Indian is worried about PAk-Afghan Intellegence Sharing

[Levina]

Aye! In 1971 Pakistan army sent IA a special invitation to join the party, right? And Allies launched a full scale attack through IB in 1965.

Emmie don't beat around the bush.
I'm not so smart.

All enemies are imaginery until they smack you in the face ...
After a few seconds of recovering from the buzzing sound you you realize the enemy is now "unimaginery"
Last centuries greatest military rivalry between NATO and Warsaw Pact remained imaginery for 55 years right to the last day not a bullet had been fired in anger ...

Gosh!
This is hallucination!!
All I can say is every action has equal and opposite reaction.

 

[jaatram]

She says: Bharat ke pet mein maror kam nahi huey!!

I love the language she used!! She really seems pissed off at India!!

Mirchi jo lagi hai unhe

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Emmie don't beat around the bush.
I'm not so smart.


Gosh!
This is hallucination!!
All I can say is every action has equal and opposite reaction.

The Indian Army invasion of soverign territory in 1971 was "imaginery" or "hallucination" I take it? That was internal issue we had until India decided to use it to attack ....

 

[Emmie]

Emmie don't beat around the bush.
I'm not so smart.

Trust me I am not! I am not too sure about you. Anyway, I just replied to what you wanted me to reply otherwise I had already made my point which seemingly doesn't interest you. Peace!

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

The Indian Army invasion of soverign territory in 1971 was "imaginery" or "hallucination" I take it? That was internal issue we had until India decided to use it to attack ....

It was an internal issue until -

Operation Chengiz Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shamain]

Trust me I am not! I am not too sure about you. Anyway, I just replied to what you wanted me to reply otherwise I had already made my point which seemingly doesn't interest you. Peace!

Kudos to you for arguing with a brick wall.
One doesnt agree with haqqanis views,yet one has to quote him. Stupid much? And then how is it that one could just quote one line,"india is an imaginary enemy", out of whole??

Haqqani is a perosn that the whole world knows is a traitor, and cannot return back to Pakistan without expecting an arrest

But now when we talk abt same sort of people from India,then immediately they become Pakistani spies.

Going around in circle , total failure to counter argument with logic and reason, and then all of a sudden out of blue start screaming that so and so is provoking me, trolling ,needling me are some very common traits one gets to see in this nation.

 

[That Guy]

Hussain Haqqani called India "an imaginary threat" during his lecture, alleging that rhetoric rather than reality is the basis of enmity between the two neighbours.
Husain Haqqani calls for 'decisive shift' on Kashmir - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Husain Haqqani is a traitor that asked the US secretly to invade Pakistan, and destroy it's army. He now works for Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp, which owns right wing propaganda channels such as Fox News and (the now defunct) News of the world. No one takes him seriously, and no one should.

 

[coffee_cup]

Madhuri Gupta was a Pakistani spy.
And I've not supported any of HH's actions I merely quoted a sentence which I thought made a lot of sense.

And the world knows that India has never been offensive, we were defending our boundaries in all the four wars.
Paksitan's obstinate stance on Kashmir issue and LOC proves my point.
Emmie you can't be so naïf.

In which parallel universe do you live? "India has never been offensive"

Training terrorists and sending them to neighboring countries is not offensive... LTTE, Mutki Bahini, BLA, TTP were/are being trained/armed to spread peace in the region. Attacking & occupying Siachen was also a message of peace to the world, just like starting 1962 war with China and 1965 war with Pakistan.


What is it with you indians and living in permanent state of denial? You guys are really "something",

 

[Emmie]

Being vague would not help.
I didn't say we are saints, when pushed to the wall we would react and we have reacted in the past.

Neither I maintained you're devil. It's you who brought in the argument that world knows India never been offensive - btw now you have agreed that India had been offensive .

It was all about HH and you took it thing long.

But why would you turn a blind eye to what your army has been doing?? Can you deny that border skirmishes are nothing but PA's way of facilitating intrusion?? Or that PA in the past had trained men to disrupt peace in India especially Kashmir??

LOC is word's most protected LOC, same is the true for IB. A multi layer security is deployed on Indian side, a strayed pigeon or camel ends up in a jail let alone a so-called terrorist. Whenever I came across the argument that Pak violates ceasefire agreement to facilitate intruders into Indian side the movie Ronin pops up in my mind, wonder if you have watched the scene Robert Di Niro busting the hell out of fake Sean Dean's diagram of proposed ambush? Watch it you'll understand this way one would be sending intruders on a suicide mission, sandwiching assets between two firing end is sheer unprofessional and moronic. Besides what kind of tactic is it which is already known to the enemy? I am sorry to say this argument may sound great to some gullible Indians but in reality it doesn't hold any ground.

Kashmir is the raag of choice to harp. Lady, do I need to remind you backing of Mukti Bahinis? Do I need to remind Indian backing of Pashtun and Baloch nationalists/separatists in the time president Daud? India is still backing terrorists in Pakistan, TTP BLA, anything which is anti Pak. It's India that started proxy warfare, not Pakistan so please rein in your galloping horse.

Pakistan's quest for parity has so far been perilous. Other than achieving nukes and more tac nukes Pakistan has not been able to lift itself economically. Pakistan's vague nuke policy has kept India on the edge, we are also forced to amass nukes. It's a vicious cycle both the countries are stuck in, which would stop only if PA stops using anti-India sentiment in its favor.

It must be interesting for you to know the fact that till late 90s Pakistan's economy was doing much better than Indian economy. Maybe you aren't aware of the fact that Pak is war-ridden for almost a decade now, facing worst sort of militancy. Aforesaid conditions aren't economic friendly, are they? You got to admire despite all the odds Pakistan's economy is still progressing though not as fast as it should but still encouraging enough.

Please get your facts straight, Pakistan had no nuclear ambition until India started working on nukes. Pakistan has always maintained a policy of minimum deterrence.

I hope there would be a day when you and me will discuss topics other than nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction

Considering Indian attitude it seems quite unlikely but as they say hope for the best, count me in the list of those who hope for the good or better if not the best.

 

[Levina]

Neither I maintained you're devil. It's you who brought in the argument that world knows India never been offensive - btw now you have agreed that India had been offensive .

Sorry!
Emmie you've misconstrued my post. I said "we have reacted in the past", I've maintained my stance that India has remained defensive so far.

It was all about HH and you took it thing long.

It was about an imaginary enemy.

LOC is word's most protected LOC, same is the true for IB.

It was not so in the past.

A multi layer security is deployed on Indian side, a strayed pigeon or camel ends up in a jail let alone a so-called terrorist.

Was not a toddler taken to the police station in Pakistan for a similar reason??
In short, let's not make a hill out of a mole.

Whenever I came across the argument that Pak violates ceasefire agreement to facilitate intruders into Indian side the movie Ronin pops up in my mind, wonder if you have watched the scene Robert Di Niro busting the hell out of fake Sean Dean's diagram of proposed ambush? Watch it you'll understand this way one would be sending intruders on a suicide mission, sandwiching assets between two firing end is sheer unprofessional and moronic. Besides what kind of tactic is it which is already known to the enemy? I am sorry to say this argument may sound great to some gullible Indians but in reality it doesn't hold any ground.

Once again this is how things used to function till not so long back.

Kashmir is the raag of choice to harp.

From your side?
Yes!

India is still backing terrorists in Pakistan, TTP BLA, anything which is anti Pak. It's India that started proxy warfare, not Pakistan so please rein in your galloping horse.

1) one there's no proof.
2) India didn't start the proxy war. Infact former Premier Benazir Bhutto had publicly acknowledged that Islamabad took a conscious decision to launch a low-intensity proxy war against India in the late 1980s to draw the world's attention to Kashmir. [s]
Once again we were not the ones to harp on to Kashmir issue.
3) Pakistan used proxies in Afghanistan against the soviet. And this same straTegy was later applied in India.
4) the invaders of '47 conflict were Pakistani tribesmen.

It must be interesting for you to know the fact that till late 90s Pakistan's economy was doing much better than Indian economy. Maybe you aren't aware of the fact that Pak is war-ridden for almost a decade now, facing worst sort of militancy. Aforesaid conditions aren't economic friendly, are they? You got to admire despite all the odds Pakistan's economy is still progressing though not as fast as it should but still encouraging enough.

I already knew this part and I know it's true. In 70's and 80's, democracy was a big white elephant on the Indian economy. We made slow but steady progress.
I know Pakistan's economy has faced a set back due to terrorism and politics but I do want your economy to progress. For my own selfish reasons I want Pakistan's economy to develop because I know a peaceful neighbourhood would help India too, albeit indirectly.

Please get your facts straight, Pakistan had no nuclear ambition until India started working on nukes. Pakistan has always maintained a policy of minimum deterrence.

Why do you forget that it's Pakistan which has an ambiguous nuclear policy and that India which has a no first use policy??

Considering Indian attitude it seems quite unlikely but as they say hope for the best,

India has learnt to ignore Pakistan, and focus on the development issue.

count me in the list of those who hope for the good or better if not the best.

I trust you!

 

[Emmie]

Sorry!
Emmie you've misconstrued my post. I said "we have reacted in the past", I've maintained my stance that India has remained defensive so far.

So you're also one of those who say one thing in a post and backtrack in next one. I have already ascertained my stance that India had never been solely a defender to which you had agreed also by stating India were not saint either.

It was about an imaginary enemy.

Again an imaginary enemy is not hostile in reality, Pakistan and India had fought wars this alone negates the argument of India being an imaginary enemy .

I have no problem if you are a fan of Hussain Haqqani, the fact won't change and the fact is he's a traitor and a fugitive in hiding and his words don't mean anything.

Was not a toddler taken to the police station in Pakistan for a similar reason??
In short, let's not make a hill out of a mole.

I specifically mentioned a multi layer security on Indian side. Besides I don't think a heavy fire took place before poor soul strayed into Pakistan territory.

1) one there's no proof.
2) India didn't start the proxy war. Infact former Premier Benazir Bhutto had publicly acknowledged that Islamabad took a conscious decision to launch a low-intensity proxy war against India in the late 1980s to draw the world's attention to Kashmir. [s]
Once again we were not the ones to harp on to Kashmir issue.
3) Pakistan used proxies in Afghanistan against the soviet. And this same straTegy was later applied in India.
4) the invaders of '47 conflict were Pakistani tribesmen.

Wao! Just wao! Nobody can beat Indians at cheery picking. Again, Kashmir insurgency is the favorite raag of Indians to render. Lady wake up, 71 comes before 80, even my three year old nephew knows it.

High time to say hello to a policy called reciprocal interventionist policy

You don't know jack about Pakistan Afghanistan relations before soviet invasion of Afghanistan, do you? Daud who remained Afghanistan PM for 10 years from 53 to 63 and then president from 73 till his death in 78. This guy left no stone unturned to destabilize the state of Pakistan. He and Miss Gnadhi had a common stooge who would do everything on his masters call. Afghanistan from 1948 till mid 70s harbored terrorism (still Afghan land is being used against Pakistan, here I am specifically referring to Daud era) Baloch terrorist would get training from Afghanistan. The greater Pashtunistan was a top priority. Afghanistan even militarily attacked Pakistan twice but both the time their arses were spanked like anything. Please read RK Yadave, he has a lot to explain about Indian relations with the guy who was leading greater Pashtunistan movement.

Why do you forget that it's Pakistan which has an ambiguous nuclear policy and that India which has a no first use policy??

Who told you Pakistan has an ambiguous nuclear policy? It's official that we don't have any no first use policy so please clear this ambiguity once and for all.


Levina Please don't clutch at the straws.... Please don't bother to reply back if you have nothing serious to say.

 

[I.R.A]

Pakistan's quest for parity has so far been perilous. Other than achieving nukes and more tac nukes Pakistan has not been able to lift itself economically. Pakistan's vague nuke policy has kept India on the edge, we are also forced to amass nukes. It's a vicious cycle both the countries are stuck in, which would stop only if PA stops using anti-India sentiment in its favor.

In 1974 Pakistan failed for the first time to successfully test its nuclear capability. But hard work and dedication towards the ultimate goal to wipe the Baniyas of the face of this world paid off and Pakistan successfully became nuclear power in 1998. It enjoyed some period where it threatened the Hindu Baniyas with extinction and went complete nuts over it. But unfortunately the Hindu Baniyas despite the whole world's pressure successfully tested their nukes in response to Pakistan's tests, the very first Hindu bomb and the world watched in astonishment. Since then Pakistan's dream of "Akhand Pakistan" was turned into a mere wet dream. (An excerpt from Hussain Haqqanis very secret publication still in process of being completed and printed )


So very true India was forced to amass nukes and Pakistan was the one to start this vicious cycle.

 

[shahzadaf]

As is most of Afghanistan.

oh yeah, India really has its fingers on the nerve of Afghanistan. I mean they really know what the people of Afghanistan want. Even the Afghan government does not know what they want, But sure as shit Indians have an opinion about that too. funny shit.

 

[SamantK]

This drama played out by Pakistan about what India feels threatened about reads more like the Novel '1984'.

One day Afghanistan is the enemy and one fine day it becomes its ally.

And the Pakistani folks buy it hook line and sinker

 

[Levina]

So you're also one of those who say one thing in a post and backtrack in next one. I have already ascertained my stance that India had never been solely a defender to which you had agreed also by stating India were not saint either.

Where's the proof which shows India as an aggressor.

Again an imaginary enemy is not hostile in reality, Pakistan and India had fought wars this alone negates the argument of India being an imaginary enemy .

So did you expect India to be a mute spectator when somebody attacks it's territories??

I specifically mentioned a multi layer security on Indian side. Besides I don't think a heavy fire took place before poor soul strayed into Pakistan territory.

Are trying to mock me Emmie???
Do you mean to say that from Gujarat to Kashmir India has a multi layered security arrangement and that it's completely fool proof??? And that there has never been an intrusion???
These borders were not so secure till a long time back.

Wao! Just wao! Nobody can beat Indians at cheery picking. Again, Kashmir insurgency is the favorite raag of Indians to render. Lady wake up, 71 comes before 80, even my three year old nephew knows it.

High time to say hello to a policy called reciprocal interventionist policy

You don't know jack about Pakistan Afghanistan relations before soviet invasion of Afghanistan, do you? Daud who remained Afghanistan PM for 10 years from 53 to 63 and then president from 73 till his death in 78. This guy left no stone unturned to destabilize the state of Pakistan. He and Miss Gnadhi had a common stooge who would do everything on his masters call. Afghanistan from 1948 till mid 70s harbored terrorism (still Afghan land is being used against Pakistan, here I am specifically referring to Daud era) Baloch terrorist would get training from Afghanistan. The greater Pashtunistan was a top priority. Afghanistan even militarily attacked Pakistan twice but both the time their arses were spanked like anything. Please read RK Yadave, he has a lot to explain about Indian relations with the guy who was leading greater Pashtunistan movement.

You know what???
I already knew about it.
Did you think I'm dumb enough to be on a Pakistani forum without reading up its past???

Who told you Pakistan has an ambiguous nuclear policy? It's official that we don't have any no first use policy so please clear this ambiguity once and for all.

Really???
While China and India have a very clear no-first use policy, countries like Pakistan and Russia have maintained that the nukes would be used defensively.
No first use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And just in case you didn't know Pakistan has 4 thresholds which when crossed then Pak would use nuke.
One of the threshold is economic, if Pakistan believes that at some point India is economically strangulating Pak then it would not hesitate in using nukes.
Nuclear doctrine of Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Levina Please don't clutch at the straws.... Please don't bother to reply back if you have nothing serious to say.

I'm on this forum since last 2 years and have debated these topics a hundred times by now. If you thought I was speaking with zilch knowledge in the subject then you're definitely wrong. I was not fooling around on PDF all this while.

In 1974 Pakistan failed for the first time to successfully test its nuclear capability. But hard work and dedication towards the ultimate goal to wipe the Baniyas of the face of this world paid off and Pakistan successfully became nuclear power in 1998. It enjoyed some period where it threatened the Hindu Baniyas with extinction and went complete nuts over it. But unfortunately the Hindu Baniyas despite the whole world's pressure successfully tested their nukes in response to Pakistan's tests, the very first Hindu bomb and the world watched in astonishment. Since then Pakistan's dream of "Akhand Pakistan" was turned into a mere wet dream. (An excerpt from Hussain Haqqanis very secret publication still in process of being completed and printed )


So very true India was forced to amass nukes and Pakistan was the one to start this vicious cycle.

Just in case you didn't know India has one of the largest Muslim population, and that we have rocket scientists like Dr.APJ Abdul Kalam.
India doesn't only have Hindu "baniya", baniya said infact make a small population towards the northern part of India.
Now if you can not think beyond my religion then pls don't quote me again next time.