Mumbai Rocked by Seven Bomb Blasts

#449 by tahmed32

[And surely it cannot be that difficult to identify the link between Pakistan`s nuclear defense and terrorist actions in India. The link is there only if you deny Pakistan`s right to defend itself from being overrun by the Indian military. ]


In your opinion, what would India do after the Indian Military runs over Pakistan?

Because I keep hearing this on Chowk by supposedly intelligent people, I would like you to kindly elaborate on this.

What would India`s strategic goals be? What would she do AFTER (hypothetically, of course) running over Pakistan?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Like Israel`s has resolved for Nasrallah`s death India must also resolve for LeT Chief`s death through covert means........

Re: # 388

Hamidm Sahib:

What a negative thought, cheering up on deadly news..... may be Panini`s birth place is far from Karachi, and I might be able to visit. In that case I will certainly see your homeland too.

Anil

Re: # 415

Salim Sahib:

You painr a plausible scenario. El Salute for that. Why don`t you join Hamidm Mian and I for a scenario party...?

Anil

PewResearch: This is what you wrote The issue here is not just Pakistan`s right to defend to an unprovoked attack, but rather `grave provocation of a neighbor while exercising the right to defend by nuclear weapons I am not putting words in your mouth. What is this if not an assertion of India`s right to demand Pakistan let go of its nuclear defense.

And answer me this simple question: If the Indian government seriously believes that there is adequate ``grave provocation``, then why does it not take its case to the United Nations and demand the right to invade Pakistan? or even demand international pressure on Pakistan to let go its nuclear defense?? The answer is obvious - like I said in my previous post, because the Indian government knows that it has no case even though the pakistan-haters in India think. Even in 2003, the BJP government did not go to the UN, but simply tried to bully Pakistan (and received a ``fitting reply`` a second time, enough to convert even Advani into a jinnah fan!!). What dream world do you Indians live in anyway?

Even the US went to the United Nations before attacking Iraq!! And the Bush administration has received endless criticism from within the US and from its european allies among others for being too hasty in invading Iraq.

You write: Your adopted country, the US, has adopted a policy of pre-emptive strikes against those who harbor terrorists, therefore my policy is entirely consistent with the US-led global war on terror.

By your logic, the US should be launching a pre-emptive strike on India first. Because, unlike Pakistan, India has an elected state leader whom the US denied a visa on account of his terrorist activities. So, excuse me if I am less than impressed by your attempt to put on the US mantle.

And finally - for the last time since you seem to be having trouble understanding this despite repeated reminders: I couldnt care less for your opinion of me. What do I care if you think I am an evil mullah or a pious saint? If I express my solidarity with the mumbai victims - dont flatter yourself into thinking that it is because I have any interest in making indians on chowk happy.

Re: # 448,
If Hafiz Sayeed and his organization are blameless, then why were they banned. Isn`t there a disconnect.

Re: # 437

``If the Indian response is, what appears to be in the media then Indians should brace for a more aggressive militant actions in India.
After the militant blunder of going in to Bombay, the initiative rests with India and I hope they don’t lose it the way they always do. ``

HaramiP we know you have something to do with these blasts...........and I can tell you now YOU are going to get blasted in the next round. ISI masters like you are responsible for the hatred and violence that you have spread all across the world. You understimate the response..............you will get a taste of your own medicine..............

I think so India`s PM should make a declaration from Red Fort that all bets are off and India may after all use a nuke first. That should rattle up the dictator.

Let me add my signature text:

Sau Baat Ki Ek Baat: Islam`s days are numbered, crusades never really stopped. Chaahe Kitna Bhi Discussion Kurr Lau... Islam is going

re#461
A very coherent, intelligently written and accurate commentary. However, it is not surprising that you did not make any impact on the hyocrisy, and perversion of the closet mullah32 :-)))

Re: # 463 Tahmed
Again, no, you are placing words in mouth, but, my definition of opposing terrorism calls for not promoting terrorism while hiding behind a nuclear shield, something that Pakistan does and you support. Your adopted country, the US, has adopted a policy of pre-emptive strikes against those who harbor terrorists, therefore my policy is entirely consistent with the US-led global war on terror. You have a problem with that since you are unwilling to forgo the export of terror. This is what Condoleeza Rice told the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004: `Al-Qaida was both client of and patron to the Taliban, which in turn was supported by Pakistan.`. As you know, Al Qaida is still active in Pakistan, Pakistan has WMD, Musharraf is equivocating on Al Qaeda (like you). So, do you support the US strategy (forget India) of pre-emptive strikes against those regimes that harbor terrorists and there is a risk of them obtaining WMD?

#461 So, your definition of ``opposing terrorism`` calls for accept it as India`s right to invade Pakistan!! By your definition, the entire world other than a few nuts in India is on the side of terrorism. Since no country in the world would give India the ``right`` that you are demanding of me.

Anyway, thanks for a civilized discussion. You have made your views crystal clear. And I dont share them. Have a nice day.

#454 re 1993 blasts..

bambaiyas consider these to be result of the riots after babri and therefore ``reasonable``. the recent bombings are considered as unprovoked and therfore different. IMO think the UPA govt is likely to change tack about peace-process in a substantial way and start making trouble for miltry govt in internatinal diplomacy arenas once again.

Re: # 458 Tahmed

No, it means that if your energies were overwhelmingly spent on calling for democratization in Pakistan rather than on expressing pride in Pakistani nukes on Chowk, then your protestations would be more believable (about peace, democracy, Islam, Koran, etc.). Right now, they are not.

I don`t think that we are on the same side on terrorism, since you have not yet rejected Pakistan`s policy of exporting terror from behind a nuclear shield. You accept the export of terror if the price to be paid is Pakistani renunciation of nuclear weapons. For you the shield is more important than witholding terror, and herein lies the difference. We are on different sides. I have no problem with Pakistani nukes as long as they are not used to advance a state policy of export of terror. For you, it is acceptable.

This is a digression, and therefore I won`t comment one way or the other about India`s `pure intentions` - the Bangladeshis can speak to that regarding an invading army, local elections and all that. My calling for democracy in Pakistan is a non-starter if educated elites like you cannot tell the difference between exporting terror and the use of nuclear shields to protect the terror infrastructure. Musharraf and his ISI won`t listen to me if they can seek comfort from the fact that his terror policy has implicit support from Pakistan`s elites.

And no, I never called for Pakistan to disarm (how did you infer that?). Buy all the nukes that you want. But also grow up and become a responsible member of the international community and join the world as a mature nation. This may be too much for Musharraf and your army, but I thought that I could at least expect an agreement from you on the condemnation of Pakistani strategy of exporting terror behind a nuclear shield.

BTW, your reference to `military superiority`, `Is India so pure and Pakistan so evil`, terms that I never used, but you introduced, remind me of Bernard Lewis` latest book in which he reflects upon the current state of middle east where `grievance and victimhood and an obsession with military victory` are the hallmarks of what went wrong. Are you so insecure that a dispassionate discussion has to be viewed through such a stark lens?

in #459, that should have been ``UN Resolutions``.

HE #452 That is indeed a heart-warming affirmation from you. And this makes four of us - t two pakistanis and two indians - who have affirmed our solidarity in opposing those behind the mumbai attacks. I am sure there are others who feel the same way and did not read what i had written.

HE #456 It is true that the Indian government ignored US resolutions calling for a plebiscite. However, that is water under the bridge. 50 years of fighting and hostility has achieved nothing. 50 more years will achieve even less. Far more important than the political rights of the kashmiris are the economic rights of the tens of millions of poor people in pakistan. Time to bury the hatchet and move on to more productive things.