ? They only wanted to show they did not support the terrorism.
But finally they did. There is no speculation it was clear indication of Pakistans support to the Hijackers and released Prisoners .

We did not want any part of the 'hijack', and we did not support it. Our concerns over allowing the plane to land stemmed from India using it as a pretext to start a war with Pakistan, as it had done in the past, otherwise there wasn't anything wrong with allowing the plane to land in Pakistan.

Again, it was India's decision to negotiate with the hijackers, and once it decided to do so, the militants had to be given safe haven. As I have pointed out, you cannot negotiate without safe haven.

 

[Imran Khan]

why did Pakistan force the Hijacked plane to leave Pakistan ?

remember sir 1971 highjek indian plane what your gov do with us ?

 

[Goodperson]

We did not want any part of the 'hijack', and we did not support it. Our concerns over allowing the plane to land stemmed from India using it as a pretext to start a war with Pakistan, as it had done in the past, otherwise there wasn't anything wrong with allowing the plane to land in Pakistan.

Again, it was India's decision to negotiate with the hijackers, and once it decided to do so, the militants had to be given safe haven. As I have pointed out, you cannot negotiate without safe haven.

OK Negotiations were India's headache they were released in Afghanistan.

You completely ignored part of "Some Country".

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

OK Negotiations were India's headache they were released in Afghanistan.

You completely ignored part of "Some Country".

They were Pakistani citizens. Typically any release is to their native nation first, unless that country refuses. In this case they were in Afghanistan, so they were released there and came to Pakistan.

 

[Goodperson]

They were Pakistani citizens. Typically any release is to their native nation first, unless that country refuses. In this case they were in Afghanistan, so they were released there and came to Pakistan.

Omar Shaikh is British national.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Omar Shaikh is British national.

Pakistani origin. Not sure what the British thought of giving him safe haven, or perhaps he didn't want to be released to Britain.

 

[Goodperson]

Pakistani origin. Not sure what the British thought of giving him safe haven, or perhaps he didn't want to be released to Britain.

Still a British national, Britain does not support terrorists undergoing prison terms it will rather negotiate at govt level.