China-Pakistan getting together while Afghanistan becomes hub for ISI: Where does India stand?

[Arsalan]

How can you infer that bold part?

you are talking as if Afghanistan ,a sovereign country which existed for thousands years as a province of Pakistan, and any country which is dealing with Afgans need permission from Pakistan except China since China is a new found master.

Chest thumping often comes from your part of the region and foul mouthing too.... sane words for you sound like the bold part....since you are in a delusion !

Where have i talked about "Afghanistan ,a sovereign country which existed for thousands years as a province of Pakistan, and any country which is dealing with Afghans need permission from Pakistan except China since China is a new found master". Will be pleased if you can refer me to that post of mine.

 

[Srinivas]

Where have i talked about "Afghanistan ,a sovereign country which existed for thousands years as a province of Pakistan, and any country which is dealing with Afghans need permission from Pakistan except China since China is a new found master". Will be pleased if you can refer me to that post of mine.

Talking about Pakistani attitudes !

 

[Arsalan]

Talking about Pakistani attitudes !

You always point some one in particular when you are talking about some thing in general or was i the blessed one? I mean you specifically mentioned " YOU ARE talking about Afghanistan........" and quoted me only to say now that you are talking about Pakistani attitude, in general!

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Well I don't necessarily disagree with you -- my point was that you were using two scales one for Pakistan and one for Indians.

My point remains -- let's use one scale:

1. How about annexation of a Muslim majority territory Kashmir [considering Hindu Majority Hyderabad was annexed by India]
2. Siachen Glacier [if Kargil was back stabbing]
3. India's support of Mukti Bhani [Taliban's support]
4. India's support of Baloch Terrorists [Brahamdagh Bugti travelled on an Indian Passport from Afghanistan to Geneva]
5. Modi elected in secular India [Taliban cannot win an election in a 100 years]



Modi was not convicted in court is a poor defense -- no Pakistani officer was convicted on Genocide in a court -- does not mean that sections of the Pakistani army were not involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity.

And the worst part is that you have used that as a defense -- wonder how it is to be a muslim in India - Modi was never convicted by court -- disgusting




What is surprising to me is that to date I have never heard an India friend say to me that he or she is ashamed that a person like Modi - who is by any reasonable standard a murderer and criminal againt humanity - can rise to the highest office in India - not only that I have not seen secular politicians in India like Sashi Tharoor, Salman Haider, etc. express disappointment and disgust that the great secular nation of India has elected the chapman inch ki chatti wala as its prime minister.

So though I view the partition of India through a skeptical lens - I sadly have to say thank you Mr. Jinnah - I'd gladly face the bombs of the ignorant Taliban - than the murderous arsonists riots of an educated Religious Fundamentalist Modi.

Strategic. If you call the annexation of Hyderabad. Yes, it did violate international conventions. But again its a issue that is not related to Pakistan in general.
Siachen- The area was not demarcated. There was a full thread on it recently. India had intelligence Pakistan was looking to occupy. So we had to pre-empt it, which we did. If we had not, we would be looking at Kargil, 1984 version.
Anyone can obtain a fake passport. Pak govt have not provided any "official" dossier to India, nor to UN regarding the case, except politicians shouting in media. Why didnt Pak provide evidence?

Pakistan was not convicted cos, according to Shimla Agreement we had to safely allow 90000 soldiers to Pakistan. We won the war, but the Pakistan had the diplomatic victory. We allowed them people, and the west pakistani territory untouched. The agreement involved no prosecution of soldiers. India didnt expect Pak to handover soldiers involved in Massacre actually.

Thing is we are ashamed of corruption of past 5 years. More people die due to corruption than in riot cases. If I am right, Pakistan have more minorities killed in the past 5 years than the numbers in 2002. Is that not genocide? I never saw majority getting killed. Nor the killers of some 300 odd hindus in 2002 never got justice. Or else is ur justice subjective?

Modi is elected by people. Democracy. He does sell his achievements well. Gujarat's muslims vote for BJP.

 

[pakistani342]

Strategic. If you call the annexation of Hyderabad. Yes, it did violate international conventions. But again its a issue that is not related to Pakistan in general.

Seriously??? -- are we splitting hair semantically or trying to seriously do some accounting of what has happened?

There is a principal in Law called equity -- if India can annex Hyderabad then Pakistan has the right to Kashmir -- (the principal is called unclean hands I believe)

Siachen- The area was not demarcated. There was a full thread on it recently. India had intelligence Pakistan was looking to occupy. So we had to pre-empt it, which we did. If we had not, we would be looking at Kargil, 1984 version.

So India has the right to militarily occupy a piece of land and Pakistan does not? -- In Pakistan's opinion the area was demarcated and under Pakistani control.

So India has unilateral dominion of the truth?

Anyone can obtain a fake passport. Pak govt have not provided any "official" dossier to India, nor to UN regarding the case, except politicians shouting in media. Why didnt Pak provide evidence?

There is no dispute amongst analysts that Brahamdagh bugti travelled to Geneva on an Indian Passport -- you can cite technicalities but even Indian Analysts do not widely deny this.

Pakistan was not convicted cos, according to Shimla Agreement we had to safely allow 90000 soldiers to Pakistan. We won the war, but the Pakistan had the diplomatic victory. We allowed them people, and the west pakistani territory untouched. The agreement involved no prosecution of soldiers. India didnt expect Pak to handover soldiers involved in Massacre actually.

This is not the point you made -- Modi was not convicted by an Indian court -- No Pakistani officers were convicted by a Pakistani --OR-- International court. Just because Pakistan didn't convict them in a trial does not mean they did not commit atrocities.

Further Mullah Omar, and his cabal have not been committed by an International court or an Afghan court? have they -- so by your standard they are as "Ganaga may naha'ay how" and Modi

Thing is we are ashamed of corruption of past 5 years. More people die due to corruption than in riot cases. If I am right, Pakistan have more minorities killed in the past 5 years than the numbers in 2002. Is that not genocide? I never saw majority getting killed. Nor the killers of some 300 odd hindus in 2002 never got justice. Or else is ur justice subjective?

Modi is elected by people. Democracy. He does sell his achievements well. Gujarat's muslims vote for BJP.

When in Pakistan have 1000 (give or take) members of minority violently been killed with government collusion (burnt, raped, children ripped out of their wombs) -- who knows it may happen but at least never have so many people perished in one single instance -- and we're not talking about a liberal democracy here -- this is what has happened in Pakistan.

Yes Hitler was elected by a democratic election and yes though it is not talked about initially German Jews supported him - the fact the Modi was elected by a democratic election is what makes it far worse not better.

Further what is the actual irony is that there was no one available for Indians to elect other than a mass murder Modi -- that is the irony of it -- that is the shameful part of it.