What's new

India supporting "Terrorists" in Afghanistan against Pakistan

.
Important point.

No mention of "terror" or "support to terror".


Important point.

No mention of "terror" or "support to terror".

I never mentioned Hager talking abut "terror"
 
.
After withdrawl the region will convert in to nice hunting of indians:guns:
 
. . .
Well Hagel is implying that India's activities in Afghanistan are not exactly pure.
Another implication is that India's role in re-constructing Afghanistan is making Pro-India Afghanistan which is a trouble for Pakistan.

We all know, Pro-India Afghanistan means bad news for Pakistan as raised by many Pakistani analysts and even govt.
 
.
Ah the Irony.....Now Every Pakistani will take it at face value as since it is for them, it most definitely Right.

But they will never accept when, US says,

1. War crimes in Baluchistan in Congress,

2. Hafeez Saeed is a terrorist while Pakistan asking for proof, yet in this case there are no proofs.

3. Nuclear weapons are unsafe.

And the list goes on. :azn:

As i said in my previous post , We are not Accepting their Point of View , They are accepting our , we have been saying looooong ago , that our dear neighbors are involved in the mess ( that has been majorly dealt with ) of Baluchistan , & is working in Afghanistan against Pakistan .

USA is just agreeing with us .
 
.
Another implication is that India's role in re-constructing Afghanistan is making Pro-India Afghanistan which is a trouble for Pakistan.

We all know, Pro-India Afghanistan means bad news for Pakistan as raised by many Pakistani analysts and even govt.

Then he would have just said that and been direct about it. Plus the fact that he said that after saying ""India for some time has always used Afghanistan as a second front" implies something sinister in India's motives
 
.
As i said in my previous post , We are not Accepting their Point of View , They are accepting our , we have been saying looooong ago , that our dear neighbors are involved in the mess ( that has been majorly dealt with ) of Baluchistan , & is working in Afghanistan against Pakistan .

USA is just agreeing with us .


Yawn....the speech was from 2011....when he wasn't the Secretary of Defense. Come back when he says something like that as Defense Secretary.
 
.
As i said in my previous post , We are not Accepting their Point of View , They are accepting our , we have been saying looooong ago , that our dear neighbors are involved in the mess ( that has been majorly dealt with ) of Baluchistan , & is working in Afghanistan against Pakistan .USA is just agreeing with us .
First point. The title is wrong.

Second. He never said India is supporting terrorism in Pakistan while you keep accusing us without any proof.

@Dance You are reading too much into it. Like I said, no where did he mention India's covert action.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. .
First point. The title is wrong.

Second. He never said India is supporting terrorism in Pakistan while you keep accusing us without any proof.

@Dance You are reading too much into it. Like I said, no where did he mention India's covert action.

You keep accusing Hafiz Saeed Without proof , How come you are Right while i am not ?

Yawn....the speech was from 2011....when he wasn't the Secretary of Defense. Come back when he says something like that as Defense Secretary.

you seem Sleepy , you know that mind dosent work when you are Sleep Deprived , go have a nice Sleep , then we will talk .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
It is no secret that India and Pakistan creates problems for each other in Afghanistan. Hagel seems to have forgotten the bombing of Indian consulate in Kabul



So the snake's pit was bombed which is reponsible for all the terrorist attacks in Pakistan and Indians were squeeling like little girls. Hey, if your Embassy is planning and financing and coordinating terrorist cells in Pakistan and some other terrorist bomb your "spies den" , then quit complaining.

We know who finances TTP and BLA and who is behind their training camps in Afghanistan.
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom