Former Indian Ambassador thrashed by Russian female Anchor. Must Watch

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Sir, Let me explain in as much detail as I can.

@Joe Shearer I think ........... pot shouldn't call the kettle black. This is all that is to it.

I believe that this is asymmetric. I believe, from my study of history, including military history, that this general strategy is now permanently embedded in the planning process of the Pakistani military: rather, in the planning process of the Pakistan Army. The first instance, the invasion of Kashmir by armed tribals, as distinct from the people's uprising in Sudanuti or the collusion that took place in Gilgit, might have been inadvertent, caused by the failure of the Pakistan Army to take its role as Jinnah had wished, due to its British leadership refusing to wage war against another British led Army. The second instance, Gibraltar, was certainly pre-planned; the third instance was actually Mizoram in the 60s, recorded both by your own general officer in his memoirs, and by American researchers who published their work complete with photos. The fourth, 1971, also had the identical characteristics; non-state actors, the Razakars, were used as force-multipliers by the regular Army. I have never intervened in the ghastly inquests on how many Bangladeshis were killed, and how many more were raped and killed, and have never interrupted the laughing refutation of these crimes offered by fanboys on this forum, on the grounds of an arithmetic of rape, but you need merely to add the numbers of those supernumeraries to get your arithmetic.

You will have noted that during this entire period, from 1947 to 1971, there was not a single instance of intervention in Pakistan by either India, or Afghanistan; Iran was actually an active ally during 1965. For twenty-four years, Pakistan had an absolute monopoly of this clandestine brutality.

Everyone has interests, if you or them are allowed to achieve those interests by any means ..... then stop crying if we do it too. The difference is we don't involve our common people and lead them into plain blind hatred and intolerance .... a situation where you have to do circus before elections to feed their egos.

I hope that the narration above explains the difference; it is not what you consider it to be, but what has been and always was, state and citizenry colluding from the word 'go' in going across the undeclared border to kill. What is happening today is that we are sinking slowly from our democratic and secular position to a radicalisation of the population, an involvement of the common people, and to leading them into the plain blind hatred and intolerance that had already been achieved by its neighbour 65 years before. Please consider if Jaish-e-Mohammed, or Harkat-ul-Ansar, or Lashkar-e-Toiba or any of their kind, would have been possible without, to use your harsh words, the involvement of the common people and the leading of them into plain blind hatred and intolerance.

You only have to read this forum and its posts and see the number of members who go crazy about baniyas, Hindus and Indians - presented in grotesque fashion as Endians, as Gangoos, and in a dozen ways that reek of hatred.

The tiny discrepancy between what was done so successfully in your country, and what is taking place in mine, is that in Pakistan, there is no circus before elections to feed their egos. Perhaps if you had elections, this, too, might have been a feature.

Churning out lies again and again is easy ........ ain't that difficult ......... but the reality is one day all those lies get busted.

I read your statement with considerable sadness. If only this had occurred to those diabolically clever intriguers in your intelligence services earlier.

Anyways I am not impressed by your ex ambassador and Chairman of National Security Advisory Committee or something. The very evident flaw in his statements is when he says we did preemptive strikes .......... it means you had undeniable credible evidences and proofs ......... and it is no brainer to think that you won't have shared those proofs with others before taking action. However, the post "preemptive" strikes (violation of Pakistan's territorial boundaries) statements including this media talk are not supporting that.

Without going into a long narration of bus tickets, cinema tickets, National Register documents, transcripts of wireless chatter and the rest, all submitted after painstaking collation nearly a hundred times, you can try to answer why an organisation located within Pakistan and well-known within Pakistan would claim credit for a ghastly act, and after this, why your establishment should need more proof.

What I mean is if you had that undeniable proof(s) you wouldn't have chosen to stage a drama for domestic consumption and electoral gains ........ you would have shared all that with the world sympathetic to your claims (which you keep repeating in your defense). Just imagine something which no one including Pakistan's allies could have denied. But what happened is you tried staging a drama and thought it would go unanswered .... why because Afghanis think Pakistan is failed state.

Proof has been given nearly a hundred times (the figure has not been collated due to the futility of such an exercise). The election-oriented jingoism is irredeemably associated with one segment of Indian politics that is now in power. As for the rest, even when one of the terrorists has been brought to trial, there has been such obvious collusion to present a weak case and allow the court to thankfully release the suspects on the grounds of there being insufficient evidence to prosecute that the world has only looked on in wonder.

That is why I said if it was me I would have left that ex ambassador feeling like an idiot.

I watched the interview. The interviewer was trying hard to trap him into saying that the action taken was baseless, and he rambled on in a bureaucratic way making sure that every point was addressed.

 

[Foxtrot Delta]

Former Indian Ambassador thrashed by Russian female Anchor. Must Watch

That indian has a typical indian mindset hence the Ambassador i take..

Anyways it is nice to see russian state television taking a non biased stance. We gotta respect the russians and chinese they didn't take sides in this comflict and only talked without bias.

The problem with india is (what i think personally)
India wants to be proactive against threats like the State of Israel. However india is a backward country with backward childish mindset , in comparison Israel isba modern country with very wise people, also they don't worship dolls or animals, like indians do.

There is a huge difference in mindset and posture between israel and india. Huge huge difference. Contrast is very big.

Believe me if we had israel has a rival country with a shared border i would prefer israel as an enemy over india. Because then we would have some wise enemies and a sense of wisdom and intelligence , common sense and things would be much more fun.

We would be matched with an equal rival ideologically not totally. But yet israel would be a better enemy to have than india.


India lives in a fool's paradise. They can't be like israel even if they want to and even if israeliz come and advise them in the end these are hindu doll ajd animal worshipping people with an intelligence level of a small kid. On top of this india is a very very fractired and backward country faultlines in its population and culture everywhere.


They thought just as isrsel goes into syria and lebanon and bombs their territory unchallenged.

They could establish such circumstances in south asia. Well in our case we are not syria or lebanon.

The day israel starts bombing turkey or egypt or saudi arabia then i can see india bombing pakistan.


You see in my mind and our pakistani generap mind we think of ourselves as superior race than india while we do know no nation is superior to the other but intelligence wisdom and faith can uplift nations from where they stand. Pakistan is a superior warrior nation. India has no chance if they attack. They only have a chance at defeating us when we attack them.

For attacking any nation they should be 4 times more in numbers or 4 times superior in technology.

India is hardly twice in numbers and 0.5 in technology.
Thats my personal opinion. Do enloghten me if i am wrong. Talking to fellow pakistaniz. Indians will day all sorts of bullshit i don't pay attention to them.

 

[I.R.A]

Dear Sir, Let me explain in as much detail as I can.

Its Friday and I am already feeling like a Rohani Buzurg. I am trying to reconcile how it would have looked like in reality.

I believe that this is asymmetric. I believe, from my study of history, including military history, that this general strategy is now permanently embedded in the planning process of the Pakistani military: rather, in the planning process of the Pakistan Army. The first instance, the invasion of Kashmir by armed tribals, as distinct from the people's uprising in Sudanuti or the collusion that took place in Gilgit, might have been inadvertent, caused by the failure of the Pakistan Army to take its role as Jinnah had wished, due to its British leadership refusing to wage war against another British led Army. The second instance, Gibraltar, was certainly pre-planned; the third instance was actually Mizoram in the 60s, recorded both by your own general officer in his memoirs, and by American researchers who published their work complete with photos. The fourth, 1971, also had the identical characteristics; non-state actors, the Razakars, were used as force-multipliers by the regular Army. I have never intervened in the ghastly inquests on how many Bangladeshis were killed, and how many more were raped and killed, and have never interrupted the laughing refutation of these crimes offered by fanboys on this forum, on the grounds of an arithmetic of rape, but you need merely to add the numbers of those supernumeraries to get your arithmetic.

You will have noted that during this entire period, from 1947 to 1971, there was not a single instance of intervention in Pakistan by either India, or Afghanistan; Iran was actually an active ally during 1965. For twenty-four years, Pakistan had an absolute monopoly of this clandestine brutality.

Sir ..... if you don't mind, you are looking at present and future through the lens of past. Much has changed, your ambassador just got asked tough questions by a Russian lady.

I am not going to details of how to refute ..... that who may have started all this, but I hope you won't hesitate accepting the other side's truth. It may not have been a one sided affair and we may not have been the inventors of covert warfare. I have no problems accepting that our civilians did take part in military conflicts and will again take part .... but it has no state sanctioned approval. You will have to do some study to understand why? Apart from beliefs one apparent reason is the huge disparity in trained conventional forces.

May be we won't be having this discussion or we won't be going thru all this ..... if one your's hadn't defended against and kept people from GB engaged in overtaking a fort there. You owe success in Kashmir to that one commander of your's.

I hope that the narration above explains the difference; it is not what you consider it to be, but what has been and always was, state and citizenry colluding from the word 'go' in going across the undeclared border to kill. What is happening today is that we are sinking slowly from our democratic and secular position to a radicalisation of the population, an involvement of the common people, and to leading them into the plain blind hatred and intolerance that had already been achieved by its neighbour 65 years before. Please consider if Jaish-e-Mohammed, or Harkat-ul-Ansar, or Lashkar-e-Toiba or any of their kind, would have been possible without, to use your harsh words, the involvement of the common people and the leading of them into plain blind hatred and intolerance.

You only have to read this forum and its posts and see the number of members who go crazy about baniyas, Hindus and Indians - presented in grotesque fashion as Endians, as Gangoos, and in a dozen ways that reek of hatred.

The tiny discrepancy between what was done so successfully in your country, and what is taking place in mine, is that in Pakistan, there is no circus before elections to feed their egos. Perhaps if you had elections, this, too, might have been a feature.

The one on our side is sympathy for helplessness of residents of IoK or plain hatred for indians / Hindus? You do see there is this live conflict that fuels their emotions.

What is the reason on your side for lynching, for calling rapes of dead women? For comparing people who died in Gujarat to a puppy getting killed by a car?

And sir are you trying to compare Pakistanis on this internet forum with your real breathing live indians and what they are doing to their minorities and their own countrymen/women?

Without going into a long narration of bus tickets, cinema tickets, National Register documents, transcripts of wireless chatter and the rest, all submitted after painstaking collation nearly a hundred times, you can try to answer why an organisation located within Pakistan and well-known within Pakistan would claim credit for a ghastly act, and after this, why your establishment should need more proof.

Proof has been given nearly a hundred times (the figure has not been collated due to the futility of such an exercise). The election-oriented jingoism is irredeemably associated with one segment of Indian politics that is now in power. As for the rest, even when one of the terrorists has been brought to trial, there has been such obvious collusion to present a weak case and allow the court to thankfully release the suspects on the grounds of there being insufficient evidence to prosecute that the world has only looked on in wonder.

Sir I said .......... india would have shared it with international players before conducting those "preemptive" strikes. I didn't mean Pakistan.

If there ever was such evidence and proof(s) the outcome would have been totally different, you wouldn't have to defend your state's position and actions, your state wouldn't have violated our airspace ........ they would have conveniently achieved their objective of isolating Pakistan. The world would have pressurized us into submitting to indian claims.

But

Here the world is challenging your narrative and your claims. Dear sir please do try to understand the gravity of what has happened and why it has happened the way it has happened. There may not be after all any evidence at all.

Claiming the terrorists attacks ......... well ....... everyone has been claiming everything. But who has ever verified those claims to be genuine? And why those claims have to be made thru media?

 

[Baby Leone]

I don't think the Ambassador was expecting a rebuke on Indian talking points. He needed water, lots of it. About time India got owned, they have getting used to having world media accepting their words on face value.

Not anymore!

the only difference this time is that Pakistan media, diplomacy and influence is more stronger then Indian lies.

 

[khail007]

Indian propagandist/liar spanked mercilessly by this brilliant young lady ... the shameless former diplomat not even able to answer the question in context.

 

[SQ8]

Lets not forget we are talking about the same Pakistan's Prime Minsiters office and ISPR (Albiet Rashid Qureshi back in the day) which vehemently denied any involvement of Pakistani state in the Kargil conflict, while it's commisioned officers and soldiers fought under the guise of mujhahideens admitted later by both your PM and your COAS, discounting the established badges and letters from bodies of officers and soldiers of PA handed over back to Pakistan in flag meetings .

Where is the accountability with Pakistan, which claims zero involvement in offensive against the state of India, asks for evidence, and when evidence is produced shows zero accountability in the matter. Pakistani soil was used in kargil offensive against India, Mujhideens from Pakistan, and Soldiers from pakistan crossed over to India, complete complicity of the state was proven in the conflict, would the state of Pakistan act against the perpetrators in the case, was there a case to begin with. Given your state openly uses mujhideens as state tool, there is no role of any courts in the case, the courts were not going to implicate Musharraf and Sharif for terrorism back then, its not going to implicate Bajwa now. So this idea that Pakistan will investigate itself for it's own actions is laughable at most.

Forget the army for the moment, what about the IC814 hijackers and prisoners exchanged in kandahar, how are they thriving in Pakistan; how does a Massod Azhar, found and arrested in Indian kashmir fomenting terror activities, who had to be exchanged for hijacked civilians, find refuge in Pakistan? what about zargar and omar shiekh, why were they not thrown in the Jail as soon as they crossed the border, especially Omar, as he was convicted of kidnapping tourists in Kashmir and the fact he was a British national, how did sheltering omar sheikh turn out?

With this conduct where army regulars masquerade as terrorists, PoF ordinance is used by mujaheddin, terror operatives operate with impunity, you expect India to launch joint investigations? To implicate the state? how does that work?

Kashmir is an open dispute and the cause of 4 conflicts. To that end all means were used, but then one can continue to harp on 71 and arming of the Bahni for the next 100 years as well. After all the predictions of Pakistan being finished have been coming from India for over 40 years- and repeated threats of wiping out even when a pragmatist government and military leadership is in power.

When the bogey of the Army is what continuously prevents moving forward then there should be no complaints as to why they hold so much sway when any outreach from here is continuously ignored.

 

[MilSpec]

Kashmir is an open dispute and the cause of 4 conflicts. To that end all means were used, but then one can continue to harp on 71 and arming of the Bahni for the next 100 years as well. After all the predictions of Pakistan being finished have been coming from India for over 40 years- and repeated threats of wiping out even when a pragmatist government and military leadership is in power.

When the bogey of the Army is what continuously prevents moving forward then there should be no complaints as to why they hold so much sway when any outreach from here is continuously ignored.

That still doesn't explain why IC814 hijackers, terrorists freed from the hijacking, with utmost impunity roam about free in Pakistan? And the complaint is not just from India w.r.t hizb, HuM, leT, Jem, there is also the US taregtte AQ leadership that finds refuge in Pakistan, and Afhgan's bane Taliban leadership which thrived in Pakistan. But yet with remarkable belligerence, there is always a finger to point outwards.

Kargil is not a distant past as you would like for everyone to believe, Bangladesh was recognized by your own country as a sovereign nation, Indian Army was not masquerading as Mukti bahini, and not at a single point in history India denied liberating Bangladesh. We owned up to it, and were ready for any any international action including inviting the wrath of nixon's 7th fleet at the time. IG literally toured the world anouncing india's intent to liberate bangladesh at the time, and there is ample material supporting that. Unlike 99, then Rashid Quereshi, day in day out talking points of Pakistan has nothing to do with kargil, it's all mujaheddin, its indigenous movement that India is fighting; but it turned out to be what exactly? Pakistan state sponsored operation masterminded by Pakistani Army, so when Mujhhideens/freedom fighters/tribal fighters/militants/Pakistan Army/ all of these terms are so fluid and interchangeable as clearly demonstrated by your own state machinery, how does any investigation body implicate the perpetrator?

So despite how much you would like for us to send out dossiers and "Kadi ninda" (strong criticism) and try investigating a case whose puppet masters are untouchable, Indian establishment said "no thanks"; not out of choice, but for the lack of any.

 

[Maxpane]

Burn Indians.. your biggest ally doesn't believe you..

hina rabbani khar

 

[newb3e]

hina rabbani khar

i have become her fan! a well spoken intelligent woman!

Former Indian Ambassador thrashed by Russian female Anchor. Must Watch

kuttay walli kardi khatoon nay supa embassador ki!

 

[Mav3rick]

She asked the question which every sensible man wanna know even knowing the lies of Indian in response.. cheers

There were moments where the host was unable to put her questions correctly, for example when she was equating the inability of Indian forces from preventing the attack, she was most likely trying to convey to the Indian Ambassador (ex) that maybe Pakistan too was unable to prevent planning of that attack on its soil, if it indeed occurred on its soil and so on.

But it is sad that the host did not ask a single question about Indian atrocities in occupied Kashmir and Indian terrorism inside Pakistan or Kulbhushan's activities etc.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@Joe Shearer @MilSpec @Oscar

Aren't we arguing about the wrong thing here? The questions raised by the anchor revolve around the justification and legality of the Indian strikes in Balakot. India's official position is that these were 'preemptive non-military strikes', that India had evidence that terrorist attacks (against India) were being planned in this location.

My question is, has India officially communicated with Pakistan about preempting alleged terrorist attacks in the past and what were the results? Did India share her information about the alleged terrorist attacks being plotted against her in Balakot with Pakistan and what was Pakistan's response?

 

[VCheng]

@Joe Shearer @MilSpec @Oscar

Aren't we arguing about the wrong thing here? The questions raised by the anchor revolve around the justification and legality of the Indian strikes in Balakot. India's official position is that these were 'preemptive non-military strikes', that India had evidence that terrorist attacks (against India) were being planned in this location.

My question is, has India officially communicated with Pakistan about preempting alleged terrorist attacks in the past and what were the results? Did India share her information about the alleged terrorist attacks being plotted against her in Balakot with Pakistan and what was Pakistan's response?

@AgNoStiC MuSliM Understood. And thank you for the explanation.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer @MilSpec @Oscar

Aren't we arguing about the wrong thing here? The questions raised by the anchor revolve around the justification and legality of the Indian strikes in Balakot. India's official position is that these were 'preemptive non-military strikes', that India had evidence that terrorist attacks (against India) were being planned in this location.

My question is, has India officially communicated with Pakistan about preempting alleged terrorist attacks in the past and what were the results? Did India share her information about the alleged terrorist attacks being plotted against her in Balakot with Pakistan and what was Pakistan's response?

1. I do not know if India had officially communicated with Pakistan about pre-empting terrorist strikes in the past; so far, the response by India has been to launch punitive strikes.
   
2. If further terrorist strikes were being plotted in Balakot, that would have been known to a state sponsor of terror; the question of an Indian information being laid would merely ensure Pakistani defence preparedness for a pre-emptive strike, thereby defeating the very purpose;
3. Since nearly 300 distinct SIM cards and individual conversation streams had been detected at Balakot by Indian intelligence, it is reasonable to deduce that a considerable body of potential terrorists were located there. However, again, considering that Pakistan has in the past far from acting on information regarding incidents that have already occurred has denied the facts and infromation provided, would that encourage any aggrieved party from forwarding information of future incidents possible?

If the Pakistani authorities already knew, and that is the essence of the Indian understanding, then informing them would be doubly redundant and self-defeating.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

1. I do not know if India had officially communicated with Pakistan about pre-empting terrorist strikes in the past; so far, the response by India has been to launch punitive strikes.
   
2. If further terrorist strikes were being plotted in Balakot, that would have been known to a state sponsor of terror; the question of an Indian information being laid would merely ensure Pakistani defence preparedness for a pre-emptive strike, thereby defeating the very purpose;
3. Since nearly 300 distinct SIM cards and individual conversation streams had been detected at Balakot by Indian intelligence, it is reasonable to deduce that a considerable body of potential terrorists were located there. However, again, considering that Pakistan has in the past far from acting on information regarding incidents that have already occurred has denied the facts and infromation provided, would that encourage any aggrieved party from forwarding information of future incidents possible?

If the Pakistani authorities already knew, and that is the essence of the Indian understanding, then informing them would be doubly redundant and self-defeating.

But that's the point being made by the anchor - that India did not have legal justification for the Balakot strikes, especially if, as it appears, India has never made an attempt to actually engage Pakistan in preempting strikes that India had information on. Even the US obtained UN authorization for the invasion of Afghanistan, and was severely criticized for its invasion of Iraq without UN authorization.

You can't argue that Pakistan would not have assisted in preempting the strikes when India never engaged Pakistan on the issue. Secondly, there are plenty of residents around that area as well as Madrassa students (some of whom might be militants but you can't guarantee that they were all militants) - merely pointing out the presence of '300 distinct SIM cards' suggests nothing other than that 300 residents of the village and madrassa had cell phones.

 

[M. Sarmad]

That still doesn't explain why IC814 hijackers, terrorists freed from the hijacking, with utmost impunity roam about free in Pakistan?

1) Under international law, a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state.

2) Pakistan and India have not signed any extradition treaty.

3) Masood Azhar is a Pakistani citizen, and while the law of Pakistan, unlike the law of many other countries, allows extradition of Pakistani citizens to foreign states even when no extradition treaty is in place with that country, such an extradition is subject to due observance of the provisions of the Constitution, the Extradition Act, 1972 and other laws of the country.

4) When a foreign state submits a formal requisition to the Federal Government of Pakistan for the surrender of a fugitive offender through its diplomatic representative in Pakistan (or through Pakistan’s diplomatic representative in such foreign state), the Federal Government of Pakistan, if it thinks fit, orders an inquiry into such matter that is to be conducted by a First Class Magistrate who then takes evidence in support of the requisition for surrender. An inquiry (but not a trial) is conducted and report is submitted to the Federal Government which has the final authority to issue a warrant for delivery of the fugitive offender to the requisitioning foreign state or simply refuse, if the government believes that it would be unjust or inexpedient to surrender the fugitive offender as the requisition for surrender has not been made in good faith or in the interest of justice.

5) India has never sent out any official extradition request to Pakistan. All this rona dhona is just political rhetoric.

I watched the interview. The interviewer was trying hard to trap him into saying that the action taken was baseless, and he rambled on in a bureaucratic way making sure that every point was addressed.

I won't blame the ex-ambassador.. He was just trying to defend the indefensible.
India clearly overplayed its hand.... and it backfired dramatically.. End of story