The worst part was that after the shots they heard those laughs of joy at the other end after the killings were over at the Oberoi
That those who committed these acts and their backers seem to get spiritual sustenance from the act of murdering civilians and tourists speaks volumes.
__________________
The views expressed herein are mine, entirely mine, and only mine. Go get your own.
If you look at it from the point of responsibility, no other country, but Pakistan has been in the habit of consistently using terrorism as its foreign policy and then denying it.
I'm sorry, but I have to say this: You keep repeating this Big Lie over and over and over, and you can repeat it 1,000 times more and it will still be false when you are finished. No elected Pakistani president or leader has supported the use of terrorism as foreign policy, and you discredit yourself to the extent that you continue to claim that this is so.
But given your unconditional support of India, I fully expect it to continue. Please don't disappoint me. I dislike surprises.
__________________
The views expressed herein are mine, entirely mine, and only mine. Go get your own.
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonplz
you mean, "Pakistani mercenaries fighting on behalf of the cause of a vote on the question of muslim majority Kashmir's status". Likely he hasn't read the transcripts (as I just did).
That they were mercenaries is correct. But it's foolish to think they were fighting on behalf of Muslim Majority of Kashmir. Muslim majority just voted for a party that has supported Kashmir's accession to India all along.
Unless you support terrorism and see Mumbai bombings as an act of freedom loving people there is no point in talking about Kashmir in the same breath as this attack.
BTW do you know there are large portions of Kashmir, viz, Jammu and Laddakh where Muslims are in a minority. I firmly reject creating states based on religion. It hasn't. Look what happened to East Pakistan. Look What's happening in Israel/Palestine.
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
If you are talking about the double standards of the nuclear states, I agree with you. Why should the U.S. Russia and China be excluded?
They shouldn't. I was just cribbing together a list in haste, but yes, I agree that the world should be free of nuclear weapons entirely, including the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaatri
Gosh Kashmir never was Pakistani territory.
But it was always muslim majority and always had Islamic fundamentalist elements, and yet India continues to seek to illegally annex the territory for strategic reasons.
__________________
The views expressed herein are mine, entirely mine, and only mine. Go get your own.
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonplz
I'm sorry, but I have to say this: You keep repeating this Big Lie over and over and over, and you can repeat it 1,000 times more and it will still be false when you are finished. No elected Pakistani president or leader has supported the use of terrorism as foreign policy, and you discredit yourself to the extent that you continue to claim that this is so.
But given your unconditional support of India, I fully expect it to continue. Please don't disappoint me. I dislike surprises.
If you insist that I cite only elected leaders of Pakistan, we will be missing quite a few Pakistani leaders who used terrorism against India as an instrument of foreign policy. Don't forget that Pakistan has NOT had an elected government during the most of its existence. However, I will try.
Musharraf, he was called an elected leader by our great leader of democracy, President Bush, supported terrorism in India, until he decided to pretend that he was going to fight them. There are indications that he did manage in resisting them after he was bullied by the U.S. Nawaz Sharif supported terrorists. Benazir Bhutto did. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was the masterminf behind Operation Gibralter, whichsent hundreds of infiltrators into India that led to the 1965 war. Granted that Operation Gibralter was more a tactical act than pure terrorism, it was one in a series of tactics used by elected leaders of Pakistan in which the Govt of Pakistan actively supported those whom Condi Rice calls non-state actors. The very first war in Kashmir was fought when a group of "non state" actors led by regulars from the Pakistani army went into Kashmir, which led to the Maharajah of Kashmir into signing the instrument if accession. Had Pakistan not done that, Kashmir would still be an independent state.
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
Musharraf, ... supported terrorism in India.... Nawaz Sharif supported terrorists. Benazir Bhutto did.
Okay, so this is your opinion.
My opinion is that neither Sharif nor Bhutto supported terrorism in India. Musharraf, I'm not sure. Sharif was pro-business, and business does not thrive where instability grows and so it's difficult to believe that someone like Sharif would have supported terrorism.
Is this the sort of murky charge ("supports terrorism") which fits those who promote, say, involuntary vasectomies, or limiting families to one child?
__________________
The views expressed herein are mine, entirely mine, and only mine. Go get your own.
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonplz
But it was always muslim majority and always had Islamic fundamentalist elements, and yet India continues to seek to illegally annex the territory for strategic reasons.
Muslim majority on which scale? Every city and every village in India has Muslims and Hindus. And even in Muslim majority cities, there will be sections with Hindu majority and vice versa. I expect a person like you to not use "tired" ruses. The Princely state was called Jammu & Kashmir. It has three major areas. Jammu, which is mostly Hindu, Kashmir, which has an overall Muslim majority, and Laddakh which has Buddhist majority. You know, it's not all about Muslims alone.
You are really misinformed. You should fire your sources. Kashmir's accession was not illegally. I will brielfy present to you the facts
1. Pakistan tried to annex Kashmir by force in 1948.
2. Kashmir, asked India for help.
3. The Maharajah of Kashmir, upon advice of his Muslim Prime Minister, Sheikh Abdullah signed the instrument of accession to India. Sheikh Abdullah was the leader and founder of Muslim Conference, later named National Conference, whose leader is now the Chief Minister of Kashmir.
4. Later on, the legally elected State Assembly of Kashmir ratified the accession to India. Case closed.
The problem is that Pakistani leaders don't seem to know how political and democratic processes work. They have always resorted to use military and extra-political means to try to get what they want, whether it's Kashmir or power within Pakistan. That's the history of Pakistan.
They have made political overtures in the past, such as the Simla Agreement between Bhutto and Gandhi and the agreement between Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee in which they declare that they will resolve all any dispute politically through bilateral negotiations. But they have always been overtaken by sacking of the civillian Govt by Army. Gen. Zia-ul-Haq got rid of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Gen Mushrraf got rid of Nawaz Sharif.
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
He and Benazir Bhutto were the architects of insurgency in Kashmir fueled by Pakistan, by arming the Mujahideen with U.S. supplied arms and using the tactics that the ISI and the CIA had used successfully in Afghanistan against the Soviets. He was the the Director General of ISI during Benazir Bhutto's Government. Bhutto did regret using Some here seem to be unware that every civillian Govt in Pakistan serves under the pleasure of the Army and the ISI. Terrorism in Kashmir and India increased steadily begin ning in the late 1980's when Mujahideen and the resources they used were no longer occuppied with the Soviets.
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
But they have always been overtaken by sacking of the civillian Govt by Army. Gen. Zia-ul-Haq got rid of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Gen Mushrraf got rid of Nawaz Sharif.
If only we knew who got rid og Zia-ul-Haq!!! that's the $1M ( no $1B at today's rate) question?
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodo
You seem to be forgetting that :
1. China is closed by and like it or not India would like to be seen going head to head against either China and/or Russia ( though Putin may be in dire strait right now since the oligarchs are losing big on the financial mkt and the mafioso that protect them can be lured away - that's another story)
2. Believe it or not , look at the foreign policy of the US - go as far east boys (to expand its influence into the Russian, Chinese and Iranian backyards in Central Asia) - whether it is a Rep or Dem administration and India may be happy to facilitate that so that it can partake in the energy/resources plans that the US has for that part of the world.
Extremism or radicalism whether in-house or outsourced can be dealt with ( always with the help of dear Uncle) . What would happen if the nationalists like the BJP do get power- like it or not - there are rogue Indian politicos ? or God forbids someone like Modi
The rightwing nationalists still believe in Hindustan Motherland and some go back as far as the Mahabharata - You are more knowledgeable on the history of India than the neophyte yours truly but, HISTORY has taught us that there is always a group of human beings who wants " a pure ethnic nation" or motherland. You may not believe it , but we have read about it, our parents have lived or experienced it , we are seeing it these days and our kids may experience it or live it in the future. That's the nature of the beast.
All true, but a little out of context. What I am most worried about is India being seduced to become a U.S. stooge as Pakistan has been. The game of keeping an eye on Russia, Central Asia and China from Kashmir and Afghanistan is so 19th, nay, 20th century. India and China are not likley to be in an armed conflict. India might want to keep an eye on China and Russia but is still not in the bigboy league to play big boys' games. I am sure India would like to expand its influence in Central Asia, for resources, as well as for greater security as Indian history tells us that all foreign (Muslim) invaders had a great deal of support from Central Asia. Good relations with Central Asian republics will help neutralise Islamic extremism, which is only likley to grow if Pakistan's influence grows there.
India will NOT give up the part of Kashmir under its control. Neither will Pakistan. Indian leaders are well aware of that and are not opposed to making the LoC the international border, although they might not give teir cards away until Pakistan is ready to sit down and talk about this seriously.
There are Hindu fanattics, as we have seen even here on OMNI, but they do not wield, not even under BJP rule, the same kind of power in India as the fanatics do in Pakistan. But there is a definite danger that more Hindus will become radicalised if Pakistan supported terrorism is not checked. You are right that there is always a group or groups of people who want a pure motherland. But their numbers are not large. Dreams of democracy in Pakistan are far less likely to be realised than the n nightmare of a Hindu motherland.
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
There are Hindu fanattics, as we have seen even here on OMNI, but they do not wield, not even under BJP rule, the same kind of power in India as the fanatics do in Pakistan. But there is a definite danger that more Hindus will become radicalised if Pakistan supported terrorism is not checked. You are right that there is always a group or groups of people who want a pure motherland. But their numbers are not large. Dreams of democracy in Pakistan are far less likely to be realised than the n nightmare of a Hindu motherland.
Well money changes people and some people are getting rich and even very rich in India and that's when the "nationalistic endeavours" kick in. We don't have to go far to see some examples. Can't say it won't happen ... the gap between these powerful people and those trying to survive is getting bigger and even in a democratic country , things can change.
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonplz
Okay, so this is your opinion.
My opinion is that neither Sharif nor Bhutto supported terrorism in India. Musharraf, I'm not sure. Sharif was pro-business, and business does not thrive where instability grows and so it's difficult to believe that someone like Sharif would have supported terrorism.
Is this the sort of murky charge ("supports terrorism") which fits those who promote, say, involuntary vasectomies, or limiting families to one child?
Sharif was as pro-business and Bhutto was as pro-democracy as Bush is pro-buisness and democracy.
Let me ask you this. Do you think the latest Mumbai bombings is the first instance of a terrorist attack in India, outside of Kashmir, brought about by Pakistani elements? Oh I am sorry, let me backtrack a little. You probably don;t believe that any Pakistani is invloved in these attacks. Did you think, before Pakistan's admission of Kasab's nationality, that there was any Pakistani connection to Mmbai bombings of Nov. 26?
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
There are Hindu fanattics, as we have seen even here on OMNI, but they do not wield, not even under BJP rule, the same kind of power in India as the fanatics do in Pakistan. But there is a definite danger that more Hindus will become radicalised if Pakistan supported terrorism is not checked. You are right that there is always a group or groups of people who want a pure motherland. But their numbers are not large. Dreams of democracy in Pakistan are far less likely to be realised than the n nightmare of a Hindu motherland.
Okay, let's set aside our differences -
Where is THE MONEY COMING FROM? These terrorists are TRAINED to do what they do over periods of time. They need to eat. Clothe themselves. They need to buy tickets to travel. Etc. For what appears to be a virtual army of Islamic fundamentalists in the subcontinent, we are talking a lot of money.
WHERE IS THIS MONEY COMING FROM?
__________________
The views expressed herein are mine, entirely mine, and only mine. Go get your own.
Sharif was as pro-business and Bhutto was as pro-democracy as Bush is pro-buisness and democracy.
Let me ask you this. Do you think the latest Mumbai bombings is the first instance of a terrorist attack in India, outside of Kashmir, brought about by Pakistani elements? Oh I am sorry, let me backtrack a little. You probably don;t believe that any Pakistani is invloved in these attacks. Did you think, before Pakistan's admission of Kasab's nationality, that there was any Pakistani connection to Mmbai bombings of Nov. 26?
By conflating the fact that a violent criminal shares associations with states you dislike, I know you are not being deliberately dishonest - I know that.
But I have to point it out, that a nation populated by hundreds of millions of people is going to have violent criminals among them. Cain and Abel was a population of two, and look how many murderers they had.
So observing that a terrorist was Pakistani is little more useful, superficially, than observing that he had brown skin or had a penis. You'd have to demonstrate with facts that his actions were financed and/or endorsed by Pakistani authorities. You have not done that.
__________________
The views expressed herein are mine, entirely mine, and only mine. Go get your own.
Please don't disappoint me. I dislike surprises. 
