Indian Origin Material Used in IEDs Found In South Waziristan

[karan.1970]

It's sort of like saying grass is green, or sky is blue. Those things are obvious.

Are they..?? How does a color blind person see grass or sky?? Or for that matter how does an astronaut orbitting earth see the sky??

 

[SMC]

Not really. Its only now since the time NATO is hitting AT and is standing like a wall between the populated parts of Afg and AT that AT are fighting NATO. Prior to 9/11, AT's atrocities on civilians of Afg are pretty well known and publicized.

Agreed, they attack civilians, but that's not their primary means of attacking and creating pressure on their enemy, unlike TTP.

your proxies like LeT and AT(as stated above) did...

Fair enough.

But they are an offshoot of the same group. There were no 2 different taliban before Pakistan started helping out in WOT.

Nope, you should know the history of TTP. They have been there for quite some time, even there before 9/11. They were an unknown group who gained popularity only recently.

 

[SMC]

Are they..?? How does a color blind person see grass or sky?? Or for that matter how does an astronaut orbitting earth see the sky??

Colour blind people have natural problems. Yes one can go into whether if the normal people are the ones who have natural problems and the colour blind are the ones who are real. But that itself is problematic because colour blind people vary in terms of what they percieve a colour to be. Some see color A as color B, some see color A as color C, and so on. With humans who are not color blind, it's consistent. Moreover, the problem is that falling off the earth is a verifiable fact. You can go and test it for yourself. What jagjitnatt is referring to as "the truth" is not as simple to verify.

As far as astronaut goes, they have no access to sunlight. That makes all the difference. At night, the sky looks same from the earth as it does from the space.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Dont want to troll or anything.
But il like to say to the thread
Whats the heck is new?

Exploding propylene, thats what is new. and Talibunnies making general purpose aerial bombs, thats new too.

Last time it was flammable potassium chloride, but thats old now.

 

[karan.1970]

Nope, you should know the history of TTP. They have been there for quite some time, even there before 9/11. They were an unknown group who gained popularity only recently.

would certainly like to know about this more, if you can point me in the right direction...

 

[karan.1970]

Colour blind people have natural problems. Yes one can go into whether if the normal people are the ones who have natural problems and the colour blind are the ones who are real. But that itself is problematic because colour blind people vary in terms of what they percieve a colour to be. Some see color A as color B, some see color A as color C, and so on. With humans who are not color blind, it's consistent. Moreover, the problem is that falling off the earth is a verifiable fact. You can go and test it for yourself. What jagjitnatt is referring to as "the truth" is not as simple to verify.

As far as astronaut goes, they have no access to sunlight. That makes all the difference. At night, the sky looks same from the earth as it does from the space.

exactly my point.. It all depends on your point of reference and baseline on how you percieve things. So something that might be for granted for a lot of people may be seen differently by some..
As I said earlier, this was a philosophical discussion and nothing to do with Indo-Pak stuff or any of the posts in this section. Personally I find this concept of NO TRUTH very interesting .. Some real engaging books on this topic..

 

[rubyjackass]

Actually I pointed out that even a castigation of India for supporting terrorism would likely be stymied much as the US covers up for Israel's crimes - sanctions tau door ki baat hai.

No sir, not if you show the 'irrefutable' evidence you have. The news craving channels will cry about it from the rooftops. Your diplomats can draw blood. But your people won't do it. Why?!

Just to make a comparison here - the fact that India, or for that matter any nation, has not been able to make a case with strong evidence showing Pakistan supports terrorism in the UN therefore means that all this rhetoric in the Indian and US media, and by Indian and US leadership, against Pakistan is exactly what you imply Pakistan's rhetoric is - bullocks.

Yes, India cannot prove that Pakista 'supports' terror. But the fact that Pakistan at the very least, once did, or for that matter Mumbai can turn the world's attention what Pakistan could be doing and what they are doing according to the Indians.

Only one half of what you said is true. India's rhetoric carries the huge weight of all history.
From a tactical point of view whether it is ullcks or not is immaterial as long as people are convinced. You just show your 'evidence' and get India 'red-handed'.

Somehow all these arguments escape Americans and Indians when they are blaming Pakistan and come to the fore when they themselves are accused of supporting terrorism.

Thats the easy way out to make someone fall on back foot. Not everyone will fall for it.

I know that Pakistan likely has no evidence that would stand up in a court of law,

Exactly why they should put it before people. At least sceptic lPakistanis should be able to believe the story right?

but for that matter neither does any other nation have evidence against Pakistan, yet that doesn't stop the idiots in the White House, Pentagon and the GoI from yapping their mouths off does it? So why complain about Pakistan doing it when your own people refuse to stop barking?

Of course there is no evidence against Pakistan's state institutions. Again history judges Pakistan here. If you feel it is unfair, nobody can help.

No conditions have been forgotten - read through my last discussion with Toxic on this issue, the UNSC resolutions clearly indicate that all withdrawals, of regular forces and irregular forces, would be subject to negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN. So this excuse that Indians love to throw about that plebiscite was not carried out was because Pakistan violated conditions is nothing but a canard.

The Indians, however, unilaterally decided in the fifties that they were not going to negotiate anymore and used the lack of progress (partly due to their own intransigence) in negotiations to violate their commitment to the resolutions and Nehru started arguing for the ceasefire line to be the final solution.
I have no clue what you are rambling about there ...

Firstly you are easily forgetting that cease fire line to be final solution is not what India wanted in the first place. So India did(actually it might be only Nehru with his aura of a stateman) come down by giving signals that cease fire could be negotiated as IB. That is the real middle line. THe things that would have happened if this was accepted are only a subject of my dreams. Again, even today, this middle line is not that popular among Indians. THe fact that decades of terrorism and uncertainty led many to settle for this solution should be noted.

If I had to think for a Kashmiri then I would have taken Nehru's action with indifference but I would have accepted it because uncertainty will only cause more problems for the people. Especially because both sides are being a-holes and not going to move on this. How long are people going to wait?
When India had a chance to push Pak from p o k , they did not.
Today decades later, with both countries fielding their nuclear weapons, the possibility of changes in borders is even more unlikely, impossible if I can be forgiven for the precieness.


India may still settle for the same formula if you try(irrespective of what people think I think some government at least some years from now will make them accept it). It is a middle line for both Indians and Pakistanis.

But NO!! you would not agree for that because you think you can extract more. Just because India made the first concession wrt border, you are trying to take advantage of it. More you say more. You fail to recognize that they need not relent because they showed 'weakness' in settling for a less than what they wanted.

Did the summarize the problem and your views?


You can make people believe that things will change and make them rot in hell waiting for it. Generations can be made convinced about it. THey can become animals not knowing where they started and why they strarted. THe fact that there are more people led to belief of the cause will not always make a difference to the sensible approach. It will only effect their lives. You know who I am talking about.




All this, sadly, when there is not much difference in what side of the border they are on.

Thanks,
Ruby.

 

[SMC]

would certainly like to know about this more, if you can point me in the right direction...

It has been discussed a fair number of times here on this forum. I believe it was previously called TNSM (Tehrik-e-nifaz-e-shariat). But they certainly were not formed after 9/11. They tried to take over Swat in 1994 too like recently. It was not as much reported in media because it was in no one's interest to report it.

 

[SMC]

Just came across this on google.

Al Jazeera English - CENTRAL/S. ASIA - Pakistan to allow sharia in Swat

It briefly talks about taking over Swat in 1994.

 

[SMC]

exactly my point.. It all depends on your point of reference and baseline on how you percieve things. So something that might be for granted for a lot of people may be seen differently by some..
As I said earlier, this was a philosophical discussion and nothing to do with Indo-Pak stuff or any of the posts in this section. Personally I find this concept of NO TRUTH very interesting .. Some real engaging books on this topic..

Well perhaps to go back to my original point, even if us as humans are naturally born with some problem and what we see the sky or grass as in terms of its colour is not what it is, it still holds that sky and grass have a certain colour. No one might know what the real colours are, but they exist.

And yes, it's a philosophical discussion (philosophy is actually one of my favourite subjects), but to me there being no such thing as THE TRUTH is not correct. Even if no one knows about, it still exists and it's the story of what actually happened.

 

[Always Neutral]

What is the use of providing evidence to states that do nothing about it?

Did Dubai provide any evidence to anyone on the recent (so called ) assassins? All I saw was a bunch of people walking in and out of hotels and talking to each other. They may have had fake passports then charge them for traveling with those fake passports, not for murder. Did any of you see them kill Mahmoud al-Mabhouh ?
.

Firstly the Israeli's have never tried hard to hide their involvement. The evidence was good enough for Interpol to issue red corner notices.

I think israel did this to send a message otherwise they could have just poisoned him.

Regards

 

[Always Neutral]

ISLAMABAD: Security forces claim to have recovered Indian-made improvised explosive devices (IED) from South Waziristan on Friday.

The IEDs were recovered from a suspected militant base near the Razmak area of South Waziristan, where military forces are currently carrying out an offensive against militants.

Security officials recovered five sacks, each containing 20 kilograms of polypropylene with the text “Reliance Industries Ltd, Jamnagar, Gujrat, India” printed on them, DawnNews reported.

Officials said they plan on raising the issue with Indian diplomats in the upcoming talks between the two nations. —DawnNews

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Indian-made IEDs recovered in South Waziristan

indians =

I must say the level of journalism confounds me no end.

Regards

 

[SMC]

Firstly the Israeli's have never tried hard to hide their involvement. The evidence was good enough for Interpol to issue red corner notices.

I think israel did this to send a message otherwise they could have just poisoned him.

Regards

Well I was hearing some stuff about him, and apparently he never took food from others. Took his own (probably homemade) around. So poisoning won't work. Moreover, they did try to make the death look natural/accidental as that was the first verdict from Dubai police.

 

[Always Neutral]

The UN would be no better, since states such as the US/UK/Russia would exercise their veto to prevent India from even being castigated for its sponsoring of terrorism on Pakistan soil, let alone allow the application of sanctions on India for being a State sponsor of terrorism.

The cover provided to the crimes committed by Israel, in the UN, by its benefactor the US is an obvious template of what would happen to any attempt to have India penalized for supporting terrorism in Pakistan - the US and other Veto wielding nations have a lot in the line in terms of economic, military and nuclear sales to India lined up to jeopardize that cash cow.

As with many other things, the 'outrage' of the West against terrorism is applied selectively so as to not hurt its own strategic and economic interests.

You would start a dangerous trend as its matter of time when several other countries would move similiar appeals against Pakistan in the UN. Better to let sleeping dogs lie.

Put up concrete proof and expose it thru the international media ie if you have any proof other than some ticker tape.

Regards