Germany to Pakistan: Terror for political goals unacceptable

[Hasbara Buster]

Well wheter it be west or east, terrorism is a perspective anywhere like the case of the Armenians. So it will be wrong for anyone to try and be selective and justificable about it.

I'm pretty sure that you don't know anything about Turkey's history and the Armenian case other than the typical western and Armenian propaganda.

 

[Aslan]

Even accounting for all of Musharraf's flip flops, what he says about Pakistan & what he says about India are different & cannot be compared.

Why cant both his comments be taken seriously, either u believe him all the way or just dont quote him at all. So rather then picking and choosing the statements try to own up to the criticism so that you guys can be taken seriously.

 

[Aslan]

the argument is that pakistan is supporting groups which are waging jihad aginst people.lin case of 1971 one could term it as a support against the pakistani army and establishment their, and hence could result in an ethical war later.
but the support for jihadi terrorists is another case
its a war on common people of the country. not on the establishment and that is what is the point

yes i believe so now
they are now teethless tigers whose teeths where plugged away by our beloved political setup.

No we cant term 71 any thing else but balant terrorism and interference in the internal matter of a sovereign nation. So ur argument dont stand a ground. And when u say Pakistan is supporting groups, then I urge u to provide proof of the involvement of Pakistan in destabilizing india.

 

[Aslan]

Since you will not or can not be specific, I can't answer, can I? Let me suggest if you want to learn more to start by looking at this declassified U.S. document (a series of diplomatic cables) about the 1965 war, as well as related ones before and after it.

After what the us gov had done in iraq it is kinda hard to digest the info coming from them. So sorry cant take that argument.

 

[Paan Singh]

No we cant term 71 any thing else but balant terrorism and interference in the internal matter of a sovereign nation. So ur argument dont stand a ground. And when u say Pakistan is supporting groups, then I urge u to provide proof of the involvement of Pakistan in destabilizing india.

support to punjab terrorism and terror in north east through bangladesh........

leave aside kashmir

 

[Guest01]

The 'drift' is trying to gain an advantage in securing business and military contracts with India, in terms of tangible effects, these statements are meaningless. Pakistani Officers continue to receive training and Pakistan continues to receive varying degrees of military and economic support from all nations making these 'statements'.

So if the heads of states make a statement about non-acceptance of terrorist means being deployed by Pakistan against India, then these are baseless and purely business objectives. My question Sir is: Can you buy a head of a state to make a statement? Does it in any way sound real to yourself?

And then you put forward the Aid that Pakistan is recieving as a sign of these nations support to Pakistan's cause. Ironic because it is just money that you are getting and that is thicker than blood in your case but when these nations actually get that money via business with India then it is mere grandstanding!

Its already been discussed in several threads, and former Indian military commanders and officials have themselves admitted their role in supporting terrorists/rebels in East Pakistan.

Discussion in the ambit of this forum is in no way history Sir. Gen. Manekshaw may have offered a detailed account of what happened in the war and in the preparations of it, but not the precipitation of the war itself. That is what I was requesting you to offer an account as that is what you were quoting.

The dispute is recognized by the international community, given UNSC resolutions on the issue, not just Pakistan. And please read my posts again to understand the context of my comments.

UNSC resolution of 49 has been violated by Pakistan thrice already. Why should now India hold to the sanctity of the same? I think it is now up to Pakistan to give the world a "good" reason for a change.

 

[Guest01]

I'm pretty sure that you don't know anything about Turkey's history and the Armenian case other than the typical western and Armenian propaganda.

Ah so you do understand that everything has a context and is not so simplistic as you put forward earlier. I guess I made my point.

And see, it was so simple so as we do not even have to compare our version of histories about the Armenian genocide. Because the objective was to bring in the context of our histories and hence the terrorism aspects.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So if the heads of states make a statement about non-acceptance of terrorist means being deployed by Pakistan against India, then these are baseless and purely business objectives. My question Sir is: Can you buy a head of a state to make a statement? Does it in any way sound real to yourself?

I have no clue what you are rambling about here ..

But in terms of Heads of States making statements or taking positions that benefit their nations and promote their interests, regardless of whether those statements are grounded in fact or not, absolutely they are capable of doing so - just look at the US relationship with Israel and the Arab States run as dictatorships.

And then you put forward the Aid that Pakistan is recieving as a sign of these nations support to Pakistan's cause. Ironic because it is just money that you are getting and that is thicker than blood in your case but when these nations actually get that money via business with India then it is mere grandstanding!

The aid and cooperation Pakistan receives from these nations is precisely a sign of the fact that these statements are meaningless and opportunistic, rather than reflective of any tangible change in the relationships of these States with Pakistan.

Discussion in the ambit of this forum is in no way history Sir. Gen. Manekshaw may have offered a detailed account of what happened in the war and in the preparations of it, but not the precipitation of the war itself. That is what I was requesting you to offer an account as that is what you were quoting.

You asked me to offer an account, that is precisely what the discussions on East Pakistan in various threads do, with various sources, arguments and counterarguments. Use the search feature and read through them please instead of having us repeat the same thing time and time again.

UNSC resolution of 49 has been violated by Pakistan thrice already. Why should now India hold to the sanctity of the same? I think it is now up to Pakistan to give the world a "good" reason for a change.

Stop hijacking the thread and read my posts again to understand what I was referring to. And there are plenty of threads on Kashmir you can read through as well to understand the Pakistani position and response.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

support to punjab terrorism and terror in north east through bangladesh........

leave aside kashmir

Pakistani support to the Khalistani movement has not been established through credible sources. However, one respected (by Indians) defence commentator (B Raman) has indicated that India was supporting terrorists in Sindh at the time Pakistan was allegedly supporting Khalistanis, and that both chose to pull back through a mutual understanding.

On violence in India's North East, India has blamed a range of actors over the years, from Pakistan, Bangladesh to China, yet the nature of the naxal insurgency indicates that it remains a home grown and locally supported one, with no evidence of outside supplies and support that would likely make it far deadlier and organized than it is currently.

 

[cybertron]

On violence in India's North East, India has blamed a range of actors over the years, from Pakistan, Bangladesh to China, yet the nature of the naxal insurgency indicates that it remains a home grown and locally supported one, with no evidence of outside supplies and support that would likely make it far deadlier and organized than it is currently.

look no one blames pakistan for naxal attacks, and if anyone says so it would be that he/she is being naive
Look evry1 uses naxal problem to their advantage, even the congress, mamta , bjp evry1
Its not "homegrown" literally but grew by itself due to adverse situations
their are some genuine people who fight for a cause
I'm sure that maoists wont except any help from other nations even if offered ( its a different case that they take help from nepal maoists) , though indian govt would like to paint it that way.

 

[was]

hey want easy way to earn cash??all you have to do is bash that country whenever we ask it to you.

 

[HAIDER]

Again all of sudden Indian govt has started anti-Pakistan campaign on international level. India need to stop bragging and resolve the core issue for the stability of region. Otherwise India is not achieving anything by pressing hard the donor countries.
Its very obvious India need a trade passage through Pakistan, but only if Pak armed forces or Chinese allowed this passage. Pressing hard to foreign leader to pass statement against Pakistan, will not resolve any issue, but India would be more and more isolate in its home ground.

 

[newdelhinsa]

For those who keep quoting Musharaf about the Pakistani involvement in destabilizing india should read what he has to say about india.


http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...istan-linked-afghanistan-india-musharraf.html

After quoting few of his quotes, the thread was concluded to its reasonable end. India and elsewhere have picked well what Musharraf has said on the record.

In only Pakistan military and ''mujaheddin track'' (as said by your ex COAS/President) creates political environment.

It is very well know verse in Chanakya Arthashastra that any treaty done by force or means of violence is not long lasting or stable.

Pakistan tried its luck during musharraf times and guess what, what ever relief he was able to offer was temporary; India was already skeptic of it. However no deal was done and the main reason was the Intel pouring out from Pakistan. If Pakistan really wants to solve this issue then she has to do what India is saying for last few decades.

The way Pakistan has conducted itself, i am 100% sure that Pakistan is not interested in resolving the Kashmir issue. Few experts are even saying that a power which is friend of Pakistan will not let Pakistan to be friend of India (food for thought).
.....................................
A moderate of the forum who is saying that killing Indian soldiers is well justified then i would like to say that the world has lost the appetite for such mentality. Indian soldiers do have a (''vali varis'') next to kin behind them i.e. the whole nation. They are not left alone as orphans in wilderness.

Indian army and politics has already taken this mentality as an inevitable threat (perception), is grooming its self to defend and attack against it. People will make sure before making any deal with Pakistan that this threat perception has reduced to desired level i.e ''0''.

 

[SMC]

Let me repeat the obvious.

Indians get a hard-on when anything is said against Pakistan. They throw some important considerations out of the window later due to all the emotions. In this case, the important considerations are whether these words will result in anything practical. And from the looks of things, no. They only say it to please the Indians while they are in India, and then normal services resume not long after they leave India.

So tell me, anything practical is going to come out of this? Did anything such happen with Cameron, Sarkozy? Cameron actually came to try and make up with this. That should give you an idea how meaningless the lip service actually is. You can have your head buried in the sand while thinking how much this actually means, but it doesn't mean much at all.

Sarkozy actually carefully chose his words.. something along the lines of non-state actors.

 

[SMC]

Cry-me- a-river !! despite all this, entire world associates you with terrorists.

Your "entire world" is India and Western countries. Actually that's how it is for most Indians. Other regions of the world don't exist for them.