aakash_2410
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,249
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Telegraph is a British source...keep in mind.
You've got canadian flag youself and you doubt BRITISH source? lool Talk about the irony.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Telegraph is a British source...keep in mind.
Russia, till now has no PROOF to the allegations which the U.K source presented earlier.
Mate, there are 3 sources provided, one being british and other two are of the countries you represent yourself? Canada and Pakistan
Mate, there are 3 sources provided, one being british and other two are of the countries you represent yourself? Canada and Pakistan
^ Are you talking about state terrorism or individuals carrying out terrorism?
If you're talking about state terrorism then let me make it clear. India + Afghanistan + a few western countries (US didn't say anything such btw) does not equal everyone. Then there are a lot more arguments I can go into, and will go into, if you indeed specify you're talking about state terrorism.
Media sources are no proof agreed about Pakistani's viewpoint on that one. But there are some things to ponder.
1) Countries do not just name other countries with having decent indication of their involvment. It might still be false, but there is something they know which can be true.
2) There are way too many countries who have blamed Pakistan. There cannot be smoke without fire.
(US, UK, Iran, Afghanistan and India)
3) There are some proved cases as well. E.g. Times Square Bombing, 26/11 are clearly proved to be done by people of Pakistan. I believe there are other examples too, which everyone is aware.
All the above means, had I been a Pakistani, I would surely not choose to just discard any such news that is published. I will surely like to see why we are figuring in so many cases. even if 25% of them are true and rest false alarms. The number is still very high.
The one impression I get from Pakistani's here, is they ask too much about proof. One thing you must know, internation crimes are not same as national.
1) There is no court which works across nations. ( There might be but not practially implemented).
2) It is way more difficult to prove it.
3) Proves will not be served over media, some details are exchanged between countries which are not public domain.
Even lot of murderes get away without getting punishment that does not mean there is no proof. It means implementation is difficult.
So bottom line just because someone cannot prove conslusively over a forum does not absolve you.
Any country cannot be continuesly blammed by pretty much everyone and that too without a reason.
Sorry nowhere I mentioned State in my quote.
I meant that there are too many incidence pointing your way and just shoving off saying you don't have a proof is not the right attitude.
Lot of people talk about Samjhota blast. What they don't talk about is, it was one case just one case discovered and how we acted on it.
It started with a Major and you know how difficult it is to jail and sitting army officer, but it happed fast and swift.
What is the result.
People thinking to join those people will think twice.
On other hand if state could have ignored it in the name of religion. It would encourage a lot of people.
How state acts on serious crimes matters.
I know a lot of trolls will twist this, but serious poster will find it worth.
had I been a Pakistani, I would surely not choose to just discard any such news that is published.
Well again, just because there may have been incidents in the past of this nature, not sure how it means that this news must definitely be reliable. I mean I can't even find this on most of the big media websites, just a few small-name media websites and perhaps 1 big website.
What does the bold part mean? Is this a threat by any chance? Russia, till now has no PROOF to the allegations which the U.K source presented earlier.
I liked the fact that Russia used a decent language but I am disappointed by the remarks of Russian FM.
If Russia wants to join NATO, don't pee on Pakistan.
1. NATO requires that its members have civilian and democratic control over their armed forces. This is a fundamental principal that allows for military integration and inter-operability among members. Although NATO countries have different political systems — some are presidential republics, others are parliamentary — they all have transparent defense budgets and public and legislative oversight over their countries’ military affairs. This includes independent investigations into military failures and abuses, parliamentary control over how funds are allocating — or not allocated — for weapons programs and constitutional checks and balances on a leader’s ability to send troops to fight in foreign military operations.
In Russia, however, civil control over the military is anathema to the basic principles of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s vertical power structure, which has effectively folded all three branches of power into one huge executive branch. Any autocratic power, by definition, rejects public accountability in all spheres of government — and this is particularly true for its armed forces. In Russia, a lack of public and parliamentary accountability allows the Defense Ministry to cover up the true scope of its inefficiencies, blunders and overall backwardness. In addition, a closed military structure also allows rampant corruption at all levels of the military to continue unchecked. As long as the vertical power structure is in place — whether it be headed by Putin or his successor — there will never be civilian control over the military.
Another reason why Russia will fiercely resist NATO’s requirement for transparency in military affairs is that it is hypersensitive about sharing its “military secrets” with NATO — particularly concerning its nuclear forces — even when its so-called secrets are well-known in the West. Nonetheless, a commitment to transparency is a basis for cooperation among NATO members.
2. Russia needs NATO as an “enemy,” not as an alliance partner. NATO is seen by conservative and nationalist forces that dominate the defense and security establishment as an inherently anti-Russian alliance. All the talk about NATO’s revised strategy and focus on new threats — terrorism, sea piracy, narcotics or cyberattacks — is a sham, we are told. The alliance’s real target remains Russia, just as it was during the Cold War. Even Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s envoy to NATO, wrote on Twitter in March that NATO’s top brass to this day are developing military strategies and plans aimed against Russia.
This fear was reflected in Russia’s latest military strategy, published in February, in which NATO was listed as the country’s No.1 danger. Hardened NATO opponents within the political, military and government-controlled media elite are against any cooperation (including joint projects in Afghanistan) with the alliance, which they view as a tool for U.S. imperialist aggression and military expansion — “an iron leviathan that crushes all humanity,” as Maxim Shevchenko, host of Channel One’s “Sudite Sami” political talk show, described NATO in a September 2009 interview on Ekho Moskvy radio. As soon as Daalder and Yurgens floated the idea of possible NATO membership for Russia, the first thing we heard from many of these opponents was: “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. This is another NATO trick.”
3. China. If Russia ever became a NATO member, it would extend the alliance’s territory to China, which has a 4,000-kilometer border with Russia. This would upset the tripolar global security balance between NATO, Russia and China, and it would cause China — which is just as suspicious of enemy conspiracy theories as Russia is — to believe that Russia and NATO are joining forces to “contain,” or even weaken, China. It is clearly not in the interests of Russia or the United States, which both have deep economic ties with China, to heighten tensions or provoke China, even if Beijing’s fears are exaggerated.
Moreover, we are told, the possibility that the United States’ or NATO’s next reckless military venture will be aimed at China (or Iran) should not be excluded. If this happens, Russia, as a NATO member, would automatically become a target for a Chinese (or Iranian) counterattack. To avoid this scenario, the argument goes, Russia should insist on strict military neutrality from NATO.
4. The Collective Security Treaty Organization. NATO membership would effectively mean the end of the CSTO, which Russia has worked so hard on since its creation in 2002 to compete with NATO for influence in the global security arena. “I believe it [Russia’s membership in NATO] is absurd,” said CSTO chief Nikolai Bordyuzha on Sept. 16. “What is the sense of NATO membership if Russia has created its own security framework with its allies and this system of collective security functions well?”
Rogozin, for his part, in an April 2009 interview with European-Asian News service, said: “We can handle our security problems independently. … We don’t need NATO.”
5. Russia’s global ambitions. Most important, Russian membership in NATO would all but mean the end of Russia’s dream of restoring its former superpower status. By joining NATO, Russia would effectively become “just another large European country” on the same level as Germany, Britain or France — a “sacrilege” for the derzhavniki, or great-power nationalists, who remember when the Soviet Union was much larger and more powerful than these three countries combined.
It would also be an admission that Russia is de facto subordinate to the United States in the world’s largest and most influential security organization, which is unacceptable even to moderate members of the political and military establishment. Although the Kremlin no longer has messianic ambitions to create a Third Rome or Third International, at the very least it will want to preserve its sovereignty and independence as a regional and global power. That will be impossible to accomplish if it becomes a member of NATO with the United States at the helm of the alliance.
The United States’ disingenuous peace feelers to Russia about NATO membership was clearly more PR and provocation than anything else. As President Dmitry Medvedev attends a NATO-Russia Council meeting in Lisbon on Saturday, it would be much better if both sides focus on smaller, more realistic NATO-Russian partnership projects — such as regional missile defense or fighting terrorism together — and forget once and for all about Russia ever becoming a member of NATO.