No aircraft engines to Pak, please

[Keysersoze]

Indian are so Pakistani centric and have the inferiority complex that is topping the list... India is pathetic and corrupt and the Indian posters are mostly ignorant, arrogant and ****. This forum has been degraded to a pathetic level of Indians blaiming Pakistani to be less... Sure.

This kind of statement does not help any kind of debate at all......

 

[Contrarian]

This kind of statement does not help any kind of debate at all......

I wonder, has he helped any debate at all till now.

 

[vnomad]

Dear Sir,

With due respect, I fail to see what this is all about. Pakistan has never; since her birth in 1947; had ambitions to either become a super power or even a regional power. We have been fighting for our existence against the " Akhund Bharat" policies our erstwhile giant neighbour.

Dear Niaz,

You are deluding yourself if you think that reunification of India and Pakistan is the long-term cherished aim of the Indian govt./masses. If you wish to take note of few hardline parties in India which have coined the 'Akhand Bharat' phrase, I'd like to point out that one of the objectives of the Lashkar-e-Taiba is starting an Islamic revolution in India. India's foreign policy isn't determined by the RSS anymore than the LeT decides Pakistan's foreign policy(or do you disagree?).

India partially succeeded by breaking us in half.

What do you mean by 'partially'?

Most of our defence strategy is geared towards making it too expensive for India to try 1971 again, whereas India has always tried her level best to impede our efforts to modrenize our forces. Putting pressure on Russia to deny engines for JF-17 demontrates this point.

Come on. Don't be childish. India has attempted to hinder Pakistan military modernisation because it is a threat to India. Pakistan does the same thing. The US has limited Chinese arms purchases in Europe through the NATO. There is nothing out of the ordinary in such actions.

Pakistan has never laid claim to any part of India except asking for a 'Plebesite' in Kashmir, basically to let Kashmiris decide what they want to do.

Pakistan has stated in public and to the world that no militant(I'm not calling them terrorists or freedom fighters) training camps exist in Pakistan administered Kashmir. Which is a blatant lie.

(Please dont quote Kargil, it was just an attempt to revitalize the Kashmair issue. Similarly 1965 war;aka Operation Gibralter, also aimed at inciting the Kashmiris to rise against Indian occupation).

Screw the motives. The Pakistani military was intensely involved in the capture of peaks(the region incidently isn't Kashmiri). India would have been completely justified in launching an attack across the LoC or even the IB pressurize Pakistan, to withdraw troops. Pakistan can morally explain its actions but it was an act of aggression. Period.

India on other hand occupied Siachin and never accepted Sir Creek as border.

Siachen was no man's land. The area was not defined as being Indian or Pakistani. So, moving into Siachen cannot be contrued as an act of aggression unlike Kargil where the AGPL had been clearly demarkated.

No one under estimates India in any way and we even quote India's example in TV debates on democracy. What we dont like is the bullying tactics of our big brother.

Please elaborate on the 'bullying tactics' point.

However, I dont deny that you have a perfect right to have your point of view.

What's the harm in debated it, as long as its civilised.

Regards

 

[niaz]

Firstly to Hon Malaymishra;

You said India has never attacked Pakistan. India attacked East Pakistan in 1971. That was an unprovoked and premeditated attack which resulted in the break up of Pakistan.If this was not "Attack" then what is it ??

True, border was not defined in Siachin but I know that mounteering teams from my college went to the Saltoro Galcier in 1961. There was no sign of any Indian presence. It was only in the 1980's that India decided to occupy Siachin. Similarly, I have personally gone for "Shikar" in 1962 in the areas of the Raan of Kutch now part of India after the 1965 skirmish. Sir Creek is similar case.


To Hon vnomad:

India wanted to finish Pakistan probelm off, by partially I meant that West Pakistan is still whole, even though RAW is trying their level best to stir up Sindhi and Baluch nationalism and their attempts in cohourts with Afgahnistan to create 'Pakhtunistan' fizzled out due to Russian invasion.

India never really accepted Pakistan until Vajpai came to Lahore. You read statements by the late Valib Bhai Patel and you will see. It is also correct that had Nehru not insisted on himself becoming the Prime Minister of India and would have accepted the Quaid e Azam as Prime Minister as Mahatma Gandhi had proposed in 1946; India wouldnot have been partitioned. Lots of Indian leaders realise this and that is why the "Akhund Bharat" stance. I remember reading statements in the Indian press criticising Vajpai for his visit to Minar -e- Pakistan.

Hon Sir, either you are being naive or deliberately ignoring the facts. What would one call amassing of a million IA soldiers on Pakistan's border by the Vajpai regime in if not "Bullying" ???

'Let' is one of many the movements for the liberation of Kasmir and you think it determines Pakistan's policies. You have many such parties in India, RSS, Shiv Sena, VHP, Bajrang Dal to name a few. Hardliners in Pakistan only came to be elected because of Pakistan's U turn on Afghanistan. Indian on the other hand elected the party which murdered ' Mahatma Gandhi' to the government. Please dont deny that Nathoo Ram Godsey was not a member of RSS, the same party to which LK Advani and Vajpai belong.

Finally, I agree any debate; as long as it remains civilised; lets one to understand othe people's point of view and can be intellectually stimulating.

 

[vnomad]

True, border was not defined in Siachin but I know that mounteering teams from my college went to the Saltoro Galcier in 1961. There was no sign of any Indian presence.

Since, the border wasn't defined, IA's moving to occupy it cannot be construed as an aggressive act. Kargil is a different story. Why were you expecting an Indian presence on the Saltoro glacier? Its not exactly hospitable to human existance.

Sir Creek is similar case.

Similar to what? The Sir Creek issue doesn't have any parallels in the Indo-Pak realm. India maintains that the border should be the centre of Sir Creek while Pakistan states that the border extends to its eastern banks.

Sir Creek facts:

The Sir Creek Listen is a 96 km (60 mile) strip of water disputed between India and Pakistan in the Rann of Kutch marshlands. The creek, which opens up into the Arabian Sea, divides the Kutch region of the Indian state of Gujarat with the Sindh province of Pakistan.

Pakistan lays claim to the entire creek as per paras 9 and 10 of the Bombay Government Resolution of 1914 signed between then the Government of Sindh and Rao Maharaj of Kutch. India sticks to its position that the boundary lies mid-channel as depicted in another map drawn in 1925, and implemented by the installation of mid-channel pillars back in 1924.

India supports its stance by citing the Thalweg Doctrine in International Law. The law states that river boundaries between two states are divided by the mid-channel. Pakistan does not dispute the 1925 map, it maintains that the Doctrine is not applicable in this case as it only applies to bodies of water that are navigable, which the Sir Creek is supposedly not. India rejects the Pakistani stance by maintaining the fact that the creek is navigable in high tide, and that fishing trawlers use it to go out to sea. Several cartographic surveys conducted have upheld the Indian claim.

India wanted to finish Pakistan probelm off, by partially I meant that West Pakistan is still whole, even though RAW is trying their level best to stir up Sindhi and Baluch nationalism and their attempts in cohourts with Afgahnistan to create 'Pakhtunistan' fizzled out due to Russian invasion.

And Pakistan financed the Khalistan militancy besides assisting dozens of separatist groups in India's North-East. Your point is?

India never really accepted Pakistan until Vajpai came to Lahore. You read statements by the late Valib Bhai Patel and you will see. It is also correct that had Nehru not insisted on himself becoming the Prime Minister of India and would have accepted the Quaid e Azam as Prime Minister as Mahatma Gandhi had proposed in 1946; India wouldnot have been partitioned. Lots of Indian leaders realise this and that is why the "Akhun Bahart" stance.

Are you trying to convince me that subconsciously I am rooting for a Akhand Bharat? Because you wasting time in that case. The phrase 'Akhand Bharat' appears to be more famous in Pakistan than it is in India.

Hon Sir, either you are being naive or deliberately ignoring the facts. What would call amassing of a million IA soldiers on Pakistan's border by the Vajpai regime in if not "Bullying" ???

A polite statement that India doesn't look upon Pakistan's nurturing of the Lashkar-e-Taiba kindly.

'Let' is one of many the movements for the liberation of Kasmir and you think it determines Pakistan's policies. You have many such parties in India, RSS, Shiv Sena, VHP, Bajrang Dal to name a few.

Are you deliberately being obtuse? Please read my previous post carefully. You are repeating what I had said. My point was the 'Akhand Bharat' philosophy is not something that the Government of India adheres to.

 

[Bull]

Indian are so Pakistani centric and have the inferiority complex that is topping the list... India is pathetic and corrupt and the Indian posters are mostly ignorant, arrogant and ****. This forum has been degraded to a pathetic level of Indians blaiming Pakistani to be less... Sure.

Why dont you just give us a break?

 

[Bull]

Only functioning? Well India is dead meat with 600 million below the poverty...

Give us a link for that, sir.

India is called secular and democratic yet hindu nationalist rule it...

What age are you leaving in? Have you check off late who rules India?

It is windowdressed democracy and in fact extremely corrupt...

India has a better corruption ranking than some other countries having the same HDI.

It has not signed the NPT....

It doesnt suit us wo we had the balls to say no.

It is aggressively with its neighbours (so many enemies are wring and india is ok?...

If there is a reason to be agrressive then we shall be.

It has wishes to become superpower... I do not call that stabuility but stupidity...

Why is that so? Aspiration and motivation is suppose to be good attributes.

Just like the arrogance of posters from India. Just visit BRF or Keymag. They are posting with western names and act like they own the world....

Oh what all do you have issues with. Give a list to the admin and ask them to change all the english names to Indian/Hindi ones.

Dignity and respect is gone...

Dignity and respect is gone..with your presence, if i may complete the line for you.

 

[sword9]

Indian are so Pakistani centric and have the inferiority complex that is topping the list... India is pathetic and corrupt and the Indian posters are mostly ignorant, arrogant and ****. This forum has been degraded to a pathetic level of Indians blaiming Pakistani to be less... Sure.

Lol...mirror mirror on the wall....
Can you not see your three fingers pointing back at you when you point one finger at Indians (with your above post.

 

[Bull]

Lol...mirror mirror on the wall....
Can you not see your three fingers pointing back at you when you point one finger at Indians (with your above post.

Sword ji...why do you use a English name? Couldnt you use a more bharatiya name as talwar?

 

[Bull]

There are so many Indians with western names.... It is a habbit. Just check Keymags... Atleast BRF is filled with fine sounding Indian names.

Why do you want to brag abt keymags here?

 

[Contrarian]

Firstly to Hon Malaymishra;

You said India has never attacked Pakistan. India attacked East Pakistan in 1971. That was an unprovoked and premeditated attack which resulted in the break up of Pakistan.If this was not "Attack" then what is it ??

If you check up the facts Niaz, you will find that Pakistan in anticipation of an Indian attack , first attacked Indian airfields using PAF, in an attempt to pull an Israel style victory over egypt ie taking IAF completely by surprise and by destroying most of their planes. The operation has very limited success, the IAF planes were up and about after some hours of that airstrike.

Now Pakistan may have rightly thought that India was going to intervene in its civil war, and decided to take preemptive action, but technically its still Pakistan who was the first aggresor.

True, border was not defined in Siachin but I know that mounteering teams from my college went to the Saltoro Galcier in 1961. There was no sign of any Indian presence. It was only in the 1980's that India decided to occupy Siachin. Similarly, I have personally gone for "Shikar" in 1962 in the areas of the Raan of Kutch now part of India after the 1965 skirmish. Sir Creek is similar case.

No comment, India took Siachen, Pakistan tried to take Kargil using the SAME excuse that the border was not defined in that area and so it was technically neutral. Difference was India ejected NLI from Kargil, where as PA could not do so in Siachen.

India wanted to finish Pakistan probelm off, by partially I meant that West Pakistan is still whole, even though RAW is trying their level best to stir up Sindhi and Baluch nationalism and their attempts in cohourts with Afgahnistan to create 'Pakhtunistan' fizzled out due to Russian invasion.

Yeah mate, they might have tried that, but as has Pakistan, by supporting terrorists in Kashmir and the Khalistan movement.

India never really accepted Pakistan until Vajpai came to Lahore. You read statements by the late Valib Bhai Patel and you will see.

That is not true, that notion is somehow in every Pakistani citizen's head. Its simply not true, no1 cares why the exist or refuse to recignise that they exist.

It is also correct that had Nehru not insisted on himself becoming the Prime Minister of India and would have accepted the Quaid e Azam as Prime Minister as Mahatma Gandhi had proposed in 1946; India wouldnot have been partitioned. Lots of Indian leaders realise this and that is why the "Akhund Bharat" stance. I remember reading statements in the Indian press criticising Vajpai for his visit to Minar -e- Pakistan.

Trust me when i say that the first time i heard the term 'Akhand Bharat' was in a Pakistani forum. This notion is simply not in our head, neither is it in the popular masses head, it might be a select few individuals. I dont know how every Pakistani citizen thinks that Indians want Akhand Bharat and they refuse to recognise Pakistan. This is pure BS said to satisfy or self-condone their hatred towards India spewed by their leaders.

Hon Sir, either you are being naive or deliberately ignoring the facts. What would one call amassing of a million IA soldiers on Pakistan's border by the Vajpai regime in if not "Bullying" ???

Well mate, India would 'Bully' any country that tries to send across terrorists to attack the highest seat of democracy in India, or in essence the head of India. If Pakistan can send terrorists to attack the Parliament, then India has full right to respond. You cannot have Pakistan doing whatever it pleases without facing consequences.

'Let' is one of many the movements for the liberation of Kasmir and you think it determines Pakistan's policies. You have many such parties in India, RSS, Shiv Sena, VHP, Bajrang Dal to name a few.

They are not elected

Hardliners in Pakistan only came to be elected because of Pakistan's U turn on Afghanistan. Indian on the other hand elected the party which murdered ' Mahatma Gandhi' to the government. Please dont deny that Nathoo Ram Godsey was not a member of RSS, the same party to which LK Advani and Vajpai belong.

Actually, its not a party to which either of them belong. They belong to BJP which has sympathetic feelings towards RSS.

I have never heard that Godse was a member of RSS. Even if he was, that does not mean it was a conspiracy by RSS to kill Mahatma Gandhi. It was the action of a lone man.

Finally, I agree any debate; as long as it remains civilised; lets one to understand othe people's point of view and can be intellectually stimulating.

I agree. It can be, and it can bring about reduction in differences between people and gaining more knowledge.

 

[mahatir]

Russians only care about money , nothing will stop them unless India bribes them well .

 

[Pak47]

Such an old thread..

Off topic: I have never seen a person with over 500 posts and no thanks. I have givin this soul his first.

 

[Gentelman]

Indian Americans seek to stop US missile sale to Pakistan - World - DNA

Indian Americans seek to stop US missile sale to Pakistan
Arun Kumar / IANS
Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:27 IST

WASHINGTON: Indian Americans are making a valiant bid to halt the proposed US sale of a billion dollar arms package to Pakistan, including TOW-2A Anti-Armour Guided Missiles and E-2C Hawkeye 2000 Airborne Early Warning system.



Under the rules, the proposed sales will go through on Jan 7 unless the US Congress specifically disapproves them within 30 days of being notified by Pentagon on Dec 7 - a highly unlikely prospect as the newly elected Congress begins its session only on Jan 4.



TOW-2A missiles, which the Pentagon claimed would "enable Pakistan to support US operations against terrorist activity along its porous borders," could reach $185 million. E-2C HAWKEYE 2000 system for three P-3 aircraft could cost another $855 million.



Undeterred by the near futility of their efforts given that a $5.1 billion dollar deal for F-16 planes went through last July with no more than a Congressional rap on the knuckles, Indian Americans have mounted a campaign to inform the lawmakers about the implication of the missile sale to Pakistan for US national security interests.



Spurred by the US-India Friendship, a voluntary effort of Indian Americans, several US voters of Indian origin have sent e-mails to their elected representatives pointing out that such "a serious decision" has been taken in a sort of legislative vacuum.



The notification was issued Dec 7 - less than two days before the outgoing 109th Congress ended its lame-duck session in the early hours of Dec 9 - and the 30-day notice period expires Jan 6 - just three days after the newly elected 110th Congress takes office on Jan 3.



If it happens, it will take place without Congressional oversight into a sale of high tech and possible dual use military equipment, with serious national security implications, said Hari Iyer urging his area representatives "to ask for a deferment of the sales so that you can perform your constitutionally required duty".



Another Indian American, B K Vasan, warned that even if a small percentage of these weapons fall into the hands of the Taliban, it can wreak havoc against the American and NATO forces.



Manish Thakur said selling Pakistan missiles will send the worst message at this time. For it will not only further encourage Pakistan to tolerate attacks from its territory on US troops, but it "also runs the risk of proliferation of advanced technologies to our enemies”.



Jaya Kamlani warned these US supplied arms could be used against India, as was done in 1965 during President Lyndon Johnson's presidency.



Subhash Paradkar suggested use of diplomatic leverage rather than an arms race for "the development of goodwill in the minds of the Pakistani people toward the United States and India."



However, Indian Americans apparently face an uphill task as the $5.1 billion F-16 deal for Pakistan emerged unscathed from the 30-day congressional review period last July under similar circumstances.



As the deadline for the Congress to block the deal notified by Pentagon ended then, the House of Representatives went into a month long recess without taking up resolutions by two Democratic lawmakers to block it. The issue never came up before the full Senate.



Just a week before the expiry of the deadline, the House committee on international relations upbraided the Bush administration for what it called a calculated move to diminish Congressional authority over the rushed sale of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, but made no move to block it.



Ranking Democrat Tom Lantos, who is set to take over as the chairman of the panel in the new House and his retiring Republican predecessor Henry Hyde later introduced a bill requiring quarterly updates on possible upcoming arms sales and enforcing a 20-day consultation period before the State Department formally notifies Congress of a proposed sale.



At the hearing John Hillen, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, admitted that the administration had chosen to waive the 20-day pre-notification period without consulting either Hyde or Lantos, but made no move to end what Democrat Brad Sherman called "this charade" of consultations.



He affirmed that the Congress had no means to stop the deal unless both the House and Senate passed resolutions rejecting it before the 30-day review ran out and then override a Bush veto.

All eggs are rotten...
sab anday hee ganday hain...

 

[Echo_419]

Russians only care about money , nothing will stop them unless India bribes them well .

Don't you think you are a little late to comment