What's new

China defends Pakistan after Modi's 'mothership' of terror remark

54895919.jpg

A file picture of Xi Jinping and Nawaz Sharif.

BEIJING: A day after Prime Minister Narendra Modi called Pakistan a "mothership of terrorism", China on Monday strongly defended its all-weather ally, saying it is against linking any country or religion with terror and asked the world community to acknowledge Pakistan's "great sacrifices".

In a sharp reaction to a question about Modi's characterisation of Pakistan at theBRICS Summit in Goa, spokesperson of the Chinese foreign ministry Hua Chunying said China is opposed to linking any country to terrorism.

Answering a question on Modi's criticism of Islamabad in aiding and abetting terror groups opposed to India, she said "on counter-terrorism, China's position is consistent".

"It is the same way we oppose linking terrorism with any specific country or religion," she said.

"We oppose terrorism in all forms and we believe that international concerted efforts are needed to ensure stability and security of all countries," she said.

"We oppose linking terrorism with any specific ethnicity or religion. This is our long-standing position. China and Pakistan are all-weather friends.

Noting that India and Pakistan are "all victims of terrorism", she said Islamabad has made "great sacrifice to combat terrorism and this needs to be recognised by the international community".


To another question about Modi's criticism that Pakistan state continues to support anti-India terrorist groups giving them arms, financial support and helping them to cross the border to carry out attacks in India and whether it is China's view that international community should not take a stand on Islamabad's support to terrorists, Hu said: "I understand your concern."


"But, as I said on counter-terrorism China's position is consistent. It is the same way we oppose linking terrorism with specific country or religion," she said.


"As per the problem between India and Pakistan, both the two countries are close neighbours of China. We truly hope that they can resolve these differences in a peaceful way through dialogue and consultation, so that India and Pakistan relations can develop. This serves the interest of the two countries and the region," she said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...hip-of-terror-remark/articleshow/54895901.cms

Isolated much....huh ,,,,,who is getting bitch slapped now.!!!
Hahaha..actually its indian mistake to misjudge pak power so Gar ah k bisti atleast now India needs to look deep down to change there hatred and wegging proxy war against pak if they serious about peace in region and want to be bigger economy if not then they are most welcome to keep doing what they are doing and keep busting in front of world
 
Where did he get the term mothership from? Someone in Modi's administration is a big fan of Space Invaders.
LOL.. Good one

Honestly I hate all this Diplomatic Isolation Dramas by our politicians.. If you want to deal something, deal with it like a man.. What difference it makes to politically Isolate a country which is backed by one of the world's top 3 powers and that itself shows that political isolation is useless.. I would say that it is shameless, to seek somebody's help to deal with our own shit happening in our own backyard..
@Taygibay @Omega007 @Nilgiri @Rajaraja Chola
 
One thing for sure....Pakistan cannot rely on China to take on India for ever. Chinese have their own business interests in India to pursue. So Chinese will balance its statements between its strategic interests vs business interests. The more India grows, more will the Chinese interests intertwined with India's. In the end, it is Pakistan that has to take India on its own.

Did we say to Chine to take on India at all. Why the change of post from not a strong message to not to rely on China. It is not about relying on any country but it is all about foreign policies and achievements under the same by having more friends around. Demanding the friends to choose sides is India's approach that on every occasion, through every meet asks every other country to blame Pakistan, to choose the side or to disconnect Pakistan within the definition of Isolation and Pakistan never adopted such practice in-case of India. We have no issues how much India grows and on other hand Pakistan-China are doing pretty well through different economic achievements. I am sure, India would be believing the same thing in future that China wouldn't take on India for Pakistan through a direct conflict.
 
Some interesting Indian remarks on Indian newspaper...


MODi govt is repeating mistakes. First PM did mistake visiting and trusting Pakistan, so we got twice terrorist strikes to military base. Now involving China will pay another penalty. Ban China products and contracts.

BAN BAN BAN CHINESES GOODS

Currently the Chinese have their vested interest in Pakistan hence cannot speak against them! But days are not far when they will also speak the same language that of India. Its just a matter of attack in their soil!

Keep China away from any major investment & projects in our country. China too supports terrorism. We can never trust China.

these slit eyed chinkis will learn a lesson later from their "Friend" pakistan
 
China feeling the need to defend. Cool and calm China having to give a statement through foreign secretary, somebody's starting to feel the pressure.

someone asks the question, someone has to answer...China feels pressure from India...and grass grows on my ***
 
It depends on Pakistan how long they can make China defend them. Right now in UN only China has been blocking India's move to ban JEM's chief, rest all countries are in India's favour. The more you guys involve yourself in cross border terrorism, the difficult it gets for China to defend you. A win-win situation for India.
 
More Humiliation for Modi and India.

BRICS Summit: Why China and Russia did not name Pakistan on terrorism
P'M Modi has just been delivered an unhappy lesson at the just-concluded BRICS summit in Goa: though nine-tenths of geopolitics is about bluff, the critical one-tenth is about knowing when to fold.


Prime Minister Narendra Modi has just been delivered an unhappy lesson at the just-concluded BRICS summit in Goa: though nine-tenths of geopolitics is about bluff, the critical one-tenth is about knowing when to fold.

The Prime Minister proclaimed, in his closing statement at the summit, that BRICS member-states were “agreed that those who nurture, shelter, support and sponsor such forces of violence and terror are as much a threat to us as the terrorists themselves”. The BRICS 109 paragraph summit declaration, however, doesn’t have a single sentence reflecting this purported consensus—not even the words “nurture”, “shelter” or “sponsor”.

Worse, from India’s optic, the summit declaration calls for action against all United Nations-designated terrorist organisations which include the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad but names only the Islamic State and al-Qaeda’s proxy, Jabhat al-Nusra—both threats to China and Russia but not to India.

China’s President Xi Jinping, said success against terrorism made it imperative to “addresses both symptoms and root causes”—a stock-phrase Islamabad often uses to refer to the conflict over Kashmir. Russian President Vladimir Putin made no mention of terrorism emanating from Pakistan at all.

Add to this, the United States’ studied refusal to be drawn into harsh action against Pakistan and there’s a simple lesson to be drawn: less than a month after it began, the Prime Minister’s campaign to isolate Pakistan is not gaining momentum.

No one seriously disputes New Delhi’s right to punish cross border-terrorism—even Pakistan’s best-friend China offered no reproach when India struck across the Line of Control, and has been quietly counselling Pakistan to get its house-jihadists under control. However, there’s a big difference between quite counsel and public censure; Pakistan is far too useful to all the world’s big powers in a number of ways.

For one, both China and Russia, as well as Iran, see Pakistan as a potential ally in their anti-jihadist game. The Islamic State and al-Qaeda, now being slowly choked in Syria and Iraq, are likely to divert a significant portion of the resources to Afghanistan as the war against them proceeds. That means numbers of Uighur and Russian Muslim jihadists could be located close to their homelands’ borders. Beijing and Moscow will then need Islamabad’s cooperation.

Interestingly, both countries have already expanded their covert outreach to the Afghan Taliban, seeing them—rightly or wrongly—as a counterweight to the Islamic State.

Then, Moscow is increasingly skeptical about the US combatting Islamists. Last year, when Putin travelled to New York, he called for “a genuinely broad international coalition” to fight the Islamic State. His efforts to bring one about on Syria, though, have fallen apart—leaving Moscow persuaded that the United States’ war on terror is insincere and opportunistic.

Finally, New Delhi has no chips to cash in because of its dogged refusal to be embroiled in its allies’ wars. Given New Delhi’s indecision on participation in the war against the Islamic State, it is not in any position to ask Russia for a return favour on Pakistan. Nor can New Delhi credibly ask the US to jettison Pakistan when India remains, at best, a marginal provider of security in Afghanistan.

New Delhi has no real ability to project military power across its borders. Its economic influence is limited, compared to that of China or even Russia.

By contrast, Pakistan profits from being a nuisance. Its covert services have birthed toxic proxies, who can spawn savage small wars across the region. This doesn’t make Pakistan popular but it does give it influence.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s failure to distinguish between performance theatre intended for audiences at home and the real business of power has caused India some embarrassment. This is a good time to learn lessons, time for a clear-eyed, unsentimental look at the problem—and for learning some painful lessons.

http://indianexpress.com/article/op...a-did-not-name-pakistan-on-terrorism-3087651/
@coffee_cup @Irfan Baloch @Taimoor Khan @Spy Master
 
Last edited:
More Humiliation for Modi and India.

BRICS Summit: Why China and Russia did not name Pakistan on terrorism
P'M Modi has just been delivered an unhappy lesson at the just-concluded BRICS summit in Goa: though nine-tenths of geopolitics is about bluff, the critical one-tenth is about knowing when to fold.


Prime Minister Narendra Modi has just been delivered an unhappy lesson at the just-concluded BRICS summit in Goa: though nine-tenths of geopolitics is about bluff, the critical one-tenth is about knowing when to fold.

The Prime Minister proclaimed, in his closing statement at the summit, that BRICS member-states were “agreed that those who nurture, shelter, support and sponsor such forces of violence and terror are as much a threat to us as the terrorists themselves”. The BRICS 109 paragraph summit declaration, however, doesn’t have a single sentence reflecting this purported consensus—not even the words “nurture”, “shelter” or “sponsor”.

Worse, from India’s optic, the summit declaration calls for action against all United Nations-designated terrorist organisations which include the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad but names only the Islamic State and al-Qaeda’s proxy, Jabhat al-Nusra—both threats to China and Russia but not to India.

China’s President Xi Jinping, said success against terrorism made it imperative to “addresses both symptoms and root causes”—a stock-phrase Islamabad often uses to refer to the conflict over Kashmir. Russian President Vladimir Putin made no mention of terrorism emanating from Pakistan at all.

Add to this, the United States’ studied refusal to be drawn into harsh action against Pakistan and there’s a simple lesson to be drawn: less than a month after it began, the Prime Minister’s campaign to isolate Pakistan is not gaining momentum.

No one seriously disputes New Delhi’s right to punish cross border-terrorism—even Pakistan’s best-friend China offered no reproach when India struck across the Line of Control, and has been quietly counselling Pakistan to get its house-jihadists under control. However, there’s a big difference between quite counsel and public censure; Pakistan is far too useful to all the world’s big powers in a number of ways.

For one, both China and Russia, as well as Iran, see Pakistan as a potential ally in their anti-jihadist game. The Islamic State and al-Qaeda, now being slowly choked in Syria and Iraq, are likely to divert a significant portion of the resources to Afghanistan as the war against them proceeds. That means numbers of Uighur and Russian Muslim jihadists could be located close to their homelands’ borders. Beijing and Moscow will then need Islamabad’s cooperation.

Interestingly, both countries have already expanded their covert outreach to the Afghan Taliban, seeing them—rightly or wrongly—as a counterweight to the Islamic State.

Then, Moscow is increasingly skeptical about the US combatting Islamists. Last year, when Putin travelled to New York, he called for “a genuinely broad international coalition” to fight the Islamic State. His efforts to bring one about on Syria, though, have fallen apart—leaving Moscow persuaded that the United States’ war on terror is insincere and opportunistic.

Finally, New Delhi has no chips to cash in because of its dogged refusal to be embroiled in its allies’ wars. Given New Delhi’s indecision on participation in the war against the Islamic State, it is not in any position to ask Russia for a return favour on Pakistan. Nor can New Delhi credibly ask the US to jettison Pakistan when India remains, at best, a marginal provider of security in Afghanistan.

New Delhi has no real ability to project military power across its borders. Its economic influence is limited, compared to that of China or even Russia.

By contrast, Pakistan profits from being a nuisance. Its covert services have birthed toxic proxies, who can spawn savage small wars across the region. This doesn’t make Pakistan popular but it does give it influence.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s failure to distinguish between performance theatre intended for audiences at home and the real business of power has caused India some embarrassment. This is a good time to learn lessons, time for a clear-eyed, unsentimental look at the problem—and for learning some painful lessons.

http://indianexpress.com/article/op...a-did-not-name-pakistan-on-terrorism-3087651/

Dog barks every chance he gets, then puts his tail between his legs and licks his wounds. even a 10 billion deal with Russian couldnt make Russians to say one word of sympathy. ch ch life of a dog. Pakistan has provided proof of Indian involvement in Baluchistan, the worst these morons admitted it on the videos that they are using proxies in Pakistan. The world also knows that there were no interference in Kashmir from Pakistan for last 10 years but now enough and enough. Now he can bark all he wants and no one will pay any attention.
 
It is the true friendship, IRON BROTHERS
.
PAK-CHEEN Dosti Zinda Abad

mooodi can't make everyone fool like 1.2 Billions
 
More Humiliation for Modi and India.

BRICS Summit: Why China and Russia did not name Pakistan on terrorism
P'M Modi has just been delivered an unhappy lesson at the just-concluded BRICS summit in Goa: though nine-tenths of geopolitics is about bluff, the critical one-tenth is about knowing when to fold.


Prime Minister Narendra Modi has just been delivered an unhappy lesson at the just-concluded BRICS summit in Goa: though nine-tenths of geopolitics is about bluff, the critical one-tenth is about knowing when to fold.

The Prime Minister proclaimed, in his closing statement at the summit, that BRICS member-states were “agreed that those who nurture, shelter, support and sponsor such forces of violence and terror are as much a threat to us as the terrorists themselves”. The BRICS 109 paragraph summit declaration, however, doesn’t have a single sentence reflecting this purported consensus—not even the words “nurture”, “shelter” or “sponsor”.

Worse, from India’s optic, the summit declaration calls for action against all United Nations-designated terrorist organisations which include the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad but names only the Islamic State and al-Qaeda’s proxy, Jabhat al-Nusra—both threats to China and Russia but not to India.

China’s President Xi Jinping, said success against terrorism made it imperative to “addresses both symptoms and root causes”—a stock-phrase Islamabad often uses to refer to the conflict over Kashmir. Russian President Vladimir Putin made no mention of terrorism emanating from Pakistan at all.

Add to this, the United States’ studied refusal to be drawn into harsh action against Pakistan and there’s a simple lesson to be drawn: less than a month after it began, the Prime Minister’s campaign to isolate Pakistan is not gaining momentum.

No one seriously disputes New Delhi’s right to punish cross border-terrorism—even Pakistan’s best-friend China offered no reproach when India struck across the Line of Control, and has been quietly counselling Pakistan to get its house-jihadists under control. However, there’s a big difference between quite counsel and public censure; Pakistan is far too useful to all the world’s big powers in a number of ways.

For one, both China and Russia, as well as Iran, see Pakistan as a potential ally in their anti-jihadist game. The Islamic State and al-Qaeda, now being slowly choked in Syria and Iraq, are likely to divert a significant portion of the resources to Afghanistan as the war against them proceeds. That means numbers of Uighur and Russian Muslim jihadists could be located close to their homelands’ borders. Beijing and Moscow will then need Islamabad’s cooperation.

Interestingly, both countries have already expanded their covert outreach to the Afghan Taliban, seeing them—rightly or wrongly—as a counterweight to the Islamic State.

Then, Moscow is increasingly skeptical about the US combatting Islamists. Last year, when Putin travelled to New York, he called for “a genuinely broad international coalition” to fight the Islamic State. His efforts to bring one about on Syria, though, have fallen apart—leaving Moscow persuaded that the United States’ war on terror is insincere and opportunistic.

Finally, New Delhi has no chips to cash in because of its dogged refusal to be embroiled in its allies’ wars. Given New Delhi’s indecision on participation in the war against the Islamic State, it is not in any position to ask Russia for a return favour on Pakistan. Nor can New Delhi credibly ask the US to jettison Pakistan when India remains, at best, a marginal provider of security in Afghanistan.

New Delhi has no real ability to project military power across its borders. Its economic influence is limited, compared to that of China or even Russia.

By contrast, Pakistan profits from being a nuisance. Its covert services have birthed toxic proxies, who can spawn savage small wars across the region. This doesn’t make Pakistan popular but it does give it influence.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s failure to distinguish between performance theatre intended for audiences at home and the real business of power has caused India some embarrassment. This is a good time to learn lessons, time for a clear-eyed, unsentimental look at the problem—and for learning some painful lessons.

http://indianexpress.com/article/op...a-did-not-name-pakistan-on-terrorism-3087651/

Sometimes, people misunderstand the money/purchase contracts as international politics or geopolitics. Business aside, there are many other factors playing in relations among the nations around and are not dependent upon such money. It was the mistake from the day first that having such chunk of money or by going through the purchases and contracts, India can influence others against Pakistan or China at all. Money alone is not an ingredient for fruitful/influential foreign relations it has more to do with policies, geographical importance as well as the role in regional peace and betterment that none can just strike-out Pakistan from the list and regional powers are aware of such regarding Pakistan hence kept themselves a bit away from usual script of India that we are in good relations almost with everyone around. Everything is placed rightly in order and all we need a strong foreign policy and competent manpower in the office during these times for the growth and peace of the region.
 
yar Obsession ki bhi koi haad hoti hai.... har waqt har jagah Pakistan Pakistan..

Shukar hai Modi ki shadi nahy hoi warna agr bacha bhi peda hota to ilzam Pakistan pe lagta k ye bhi Pakistan ne kya hai...
 
This is what happen when you give more importance to something than necessary .
BRICS is an economic group and why should Modi give more importance to a nation that is not more than a nuisance .He should have to refrain such statements.
 
Just like moves in Martial Arts, first Chinese ship docking at Gawader was perfect timing.

Cu3PUmWWYAEXmhc-640x427.jpg



Indians have put their bets on the wrong horse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37658286


Untitled1.jpg



Pax Americana - the American unipolar moment - he notes, "was very short-lived and it is now over".



Late General Hameed Gul said the same thing long time ago about Indian stupidity. The day yanks entered Afghansitan with their chest thumping and what not , to this day, how mighty have fallen. True, Afghanistan is the grave yard of the empires, but its us, Pakistanis, who are the undertakers of this graveyard. Its us who put "them" to rest.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom