Pakistan denies India land transit route to Afghanistan

[ramu]

Hypocrisy and double standards galore..

Crying about Pakistan blaming India without proof yet..

Not the first time.

SM Krishna if front of the Pakistan media and your FM described the increase in infiltration by 40%. Clearly they are not coming out of thin air?

To this your FM replied by saying that the intelligence agency do not use infiltration as a policy but the problem is if Pakistan cannot stop its state/ non state actors from infiltration, it is still failing to keep with the promise of not letting its soil being used for activities against its neighbour.

 

[SMC]

I'd like to see an article on video on that to be sure that you're not twisting the words, but even given that - read your words again. You're accusing the Pakistani state of doing something. What you just posted shows anything but that.

 

[ramu]

indians are cheeky people indeed

have they offered pakistan a quid pro quo vis a vis a pakistan supply route into bangladesh and other countries?

so why should pakistan even consider the even more lucrative central asia route?

Before India gives transit to Pakistan, India should get it right ? India and Bangladesh are yet to resolve the transit related differences. India and Bangladesh have quite recently come to an understanding and it is not at the stage of implementation yet.

The Pioneer > Online Edition : >> Hasina?s visit and after

Pakistan has not formally approached India for transit till date to Bangladesh.

 

[ramu]

I'd like to see an article on video on that to be sure that you're not twisting the words, but even given that - read your words again. You're accusing the Pakistani state of doing something. What you just posted shows anything but that.

State or non state actors. It is a problem for India. Illegal entry or exit from India or Pakistan should be a problem for both countries and the attitude of giving cover fire from Pakistan Army does not help diplomatic relations.

You asked for a video, here it is:

Indo-Pak talks: After 6-hr-long meeting, public differences

 

[Rafael]

To whom so ever It may concern:

This is our land, our Govt., Our Policy, and our neighbourhood!! We'll do whatever we think is beneficial for our country!!! No need to poke your noses in our "internal matters". Period!

 

[SMC]

State or non state actors. It is a problem for India. Illegal entry or exit from India or Pakistan should be a problem for both countries and the attitude of giving cover fire from Pakistan Army does not help diplomatic relations.

You asked for a video, here it is:

Indo-Pak talks: After 6-hr-long meeting, public differences

Ok so in the video the only thing he says about infiltration is that it is not state policy and not the additional stuff that you have added.

So here's the whole thing in summary.

1. You accuse the Pakistani state of infiltration without proof.
2. The Indian state says that infiltration has increased without proof.
3. Only thing Qureshi mentioned was that the Pakistani state is not doing infiltration.

Now you mentioned above that it is irrelevant whether the infiltration is being done by the state or not by the state. It obviously does matter since you're accusing the Pakistani state of supporting infiltration.

 

[ramu]

Ok so in the video the only thing he says about infiltration is that it is not state policy and not the additional stuff that you have added.

So here's the whole thing in summary.

1. You accuse the Pakistani state of infiltration without proof.
2. The Indian state says that infiltration has increased without proof.
3. Only thing Qureshi mentioned was that the Pakistani state is not doing infiltration.

Now you mentioned above that it is irrelevant whether the infiltration is being done by the state or not by the state. It obviously does matter since you're accusing the Pakistani state of supporting infiltration.

SMC,

We both know what we are speaking. Infiltration has increased by 40% as the number of attempts made for infiltration is the measure for increase. If you can't believe the figures, it is your problem. The only objection to this from your foreign ministry is that it is not due to state policy. Qureshi has not denied the infiltration but has sided that it is not the state that is supporting it. If what you said was the case, Qureshi should have refused to acknowledge Krishna's statement.

I am accusing the infiltration from Pakistani soil (state / non state has little difference to India given the latest revelation from David Headely ). Dont go round in circles.

The baseline is under the influence of external elements, the law and order in Kashmir has gone from bad to worse.

 

[ajtr]

The question is even if the land trade transit is given will india be intended to use it to fullest.With NATO supplylines are being attacked on daily basis in pakistan's wild wild west i dont think india will be using it.Trade transit is just another carrot like IPI to engage.

 

[SMC]

SMC,

We both know what we are speaking. Infiltration has increased by 40% as the number of attempts made for infiltration is the measure for increase. If you can't believe the figures, it is your problem. The only objection to this from your foreign ministry is that it is not due to state policy. Qureshi has not denied the infiltration but has sided that it is not the state that is supporting it. If what you said was the case, Qureshi should have refused to acknowledge Krishna's statement.

I am accusing the infiltration from Pakistani soil (state / non state has little difference to India given the latest revelation from David Headely ). Dont go round in circles.

The baseline is under the influence of external elements, the law and order in Kashmir has gone from bad to worse.

Quite convenient - if I can't believe the figures it's my problem. By the same token, if you can't believe Indian involvement in Pakistan then that's your problem. This kind of simplistic logic doesn't work in real life.

Secondly, as far as Qureshi denying or accepting anything goes, his government has very low approval and trust among the people since they have done many things that are against the interests of Pakistan. You can fool yourself into thinking that him not denying shows that the whole thing is black and white. It's certainly not the case.

As far as Headley goes, you may want to check the thread regarding it as there's nothing but the words of the Indian state to go on which doesn't mean much. At the end of the day, it does make a difference if you accuse the state or not.

 

[ramu]

Quite convenient - if I can't believe the figures it's my problem. By the same token, if you can't believe Indian involvement in Pakistan then that's your problem. This kind of simplistic logic doesn't work in real life.

Secondly, as far as Qureshi denying or accepting anything goes, his government has very low approval and trust among the people since they have done many things that are against the interests of Pakistan. You can fool yourself into thinking that him not denying shows that the whole thing is black and white. It's certainly not the case.

As far as Headley goes, you may want to check the thread regarding it as there's nothing but the words of the Indian state to go on which doesn't mean much. At the end of the day, it does make a difference if you accuse the state or not.

SMC, If you are the FM of your country and you did not believe what India has to say then the issue was different. Don't take it personally but you are not important enough.

 

[ramu]

Secondly, as far as Qureshi denying or accepting anything goes, his government has very low approval and trust among the people since they have done many things that are against the interests of Pakistan. You can fool yourself into thinking that him not denying shows that the whole thing is black and white. It's certainly not the case.

Then with whom should India negotiate. You are stopping short of saying your country is a banana republic.

On another thread you had stated that every intelligence agency in the world without distinction creates terrorist and ISI was no different. Do you want me to fish that thread for you ? Thanks for your honesty about ISI atleast.

 

[SMC]

SMC, If you are the FM of your country and you did not believe what India has to say then the issue was different. Don't take it personally but you are not important enough.

Same can be said about you, no? What we discuss here on forums literally makes no difference in what happens in real life yet we do it.

Then with whom should India negotiate. You are stopping short of saying your country is a banana republic.

On another thread you had stated that every intelligence agency in the world without distinction creates terrorist and ISI was no different. Do you want me to fish that thread for you ? Thanks for your honesty about ISI atleast.

Yeah sure, if that's how you want to look at it. The current government definitely makes the state a banana republic. Thankfully they only have limited control over the state.

As far as the thread you're talking about, I am sure I have said that. The problem is that you're doing cherry picking. I also said that RAW creates terrorists (Mukhti Bahini and LTTE are two well-proven examples) yet you seem to be ignoring that. Now I can pre-empt your reply to that and I have a pretty good idea of what of what you're about to say but I will let you say it just to be sure.

 

[ramu]

Same can be said about you, no? What we discuss here on forums literally makes no difference in what happens in real life yet we do it.



Yeah sure, if that's how you want to look at it. The current government definitely makes the state a banana republic. Thankfully they only have limited control over the state.

As far as the thread you're talking about, I am sure I have said that. The problem is that you're doing cherry picking. I also said that RAW creates terrorists (Mukhti Bahini and LTTE are two well-proven examples) yet you seem to be ignoring that. Now I can pre-empt your reply to that and I have a pretty good idea of what of what you're about to say but I will let you say it just to be sure.

Yes, but you have a slight problem. Not a shred of evidence is presented about Indian involvement in Baluchistan by your government.

 

[SMC]

Yes, but you have a slight problem. Not a shred of evidence is presented about Indian involvement in Baluchistan by your government.

That's exactly what I pre-empted.

The slight problem you have is that you guys have no evidence of ISI involvement as regarding to the accusations you've been making.

Now, yes, yes, I said that ISI (and all other intelligence agencies) creates freedom fighters/terrorists. The problem with that is since I am just a normal person and have no importance, what I said about ISI and other intelligence agencies holds no importance as well.

Secondly, I don't believe that ISI is involved in such and such based on proof but rather basic intuition and based on how the world works. Since you guys believe proof is of the utmost importance, you can't take my opinion seriously.

 

[into the wild]

pakistan is only paying back

As you sow so shall you reap