Mumbai Attacks

[Developereo]

If terrorist stops attacking india then india would grow 12percent or more. Thats what china dont want. Sir i think pakistan working as china's puppet.

The terrorism flap has hit Pakistan far more than India. By your logic, Pakistan is deliberately shooting itself in the foot upon China's orders.

Wow, those "Incredible India" media writers should get a job in Hollywood writing blockbuster thrillers.

Debate ?

Is this a publicity drive or a drive to impress domestic audiences or is it an election campaign ?

We are looking at seroius issues among nations not a local municipal election. In any case we have the Indian Foreign minister who is not comfortable with hindi / urdu & the Pk gent whose English is wobbly to say the least ( last eve I saw him refering to someone as "mind master " instead of ' mastermind: on the news.

Until now, both India and Pakistan have been talking past each other. Each one issues a press release, geared towards their intended audience, which is countered by the other side.

A one-on-one debate is precisely the forum where allegations and bullsh*t claims can be challenged on the spot and misunderstandings corrected.

Lay your cards on the table and let's see who's been bluffing all along.

And your comment about his English does not deserve a reply.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

I really dont understand y Indians dont want the interaction b/w Rehman Mailk & Chidambram to Happen, let it happen in front of whole sub continent & whole world, it can clear many points & may prove as a death blow to many conspiracy theories roaming in minds of ppl on both sides...

 

[jaunty]

I really dont understand y Indians dont want the interaction b/w Rehman Mailk & Chidambram to Happen, let it happen in front of whole sub continent & whole world, it can clear many points & may prove as a death blow to many conspiracy theories roaming in minds of ppl on both sides...

Indians don't want the debate because it's not a feasible proposal and nothing but an attempt to achieve a false sense of superiority. This is not some American Presidential election campaign where they will debate on future policies and voters take into account the way they put forward the matters. This is about the investigations of a terrorist attack and to have an open debate is very juvenile.

Secondly is it not idiotic to think that Indian establishment will put forward all the proofs they have in front of the world through media. I mean has anyone ever seen such an incident before and without all the details having a debate is pointless. The proofs are for investigators to analyze and for the courts to take decision upon.

Thirdly a debate depends on how good the debater is. I mean he may have all the details of the world in his side, but still look uncomfortable. So being a FM does not necessarily mean that Chidambram is also a good debater and putting somebody else of xyz will be similar to the endless debates people have online.

At last can anybody tell me what would be the outcome of the debate in a positive way other than the TV channels getting sky high TRP. If it was such a good idea the whole world would have solved all differences through open debate and also the objective is not to clear minds of people but to have a fair trial.

So without commenting on the performance of Pakistan in the trials, I must say this is an insane idea.

 

[Developereo]

I think the Indians are afraid their sanctimonious charade will start to unravel. That's why they are running away from an honest face-to-face discussion of the facts.

A face-to-face debate will show the Indian public that their politicians have been bullsh*tting them all this time. Already, even before accepting the invitation, the expectations game is being played to downplay their guy's performance.

He doesn't speak Urdu/Hindi.
He is not a good debater.
Our evidence is confidential.
It's juvenile. (that's a new one!)

 

[Goodperson]

I think the Indians are afraid their sanctimonious charade will start to unravel. That's why they are running away from an honest face-to-face discussion of the facts.

A face-to-face debate will show the Indian public that their politicians have been bullsh*tting them all this time. Already, even before accepting the invitation, the expectations game is being played to downplay their guy's performance.

He doesn't speak Urdu/Hindi.
He is not a good debater.
Our evidence is confidential.
It's juvenile. (that's a new one!)

Call for debate is attempt to divert from the issue, Malik wants to link other issues especially here the evidences are available to nail the terrorists. External intelligence agencies have provided vital inputs.

Such issues cannot be debated. Let me know can you debate Al Queda issue with Afghanistan?

 

[PakShaheen79]

Indians don't want the debate because it's not a feasible proposal and nothing but an attempt to achieve a false sense of superiority. This is not some American Presidential election campaign where they will debate on future policies and voters take into account the way they put forward the matters. This is about the investigations of a terrorist attack and to have an open debate is very juvenile.

Secondly is it not idiotic to think that Indian establishment will put forward all the proofs they have in front of the world through media. I mean has anyone ever seen such an incident before and without all the details having a debate is pointless. The proofs are for investigators to analyze and for the courts to take decision upon.

Thirdly a debate depends on how good the debater is. I mean he may have all the details of the world in his side, but still look uncomfortable. So being a FM does not necessarily mean that Chidambram is also a good debater and putting somebody else of xyz will be similar to the endless debates people have online.

At last can anybody tell me what would be the outcome of the debate in a positive way other than the TV channels getting sky high TRP. If it was such a good idea the whole world would have solved all differences through open debate and also the objective is not to clear minds of people but to have a fair trial.

So without commenting on the performance of Pakistan in the trials, I must say this is an insane idea.

Very rightly said...Now why Indians are not providing something substantial against Hafiz Saeed (I am not defending him rathering defending Pakistani courts here) so that courts can convict him. Current proofs of Indians are not sufficient to convict him in court of law and please don't come up with extradition to India as both countries have no such treaty in between them.

In such complex situation, Why India is not accepting Pakistani proposal after all you have all the evidences against attackers and proofs of their links to Pakistan... So why this reluctance?

 

[IceCold]

Really I don't understand what Pakistan will get if this debate may happened there is no change in circumstance who ever is win..
Mumbai Attack issue is more crucial then just conducting debate on it .
It show Pakistan Political attitude to wards addressing critical issues.

Problem is India does not see honesty and commitment in Pakistan's attempt to curtail the people India thinks are involved or were the masterminds behind Mumbai carnage. How do we address the issue then? I am no fan of Mr.Malik however this time he really has stepped up to the occasion. There is nothing wrong with Pakistan's political attitude but the other way round. Sorry to say but the way your minister is whining these days shows India's pathetic political attitude to resolve critical issues with a neighboring country.

 

[jaunty]

I think the Indians are afraid their sanctimonious charade will start to unravel. That's why they are running away from an honest face-to-face discussion of the facts.

Ha ha . I am not against an honest face-to-face discussion of facts. I am against a public debate. Don't try to mix those. Both are completely different issues and let me assure you no one is afraid of anything. You have many international forums to unravel our 'sanctimonious charade' but I afraid you have not achieved that as yet and I have given my points why I am against a public debate. So come with some logic to counter those rather than beating around the bush.

A face-to-face debate will show the Indian public that their politicians have been bullsh*tting them all this time. Already, even before accepting the invitation, the expectations game is being played to downplay their guy's performance.

He doesn't speak Urdu/Hindi.
He is not a good debater.
Our evidence is confidential.
It's juvenile. (that's a new one!)

Again no logic at all. Get real buddy. We are not downplaying the performance of our FM in an imaginary debate. We are just stating why we are against a public debate. So if you have some good points advocating a public debate other than the illogical 'to show the people of the world' or some previous example where countries solved problems having public debate come with it.

On a lighter note, from one of my favorite sitcoms ' The big bang theory'-
''The wheel was a great idea, the relativity was a great idea, this is just a notion and a sucky one at that'

 

[Developereo]

Call for debate is attempt to divert from the issue, Malik wants to link other issues

It sounds like he wants to debate specifically about the Mumbai case.

especially here the evidences are available to nail the terrorists. External intelligence agencies have provided vital inputs.

The evidence will stand or fall on its merit regardless of who provided input.

Such issues cannot be debated. Let me know can you debate Al Queda issue with Afghanistan?

No comparison. We are talking about a very specific event here and the evidence trailing supposedly leading up to it. What everybody wants to know is: exactly what evidence has been provided by India and when was it provided?

It's a very simple question and doesn't require extensive debating skills. Nobody has to reveal the source of their information if they don't want to. Since India claims that Pakistan has been dragging their feet, it is the perfect opportunity to tell the world, including the Indian and Pakistani public, what they told Pakistan and when.

Many of us would like to hear it directly from the people involved, instead of through media filters and press releases.

 

[jaunty]

Very rightly said...Now why Indians are not providing something substantial against Hafiz Saeed (I am not defending him rathering defending Pakistani courts here) so that courts can convict him. Current proofs of Indians are not sufficient to convict him in court of law and please don't come up with extradition to India as both countries have no such treaty in between them.

In such complex situation, Why India is not accepting Pakistani proposal after all you have all the evidences against attackers and proofs of their links to Pakistan... So why this reluctance?

I think you did not read my post carefully. you missed a point. In the last line I said 'without commenting on Pakistan's performance in the trials', which is self-explanatory why I would not like to go to Hafiz Saeed. I have not seen all the proofs given by Indian Govt., neither have I seen his trial in Pak courts. So I can't comment on that. Here I am giving my reasons on why I am just against the open debate idea of your Mr. Rehman Malik and I will stick to the point.Sorry.

 

[Developereo]

Ha ha . I am not against an honest face-to-face discussion of facts.

Then what's the problem?

I am against a public debate. Don't try to mix those. Both are completely different issues

OK, you lost me there. We are not talking about deciding the case in a public debate. We are only talking about establishing what evidence was presented when. There is nothing to debate. Either the evidence was presented at the specified time or it wasn't.

If Pakistan deems a certain piece of evidence to be inadmissible, that can be noted (agree to disagree for now) and move on to the next piece of evidence.

You have many international forums to unravel our 'sanctimonious charade' but I afraid you have not achieved that as yet

I am not aware of a public forum where both sides have had the chance to rebut each other's assertions in real time.

and I have given my points why I am against a public debate. So come with some logic to counter those rather than beating around the bush.

No beating. No bush. Just straight talk.

Again no logic at all. Get real buddy. We are not downplaying the performance of our FM in an imaginary debate. We are just stating why we are against a public debate. So if you have some good points advocating a public debate other than the illogical 'to show the people of the world' or some previous example where countries solved problems having public debate come with it.

Once again, we are not going to try the case and solve the problem in a debate, simply establish the timeline of the evidence.

On a lighter note, from one of my favorite sitcoms ' The big bang theory'-
''The wheel was a great idea, the relativity was a great idea, this is just a notion and a sucky one at that'

Never got tempted to watch that one. The only two sitcoms I watch are Seinfeld reruns and Two and a Half Men.

 

[toxic_pus]

Mr Chidambaram is not just a minister, he is trained lawyer, and a bloody good one at that. Don't think he is a pushover. Anyway, some snippets from an interview he gave to Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera: So you have made it very clear that you are not satisfied with the response [from] Pakistan … to chasing down those responsible for plotting the Mumbai attacks. Why are you not satisfied?

Chidambaram: Because they are not arresting the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks. They are still on Pakistan soil. We know their names. We have shared their names with them. They are not investigating the case. The trial has not opened yet. It will be a year on the 26th of November. Therefore, we are thoroughly, totally dissatisfied with the Pakistani response.

AJ: Do you believe that they are deliberately holding up the investigation?

C: Yes. Regrettably that is the answer, but yes.

AJ: So the Pakistani government, the Pakistani authorities, let's be clear about this, are deliberately stifling the investigation into the Mumbai attacks?

C: Yes.

AJ: Five individuals, militants, arrested in Pakistan, went before a court in Rawalpindi last weekend. Why is that not enough?

C: Where is the trial? Where is the charge sheet? When is a trial starting? When is the first witness being examined?

AJ: You've handed over dossiers to the Pakistanis which you say include cogent and convincing evidence that links Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafeez Sayeed to the Mumbai attacks. What is that evidence then?

C: Well firstly I am a trained lawyer, so you'll have to accept my word as against a non-lawyer's word. The evidence that we have presented tells any investigator, any prosecutor what Hafeez Sayeed did, where he was, whom he met, what he told them, what his role was. If that is not evidence to continue [an] investigation against Hafeez Sayeed, what else is evidence?

AJ: But he was held and then released because the courts in Pakistan were not convinced that there was enough evidence?

C: The court can only be convinced if you present evidence… There is a vast distinction between the responsibility and role of the prosecution and the role and responsibility of the judge. The judge does not investigate. The judge weighs the evidence presented to the court. If no evidence is presented to the court, what will [the] judge do?

AJ: Why won't you tell us what that evidence is though? Because at the moment we have the Indian authorities saying there is sufficient evidence, the Pakistani authorities saying it's insufficient. What is the evidence? Where was he when the attacks were being planned?

C: December 2007 - January 2008 he was in a place where Kasab and others were trained. He spoke to the trainees on many occasions. There was another training camp at a place called Chekhalabandi mountain of Muzaffarabad. Hafeez Sayeed was in the camp and met the trainees.

He was accompanied by a person known as major general "saab" [sir].

Hafeez Sayeed finally selected the trainees and gave them new names. Kasab was given a new name - "Abu Mujahid" - that name was given by Hafeez Sayeed.

Then they underwent marine training at a training camp and Hafeez Sayeed was present for that training too.

On the 13th day of roza [Muslim fasting during Ramadan] the selected trainees were called to the office of the Bait-ul-Mujahideen and Hafeez Sayeed met them there. I could go on. Places, dates, names, conversations.

Now if a prosecutor is unwilling to take this as prima facie evidence, investigate further, visit the places, go to the places, arrest Hafeez Sayeed, and discover further evidence what does the prosecution of Pakistan do?

Al Jazeera English - CENTRAL/S. ASIA - Interview: P Chidambaram

 

[toxic_pus]

We are not talking about deciding the case in a public debate. We are only talking about establishing what evidence was presented when. There is nothing to debate. Either the evidence was presented at the specified time or it wasn't.

So what's the fuss about. Just make the evidence public. The dossier is after all in GoP's possession.

 

[Developereo]

So what's the fuss about.

The timeline when the evidence was presented and whether Pakistan has been dragging their feet.

There are a whole host of allegations from the Pakistani side including
- initially it was in marathi
- evidence was delivered piecemeal
- latest evidence didn't get in till few days ago

I don't know which side is telling the truth, but neither side can lie about this matter if they are sitting face-to-face against each other.

 

[XYON]

CB's yatra to US shows Indian desperation supreme and judging by the diffusion of International interest and the visibility of Indian designs to defame Pakistan going down the drain!! Hillary did not even bothered to come to the State Department door to meet or say good bye to CB! That diplomatic snub says a lot on what the US thinks about Indian designs!

If CB is so concerned, hire a local lawyer in Pakistan and appeal against the release of the 'alleged' culprits. Indians have their courts and we have ours, needless to say whatever is in between is simply international politics.

Time Pakistan should stop bending over backwards to invite the Indians to talk.