Hunger in South Asia at levels of Ethiopia and Chad

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Then vietnam threatens singapore. Happy!!!!

Malaysia may have raised the issue on an official level with pakistan instead of making make public announcements. Plus, they know india will object anything related to pak military.

That is such a canard - technically sales to any country in the world (most being 'friendly') that is friendly with another country could be used as a pretext under you logic - as Dark Star said, quit clutching at straws in this case. India went out of its way to block an economic deal for Pakistan, that had almost no strategic significance for India.

India clearly acted in a Pakistan centric way, just move on instead of constructing absurd justifications. Whether it continues to do so in the future is what we need to now see.

 

[DarkStar]

Oh, so a pakistani cannot stomach the fact that an indian can be kind and compassionate. My views are mine. So, get the ***k out of my face.

The ASEAN countries rarely announce their military policies publicly.

no, they email them straid to mr nobody, p2prada.

It seems that my posts have struck a nerve, which is why you have resorted to swearing in your posts. Profanity is ever the refuge of the scoundrel.

I can't bare to talk to vulgar, ignorants like you, so I won't be replying to any of your posts again.

As for

get the ***k out of my face.

I wouldn't piss on your face if it was on fire.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The diplomatic protest source is some source in Jane with no name. Diplomatic protests are made diplomaticaly but written and if that happened it would mean summoning the Ambassador and its hard that no one in the press would not report it.

The whole thing looks unreliable.

Regards

This is what janes had to say:

India, which has burgeoning defence relations with Hanoi, "discreetly" protested the acquisition by Vietnam's police ministry for its counter-terrorism unit, Jane's reports, but to little avail.

 

[Always Neutral]

This is what janes had to say:

Dear AM,

A single source like Jane is not credible. No member of the Jane has come on record. No other confirmations exist stating that any body was summoned so basically its the journalists own use of words.

Regards

 

[p2prada]

It is obvious you have scant knowledge of history. The USA had been estranged from China since 1949, when the chinese nationalist govt was kicked out by the communists from mainland china. Since that day, the US had been a firm supporter of Taiwan. In fact, for many years USA blocked China from having the UNSC permanent seat, with the nationalist govt in Taiwan being recognised as teh official chinese govt. There were almost no relations between teh two, until the Pakistanis under bhutto arranged for a rapproachment between the two, leading to a series of covert meetings by kissinger and chinese officials.

This led to a subsequent warming of relations, and China getting the UNSC seat.

It was only the american short sightedness that COMMUNIST regimes cannot be engaged in a dialogue. China was not a threat to US either militarily or ideologically. So, the so called differences over US and China was the same as whats between Myanmar and US now. It was only the USSR that always pressured China during korean and vietnam wars.
In 1989, China was beginning to show that it was atleast capable of challenging america ideologically, after the tinamen protests.

Oh yes, was that the naivety which led India to support the khamba rebels
in Tibet in teh 50's, and gave the dalai lama (a cia instrument in the uprisings) and his followers/guerillas asylum. After this betrayel, and foreing policy folly by Nehru, do you think the chinese were gonna keep on believing hindi chini bhai bhai?

Tibetians were refugees. The Dalai Lama is in self proclaimed exile. We are not communists or totalitarian that we give up some buddhist monks to die in chinese hands. We did what we thought was right and we were not wrong. The atrocities on the Tibetians have been more than what happened in kashmir.

LOL CIA and Guerrillas. AND WHO? Buddhist Monks!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO
This is the best I have heard.

And when approached about border disputes, Indian pm Nehru rebuffed chinese attempts at any parley.

Chinese fought an unprovoked war and then asked to give territories which they believe was linked to tibet a billion years ago. You think Nehru was an idiot to actually fall to chinese lies again. The chinese need to redraw their borders by giving up claim on tibet. After that Tibet and india can solve the border dispute.
Chinese want sikkim and arunachal pradesh. LOL

The chinese invaded due to the inept foreing policy decision of Nehru, which lost him a strategic and powerful ally, in the process gifting Pakistan a strategic and powerful ally.

Chinese invaded only cause they thought they could win. Zhou Enlai himself told he wanted to teach india a lesson.

Time and again you have shown a skewed understanding of geo-political issues and inept knowledge of history of the subcontinent. I suggest a bit more reading and a lot less posting for you.

Yea yea. Anything else u want to say. Pakistan and probably BD are the only countries on the planet that believe the chinese are just and humane and FRIENDS.


I still cant believe you said that. Buddhist monks=>>>Guerrillas. LMAO


Have you even been to buddhist monastries. These guys are some of the most PASSIVE people on the PLANET

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Dear AM,

A single source like Jane is not credible. No member of the Jane has come on record. No other confirmations exist stating that any body was summoned so basically its the journalists own use of words.

Regards

Good to know.

I also expect you to be similarly yelling from the rooftops that the 'single source' of the NYT alleging that the ISI, and PA military hierarchy, was involved in the Indian Embassy Bombing is not credible.

 

[Always Neutral]

Good to know.

I also expect you to be similarly yelling from the rooftops that the 'single source' of the NYT alleging that the ISI, and PA military hierarchy, was involved in the Indian Embassy Bombing is not credible.

Have you seen me accept facts blindly. You maybe in that business but not me.

Regards

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Have you seen me accept facts blindly. You maybe in that business but not me.

Regards

I haven't seen you protest those reports, carrying far more serious implications, as you have done here.

Perhaps you do not accept facts blindly, but you sure do choose to apply your 'standards' selectively.

Even now, a simple, 'yes I agree, they are not credible', eludes you.

 

[Always Neutral]

I haven't seen you protest those reports, carrying far more serious implications, as you have done here.

Perhaps you do not accept facts blindly, but you sure do choose to apply your 'standards' selectively.

Even now, a simple, 'yes I agree, they are not credible', eludes you.

I have not pointed the out that Pakistan has taken part in the Embassy attack nor have I even posted anything on that from NY Times nor am I protesting the Indian report of Janes source.

I am just debating the Jane source as not credible in my books. Diplomats write letters or summon when protests are lodged otherwise it makes no sense. Note the difference in the article about a US General visiting Kashmir protest vis this article and you will understand.

Regards

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have not pointed the out that Pakistan has taken part in the Embassy attack nor have I even posted anything on that from NY Times nor am I protesting the Indian report of Janes source.

I am just debating the Jane source as not credible in my books. Diplomats write letters or summon when protests are lodged otherwise it makes no sense. Note the difference in the article about a US General visiting Kashmir protest vis this article and you will understand.

Regards

I am not arguing with you over your rationale for not considering this report credible, merely pointing out that you are far more vociferous in applying your standards in favor of one nation.

I only asked one question of you; Given your rationale for not considering this particular Janes article credible, would you also similarly conclude that the NYT article was not credible - since it too was primarily based on the reports of one author and 'anonymous sources'?

 

[Always Neutral]

I am not arguing with you over your rationale for not considering this report credible, merely pointing out that you are far more vociferous in applying your standards in favor of one nation.

I only asked one question of you; Given your rationale for not considering this particular Janes article credible, would you also similarly conclude that the NYT article was not credible - since it too was primarily based on the reports of one author and 'anonymous sources'?

Depends entirely on the gist of what he has written and how has he come to that conclusion and what can be corrobrated thru other sources. Well as for the bomb attack the Afghan President has stronger views then any NYT journalist.

Regards

 

[p2prada]

No. All it means is that India has added other priorities to her plate, in addition to her original ones of 'obsessing with Pakistan'. Whether India shifts form 'obsessing with Pakistan' will be indicated in the future, if and when it stops lobbying against things like weapons sales to Vietnam.

For India, ASEAN is more important than PAK.

It is left to you as to what you want to believe.

Take heart from the fact that Indian newspapers are not reporting ANYTHING about Pakistan's economic condition in india. There are so many things you can judge from that. But, you will only take the most negative points you can think of and apply it.



AN is right too. The writer has only mentioned "Janes." Thats not enough. I posted the report cause that was the only one I could find in a short notice.

 

[p2prada]

no, they email them straid to mr nobody, p2prada.

It seems that my posts have struck a nerve, which is why you have resorted to swearing in your posts. Profanity is ever the refuge of the scoundrel.

I can't bare to talk to vulgar, ignorants like you, so I won't be replying to any of your posts again.

As for

I wouldn't piss on your face if it was on fire.

First of all, your knowledge in politics is nil. Then you dictate on my character. Then u use a "filler" I used to actually make comments that show your own mentality. Nicely done.

The fact that you called Buddhist monks Guerrillas strengthens the fact your mentality does not let you view other religions as moderate either.

Namdroling Monastery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I visited this temple only last month. Yes, I am a Brahman, the hated and evil hindu. And I did visit this monastry. I visited this just after I visited Bom jesus basilica in goa.

Basilica of Bom Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cant believe you actually called the most passive and non violent people on the planet as guerrillas and worse, as CIA's instruments, putting them in the same league as Osama Bin Laden.

The Dalai taken in the same breath as Osama. If a buddhist read this, he would neither have beheaded you nor castrated you. He would have only looked at you with sad eyes and thought what was the world coming to.

Of course, if the chinese say tibetian buddhist monks are terrorists and they are evil, they will always find believers in Pakistan and bangladesh even if their own citizens dont believe it. But I did not know it would include educated overseas pakistani expats like you too.

The buddhists in Myanmar also never lifted a finger during protests. But they were dispersed through violent means. But of course, since myanmar is also a chinese stooge, the violence is justified and legal in the eyes of pakistanis.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Depends entirely on the gist of what he has written and how has he come to that conclusion and what can be corrobrated thru other sources. Well as for the bomb attack the Afghan President has stronger views then any NYT journalist.

Regards

Don't tell me you haven't even read the article, and what corroboration from 'other sources' are you hoping for when the original is based on 'anonymous sources'?

Indeed the opinions of the President of Afghanistan carry more weight than an article in the NYT based on anonymous sources, but by that same token, so do the comments of President Musharraf, President Zardari, Prime Minister Gillani, various Pakistani interior ministers and law enforcement agency directors etc.

Yet if I recall your comments related to Pakistani accusations of Afghan and Indian complicity, you recommended that we 'take it to the UN', a sentiment not once expressed in relation to the accusations repeated ad nauseum by the Indians and Afghans.

So perhaps the Indians and Afghans should 'take it to the UN' as well eh, or does everyone but Pakistan get a pass as is usual with you?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

For India, ASEAN is more important than PAK.

It is left to you as to what you want to believe.

Take heart from the fact that Indian newspapers are not reporting ANYTHING about Pakistan's economic condition in india. There are so many things you can judge from that. But, you will only take the most negative points you can think of and apply it.

AN is right too. The writer has only mentioned "Janes." Thats not enough. I posted the report cause that was the only one I could find in a short notice.

You can say XYZ is more important for India than Pakistan all you want,it has no bearing on the issue. What I have argued continuously is that the only way to know whether India has stopped obsessing about Pakistan will be to observe its policies towards Pakistan in the future, since its policies so far have shown to have continued along the lines of undermining Pakistan wherever it gets a chance.

What India adds onto its plate on top of its Pakistan obsession is of no consequence, it is how its Pakistan policy changes that will determine whether it has moved on.

On that count I find the recent statement on supporting a nuclear deal for Pakistan (a safe one since everyone is aware the US opposes it) to be a small step in that direction. Lets hope the sentiment of reconciliation and 'non obsession' is reflected in other policies as well. Though most of your Indian counterparts on this forum do not think India will stop undermining Pakistan and opposing it on various issues.