What's new

Pakistan boasted of nuclear strike on India within eight seconds

This is sensationlist reporting by my favourite newspaper. What has happened to the Guardian has it been taken by the Murdochs and the Brooks of this world, what next, tits on page three.

Campbell is selling his book the spicier the better and this is coming from the same team that gave us such favourites as the dodgy sexed dossiers and Gulf War Two the sequel. Mission Accomplished (millions dead). So now he is up to his tricks again and claims a PK General told him to tell the Indians that we can launch in 8 secs. Wow beggars belief.

I have my pinch of salt and I hope you guys have yours too.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

raq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation (more commonly known as the Dodgy Dossier, the Iraq Dossier or the February Dossier[citation needed]) was a 2003 briefing document for the Blair Labour government. It was issued to journalists on 3 February 2003 by Alastair Campbell, Blair's Director of Communications and Strategy, and concerned Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Together with the earlier September Dossier, these documents were ultimately used by the government to justify its involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The term Dodgy Dossier was first coined by online polemical magazine Spiked.[1] The term was later employed by Channel 4 News when its reporter, Julian Rush, was made aware of Glen Rangwala's discovery[2] that much of the work had been plagiarised from various unattributed sources. The most notable source was an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi entitled Iraq's Security & Intelligence Network: A Guide & Analysis,[3] which was published in the September 2002 issue of the Middle East Review of International Affairs.[4]

Whole sections of Marashi's writings on "Saddam's Special Security Organisation" were repeated verbatim including typographical errors, while certain amendments were made to strengthen the tone of the alleged findings (e.g. "monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq" became "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq", and "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes" became "supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes").

In its opening paragraph the briefing document claimed that it drew "upon a number of sources, including intelligence reports". Before the document's release it had been praised by Tony Blair and Colin Powell as further intelligence and quality research. The day after Channel 4's exposé, Tony Blair's office issued a statement admitting that a mistake was made in not crediting its sources, but did not concede that the quality of the document's content was affected.

The claims contained in the 'September' and 'Iraq' Dossiers were called into question when weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, and the dossiers were encompassed by House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry. The Committee subsequently reported that the sources should have been credited, and that the dossier should have been checked by ministers before being released. The dossier had only been reviewed by a group of civil servants operating under Alastair Campbell. The committee stated that the publication was "almost wholly counter-productive" and in the event only served to undermine the credibility of the government's case.

The controversy over the 'Iraq Dossier' was mentioned frequently in the government's conflict with the BBC over the claim in the 'September Dossier' that Iraq could deploy biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so, and the controversy surrounding the death of Doctor David Kelly. Andrew Gilligan, the BBC journalist who wrote a report which claimed that the September Dossier had been deliberately exaggerated, stated before the Hutton Inquiry that recalling the February Dossier had led him to file his report based on his interview with David Kelly without seeking confirmation from other sources. Whether or not the September Dossier was inconsistent with the original intelligence, it was altered in ways that made it inconsistent with itself.[5]

The dossier became a point of amusement in British politics. In a Prime Minister's Questions conflict with Blair, Michael Howard (then leader of HM Opposition), informed Blair, "I've got a great big dossier on his past, and I haven't even had to sex it up!".
 
Hmm 8 sec note was given to campbell- he forwarded it to blair- Briton got worried but the intellectual creatures indians are laughing at it-
 
If i'm not mistaken, pakistan has NOT adopted the nuclear "no first use policy". Pak has kept the nukes at the war front for the intended effect of deterrence. The fact they need to resort to “warnings” of nuking india – says something about the confidence (or rather the lack of it) in the armed forces and their capabilities in conventional war.

This stance, by pak, on the potential use of nukes is an open admission of the deficiencies of their armed forces and reflective of a deep seated insecurity about the very expensive panga that they have taken with India.

Could pak afford to be this cocky, if it agreed to a no first use policy and not hide behind the flimsy and cowardly cover of being the first to “launch nukes in 8 seconds”.

It’s amazing that for a people of a little country, which was made even smaller in 1971, to display their fetish for envisioning themselves as a martial race, when clearly they can ill afford it.

Grow up. Pak can’t afford to fu@k with india, just the same way india can’t afford to fu@k with china. India’s foreign policy towards china is a lot more measured against china, and perhaps its wise for the loose cannons from pak to muzzle themselves and be more responsible with a country that is much larger in every possible way.
 
[:::~Spartacus~:::];3058908 said:
well india claimed its supar powaaaaa of the world by its billion poor population, we never claimed supar powar
you call an entire population of a nation as poor and its your ignorance.
 
[:::~Spartacus~:::];3058908 said:
well india claimed its supar powaaaaa of the world by its billion poor population, we never claimed supar powar

At least have the intelligence to throw a sensible retort, kiddo.

But then again, boast karne par tax to nahi lagta. :P
 
Here we go again with this crazy sh_t its always one side or the other either them or us ... lolz.
 
Lol...8 seconds!! :rofl:
But one thing..India is now having Air defence system in place. Atleast 2/3 out of 5 missiles will be intercepted taking worst case scenario. But what about pakistan? It's sitting right there in front of us....ready to welcome the devastation from India in the form of nuclear, bio , and chemical weapons. :butcher:

We are making our missiles stealthier. Good luck :rolleyes:
 
Magazine - A Modest Proposal From the Brigadier - The Atlantic

WHAT ONE PROMINENT PAKISTANI THINKS HIS COUNTRY SHOULD DO WITH ITS ATOMIC WEAPONS

By Peter Landesman
In the center of the biggest traffic circle of every major city in Pakistan sits a craggy, Gibraltarish replica of a nameless peak in the Chagai range. This mountain is the home of Pakistan's nuclear test site. The development, in 1998, of the "Islamic Bomb," intended as a counter to India's nuclear capability, is Pakistan's only celebrated achievement since its formation, in 1947. The mountain replicas, about three stories tall, are surrounded by flower beds that are lovingly weeded, watered, and manicured. At dusk, when the streetlights come on, so do the mountains, glowing a weird molten yellow.

Islamabad's monument to the atomic bomb occupies a rotary between the airport and the city center. Nearby stand models of Pakistan's two classes of missile: Shaheen and Ghauri. The Islamabad nuclear shrine stands at a place where the city is dissolving into an incoherent edge town of shabby strip malls and empty boulevards and rows of desolate government buildings. A little farther in one comes to the gridded blocks of gated homes. The neighborhoods are called sectors. The streets are numbered, not named.

Late last year, after nearly two months in Pakistan, I paid the last of many visits to house No. 8 on street 19, sector F-8/2, a modern white mansion known as Zardari House. The house has been used by Asif Ali Zardari, the imprisoned husband of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan's exiled former Prime Minister. Neither Zardari nor Bhutto has been there for a long time. Zardari has been confined for five years, most recently in Attock Fort, a medieval fortress perched over the Indus River between Islamabad and Peshawar. He is charged with a slew of crimes: large-scale corruption; conspiracy in the murder of Bhutto's brother Mir Murtaza; conspiracy to smuggle narcotics. Bhutto, who also faces corruption charges in Pakistan, lives in Dubai with their three children. Pakistan's leader, General Pervez Musharraf, has promised to have her arrested and tried if she ever returns to Pakistan. Outside the gate to the empty Zardari House sits a man with his back to the wall, a sawed-off shotgun across his knees.

I had been going there to consult with Brigadier Amanullah, known to his friends as Aman. Aman, in his early fifties and now retired, is lithe and gentle-natured and seemed to me slightly depressed. He works in a small office behind Zardari House, where, as the secretary to Benazir Bhutto in Islamabad, he coordinates Bhutto's efforts to return to Pakistan and regain its prime ministership. He also keeps in close touch with old colleagues, who include many powerful people in Pakistan. Aman was once the chief of Pakistan's military intelligence in Sind Province, which borders India. Pakistan's biggest city and a cultural center, Karachi, is in Sind. That put Aman squarely in the middle of things, his finger near many sorts of buttons. Today Aman is believed to act as Bhutto's liaison with the armed forces, and he maintains contacts with serving army officers, including senior generals. When I wanted to speak to someone in the Pakistani government, I asked Aman. When I wanted to speak to someone in the Taliban, or in military intelligence, or in the political opposition, I asked Aman. His replies were mumbled and monosyllabic. He never offered opinions. He would simply hear me out and, most times, tip his head and say, "Why not?" Within an hour after Aman and I parted, I would receive a phone call from his secretary. References would be made to "that man" or "that matter," and I would be given a phone number and a time to call. Having spoken with Aman, I was always expected.

On the day of my final visit Aman seemed more sullen than usual. He ushered me into a room adjoining the office. The room was long and spare. There was an oil painting on the far wall. The other walls were empty and lined with cushioned chairs. Aman sat across from me. We had tea and spoke about the latest events.

As we were wrapping up our conversation, I looked at the oil painting. It was a strange picture, a horizontal landscape about four feet across, with overtones of socialist realism. In the foreground a youthful Benazir Bhutto stood in heroic pose on an escarpment overlooking the featureless grid of Islamabad. Beside her stood her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a Prime Minister who in 1977 was ousted in a coup and two years later hanged. On the other side of Bhutto was Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the long-dead founding father of Pakistan. Their postures were exalted, their expressions a combination of pride and awe. Jinnah's arm pointed to the vast plain beyond the city, where a rocket was lifting out of billowing clouds of vapor and fire into the sky.

Aman noticed me looking at the painting and followed my gaze. I asked him if Benazir Bhutto had commissioned it, and Aman said no. He told me that one day when she was still Prime Minister, an unknown man, an ordinary Pakistani citizen, had come to the gate of Zardari House with the picture and told Aman that he'd painted it for the Prime Minister and wanted to present it to her as a gift. Aman said that he was immediately transfixed by the painting. He called to Bhutto inside the house, but she refused to come down to see the man. Aman was persistent, and eventually she came down.

"I insisted Benazir accept it as a gift," Aman told me.

We both looked up at the painting in silence. "A rocket ship heading to the moon?" I asked.

Aman tipped his head to the side. A smirk tugged at the corners of his mouth. "No," he said. "A nuclear warhead heading to India."

I thought he was making a joke. Then I saw he wasn't. I thought of the shrines to Pakistan's nuclear-weapons site, prominently displayed in every city. I told Aman that I was disturbed by the ease with which Pakistanis talk of nuclear war with India.

Aman shook his head. "No," he said matter-of-factly. "This should happen. We should use the bomb."

"For what purpose?" He didn't seem to understand my question. "In retaliation?" I asked.

"Why not?"

"Or first strike?"

"Why not?"

I looked for a sign of irony. None was visible. Rocking his head side to side, his expression becoming more and more withdrawn, Aman launched into a monologue that neither of us, I am sure, knew was coming:

"We should fire at them and take out a few of their cities—Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta," he said. "They should fire back and take Karachi and Lahore. Kill off a hundred or two hundred million people. They should fire at us and it would all be over. They have acted so badly toward us; they have been so mean. We should teach them a lesson. It would teach all of us a lesson. There is no future here, and we need to start over. So many people think this. Have you been to the villages of Pakistan, the interior? There is nothing but dire poverty and pain. The children have no education; there is nothing to look forward to. Go into the villages, see the poverty. There is no drinking water. Small children without shoes walk miles for a drink of water. I go to the villages and I want to cry. My children have no future. None of the children of Pakistan have a future. We are surrounded by nothing but war and suffering. Millions should die away."

"Pakistan should fire pre-emptively?" I asked.

Aman nodded.

"And you are willing to see your children die?"

"Tens of thousands of people are dying in Kashmir, and the only superpower says nothing," Aman said. "America has sided with India because it has interests there." He told me he was willing to see his children be killed. He repeated that they didn't have any future—his children or any other children.

I asked him if he thought he was alone in his thoughts, and Aman made it clear to me that he was not.

"Believe me," he went on, "If I were in charge, I would have already done it."

Aman stopped, as though he'd stunned even himself. Then he added, with quiet forcefulness, "Before I die, I hope I should see it."


This article available online at:

Magazine - A Modest Proposal From the Brigadier - The Atlantic
 
he's a military person and he made an assesment......one that isn't too far off the mark

just because he suggested what Pakistan could do, doesnt mean Pakistan would carry forward on that....the goras just get over-excited and emotional over such sensationalist things and cause a ruckus over nothing

how many times did indian generals and ''thinktanks'' talk about wiping Pakistan out as well?


it was vajpayee who taunted Pakistan when india was first to provoke the nuclear arms race (something Pakistan responded to effectively only as a last resort)
 
A shorter excerpt -

I looked for a sign of irony. None was visible. Rocking his head side to side, his expression becoming more and more withdrawn, Aman launched into a monologue that neither of us, I am sure, knew was coming:

"We should fire at them and take out a few of their cities—Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta," he said. "They should fire back and take Karachi and Lahore. Kill off a hundred or two hundred million people. They should fire at us and it would all be over. They have acted so badly toward us; they have been so mean. We should teach them a lesson. It would teach all of us a lesson. There is no future here, and we need to start over. So many people think this. Have you been to the villages of Pakistan, the interior? There is nothing but dire poverty and pain. The children have no education; there is nothing to look forward to. Go into the villages, see the poverty. There is no drinking water. Small children without shoes walk miles for a drink of water. I go to the villages and I want to cry. My children have no future. None of the children of Pakistan have a future. We are surrounded by nothing but war and suffering. Millions should die away."

"Pakistan should fire pre-emptively?" I asked.

Aman nodded.

"And you are willing to see your children die?"

"Tens of thousands of people are dying in Kashmir, and the only superpower says nothing," Aman said. "America has sided with India because it has interests there." He told me he was willing to see his children be killed. He repeated that they didn't have any future—his children or any other children.

A Modest Proposal From the Brigadier - Magazine - The Atlantic
 
There is no future here, and we need to start over. So many people think this. Have you been to the villages of Pakistan, the interior? There is nothing but dire poverty and pain. The children have no education; there is nothing to look forward to. Go into the villages, see the poverty. There is no drinking water. Small children without shoes walk miles for a drink of water. I go to the villages and I want to cry. My children have no future. None of the children of Pakistan have a future. We are surrounded by nothing but war and suffering. Millions should die away."

Has the situation improved now especially after War on Terror. If many Pakistani want to start over, it could also be done without having to resort to this Nuclear Genocidal dreams.

Perhaps the Problem with Pakistan is this feeling of "nothing to look forward to". That's probably the reason why People like Zaid Hamid are proposing Takmeel e Pakistan is ghazwa e hind etc.,
Even Peaceful Pakistanis think Ghazwa e Hind will happen, but by Islamisation of India or something similar to that(which is again cultural genocide).

Pakistan needs something to look forward to but it should not be related to India., That would solve the problem, I guess.
 
Indian media seems determined to kill the Indians without a Mushroom Cloud. :rofl:



I laughed my head off at this comedy show. It is a comedy programme right? I mean who would present a serious subject such as the nuclear anihilation in the garbage tones this show did, from the music to the pictures of the bombs that looked like eggs on winglets to the over dramatised productions and the reporters were really funny. Pemamro bums. LOL. classic. Is everyhting in India Bollywooded?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom