What's new

Four soldiers martyred in LoC attack: ISPR

Let me make this clear.

Pakistan does not sponsor terrorism, nor has it ever.

If any one need to discuss its support for militants/Freedom fighters/Insurgents etc,. go ahead.

The discussion on Pakistani support for militants can be conducted without resorting to inflammatory statements like "sponsoring terrorism". The argument can be conducted with civility and any point can be made without resorting to such statements.

We are having way to many threads getting derailed over inflammatory comments like these that can be easily avoided.

The fact is that India takes exception to Pakistani support for militants in Kashmir - that is what it believes is constraining relations, and such a statement conveys the sentiment perfectly fine.

If the report is true, then it may be a good step towards building confidence and then towards finding some resolution to the Kashmir dispute acceptable to all sides.

Would you prefer if I used the term "mujahideen", "Insurgents", or "militants" instead of "terrorists"?'

If you take exception to the fact that "Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism", then I think you'd have to censor most of the world press as well as most of the world's political experts.
 
If you take exception to the fact that "Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism", then I think you'd have to censor most of the world press as well as most of the world's political experts.
Pakistan used to be this. There is no evidence suggesting that they still engage in this actively. The problem of infiltration and terrorism still persists because these movements are self perpetuating and ideological in nature and have the ability to take hold anywhere and everywhere. The GoP could have very well decided that there should be no state sponsored/assisted cross border terrorism, but they cannot control everyone and the transgressions will still continue; but this time around the blame cannot be laid upon the GoP.
 
If you take exception to the fact that "Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism", then I think you'd have to censor most of the world press as well as most of the world's political experts.

What world press are you talking about? Indian media? Laughing stock that is?

Pakistan fully supports freedom fighters of Kashmir. No terrorist, militants, or insurgents.
 
What world press are you talking about? Indian media? Laughing stock that is?

Pakistan fully supports freedom fighters of Kashmir. No terrorist, militants, or insurgents.

Well, the only people who agree with that are the Pakistani establishment.

Well, lets see who agrees with me:

China
India
The UK
Afghanistan
FBI
Council of Foreign Relations
Centre for Research on Globalization
The BBC
New York Times
Human Rights Watch
Georgetown University
 
Sure!


I dont no how to tell you but times of india isnt chinese newspaper

The UK:
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan


WOw what a surpprise a terrorist state full of opium calling pakistan names.

Indian media writing against pakistan wow what a surpprise.
YEah weapons of mass dectruction are in iraq.american intelligence report


Indian source
Centre for Research on Globalization:
CRG -- Who Is Osama Bin Laden?

If they dont no who osama is (saudi trained by americans)they should stop reascerching and start selling popcorns at the cinemas no brains required




Also known as indian broadcasting company
same **** different link
98% indians working in bbc
New York Times:
YEah jewsih newpaper going bankrupt as people dont wanna pay for jewish propogenda.

jewish Media writing against muslim nuclear power hmmmmmmmmmm i wonder if that can be considered say propogenda.


http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=india

stop comparing sizes on the back of jewish and indian media can one even imagine any thing good from either of them for pakistan doubtfull.:woot::rofl:

PAKISTAN MISSION TO THE

RAw in afghanistan training and helping afghans and baloch one can also say most terrorist acts carried out in pakistan are with the help of RAw.




Asia Times: COMMENTARY: Qualifying as a terrorist state
COMMENTARY: Qualifying as a terrorist state
By Ninan Koshy*

In asking the United States to declare Pakistan a terrorist state, India(so you stealth are carrying on indian policy eh) has implicitly accepted the following terms: The United States is the competent authority to make such a declaration. In the absence of any international law or inter-governmental procedure to designate a state as a sponsor of terrorism, US law regarding such a designation has international jurisdiction. Recognizing that it is not just technical or legal evidence that leads to such classification, the political assumptions behind it also are justifiable and correct. The seven states designated by the State Department - Cuba, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Libya and North Korea - are all terrorist states and should be treated as such and the US sanctions against them should be continued.

''The government would work systematically to ensure that major nations of the world declared Pakistan a terrorist state. India expected the USA to take the initiative in this direction, '' stated Prime Minister Vajpayee in the first press conference after the resolution of the hijack. The prime minister added that all the information now available within the government about the hijack and subsequent developments made it clear that it was an integral part of a Pakistani-backed campaign of terrorism. For some time now India has been trying to convince the United States that the continuing terrorist threat to both the USA and India emanates from the same or closely related sources. The prime minister's statement is part of a political effort to focus the attention of the US administration on the source of international terrorism inside Pakistan itself. India cannot be unaware that the US does not need any additional evidence against Pakistan and that it is political considerations that prevent the USA from declaring Pakistan a terrorist state. Reiteration of the demand will not change the political assumptions that lie behind the USA's relationship with Pakistan.

If one does not accept the US designation of states sponsoring terrorism, then one can play a fascinating game of name calling.

''India should be declared a terrorist state,'' said the Hon Edolphus Towns in the US Congress on October 6, 1998. Quoting the News India Times, Towns told the Congress that Kuldip Nayar, a veteran journalist, a former Indian ambassador to the UK who is now a member of the upper house of India's parliament, had admitted that India is a terrorist state. Towns asked ''How long will it take for America to admit it?'' Nayar was reported to have said that Pakistan's attack on the village of Doda was an act of retaliation for the Indian massacre in the Pakistani state of Sindh. A demand to declare Pakistan a terrorist state was made to the US Congress several times by some Indian organizations supported occasionally by Congressman Frank Pallone and others.

You will find that some of the closest allies of the US and the US itself may qualify to be states sponsoring terrorism more than those in the list made by the US.

On August 20, 1997, four Israeli warplanes raided Lebanon and fired rockets in the area of Jenata in the Bekka valley near Baalbek. Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri sharply criticized the Israeli attacks saying that ''this is a terrorist act from Israel. Israel is proving that it is a terrorist state killing civilians, attacking civilians.'' Hariri was not the first or the last to call Israel a terrorist state. Israel has sponsored terrorism and perpetrated terrorist attacks abroad. It definitely qualifies more than some of its neighboring Arab states for designation as a terrorist state. But for obvious reasons the USA's special criteria exclude Israel from the list.

In fact the question that has been posed by many is, whether the United States itself does not qualify as a terrorist state. President Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan has been widely condemned as a terrorist act. By launching missiles to combat terrorists and killing innocent civilians, the United States reduced itself to the level of terrorists. A most reckless aspect of the missile attack was the targeting of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, alleging that it was a chemical weapons plant. The pharmaceutical factory produced half the medicines for the entire country, press reports indicated.

Ambassador Michael A Sheehan, Coordinator for Counterterrorism in the US government, in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommttee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, on November 2, 1999, stated that ''The center of anti-American terrorism has moved from the Middle East to South Asia.'' He added, ''As direct involvement in terrorism by most Middle Eastern state sponsors and groups has declined, our attention has increasingly focussed on Usama bin Laden and the alliance of groups operating out of Afghanistan with the acquiescence of the country's de facto rulers, the Taleban.'' After pointing out that Afghanistan has become a new safe haven for terrorist groups, including Kashmiri separatists, this is what the ambassador said about Pakistan in his testimony, ''Within the territory of Pakistan there are numerous Kashmiri groups and sectarian groups involved in terrorism which use Pakistan as a base. Pakistan has frequently acknowledged what it calls 'moral and diplomatic support' for militants in Kashmir who employ violence and terrorism against Indian interests.''

What is most interesting about this testimony is its admission that, with the exception of Iran, none of the other countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism by the US any longer directly sponsors terrorist acts. Yet they are all retained in the list while Pakistan, about which new evidence of increased support to terrorism abroad formed an important part of the testimony, was not considered for such a designation.

The demand made by the government of India to the United States to declare Pakistan a terrorist state, or rather to go by the terminology of US law, a state sponsoring terrorism, raises fundamental questions about our foreign and security policies as well as our diplomacy. The government has to do a lot of explaining in this matter. For example, will the government tell the people whether it accepts the US designation of Cuba as a terrorist state and whether it is asking the US to equate Cuba and Pakistan.

*Ninan Koshy formerly served as the Director of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, World Council of Churches. A version of this article was published by the Indian Express on January 27, 2000.

And one cannot forget indian terrosit acts on 1971 getting involve in internal parts of a country and supporting it or you will deny that terrorist act.
 
^^Wow man, I had no idea that everythin from the HRW, CRG, BBC, the Chinese government, to universities are in the hands of Indians.

BTW, Council for Foreign relations is not Indian.

What about the daily times? Has India managed to buy up the Pakistani media as well?

Oh and your the two links provided by you prove nothing to do with State Sponsored terrorism.
 
There are very few who would consider them terrorists. Of course those who would consider them terrorists are either influenced by India (business deals, etc) or they are simply just on the payroll.

Let me remind everyone. The great nation of the United States was born just through these freedom fighters or in other words people on Indian payroll or from India would call them terrorists. ;)
 
There are very few who would consider them terrorists. Of course those who would consider them terrorists are either influenced by India (business deals, etc) or they are simply just on the payroll.

Let me remind everyone. The great nation of the United States was born just through these freedom fighters or in other words people on Indian payroll or from India would call them terrorists. ;)

I see :)

Nice to know that global Indian influence is so pervasive!
 
It is ridiculous to heap blame on others, like the Jewish media etc.

This appears like a drowning man clutch straws!

The issue was what the world opines about terrorist sponsoring/ support and the links have been given including of Daily Times of Lahore. If Daily Times is also Jewish, then something is seriously wrong.

The history of the US is also immaterial. It is what the US is NOW and what they are doing. The US policies and opinion does matter, even if some may find it to their discomfort! And the US, sadly for those who find discomfort, rules the waves!

Whatever maybe the history of Kashmir terrorism, what is laudable is that inspite of the hostile attitude amongst some sections of the societies of India and Pakistan, there are efforts to bridge the gap and usher in a new era.

That is what is most remarkable and is a landmark!
 
DailyTimes was simply quoting the official. Nothing to do with the change in stance.
 
I agree that Daily Times may quote from various sources, but to give cognisance of such news is indirectly giving such news credence, if there is no commentry attached to rebut it or modify it.

In other words, if indeed it is quoting "Jewish" media, as is the contention that they control everything, then it means they are giving recognition to the 'Jewish' point of view.

It is my submission that calling the world media 'Jewish' when they report news that are not favourable to a party, is very odd and outlandish an excuse and psychological sop to wish away the discomfort and worry!
 
Its amusing how "facts" are sought to be tarnished on the basis of the publishing newspaper.

Most of these news reports/international opinions are sourced from international news agencies and are the same in newspapers across countries. In fact sometimes it is amusing to read that 50% of content in dawn and TOI is the same as it comes from the same sources.

The opinions of different newspapers represent their particular viewpoints though.

So to tarnish a new report by saying that it is published in an Indian or Zionist or some other supposed anti-Pakistan/Islam paper is disingenuous unless you can prove
it is false and just a way to escape answering.
 
AGAIN I am amused. When 11 FC men died in the border areas members here we so angry that some of them wanted to Bomb US targets. That thread ran into pages in a matter of minutes however here I dont see any sympathy from the members here for the 4 army soldiers killed ?

Not even one condolence message ?

I guess its not right if the US accidentally kills FC men but its okay if the militants from Indian point of view or freedom fighters from Pakistan point of view do the same with soldiers of the Pakistan Army.

May the brave souls of the soldiers killed rest in peace.

Regards
 
Back
Top Bottom