NWFP Demonstrators Fury against No Response from Army

You are missing a point. Hypocrisy is not the only issue. Religious superiority is a big culprit in this picture. It`s very difficult for many staunch believers to imagine that they can have bad people among them. Sometime back, a learned speaker kept on refuting the concept of bad muslims. He was adamant that those who take lives of others cannot be muslims. Keeping the holy sermon in mind, we are only gifted with good muslims. The bad ones must be sent by a cultured neigbour :)

Re: # 256

``It`s very difficult for many staunch believers to imagine that they can have bad people among them. ``

depends on the definition of bad people. for many muslims jihad is a good purpose. hence OBL is suported by so many.

``He was adamant that those who take lives of others cannot be muslims. ``

he is too detached from the reality. this is the hypocrsiy i was talking about. isn`t he aware of the world affairs or he has shut himself from anything bad in his religion.

people should first accept the problem only then the solution can be searched.
if the spiritual head himself is blind then what is going to happen to the people who follow him?

#250 by harish_hyd
“Then why are Pakis complaining when they are singled out for a strip search whenever they land at a western airport? Don`t you think they deserve it?”

Pakistani and Indians both come from the same stock…Whining is part of the culture. They deserve it and I think most of them should be strip searched every time they board a flight especially under their untrimmed beard, and particularly, when I am on that flight.

#238 by HP

[Everyone gets what they deserve. That’s life. Live with it or find some other pastime.]

Then why are Pakis complaining when they are singled out for a strip search whenever they land at a western airport? Don`t you think they deserve it?

Re: # 241

Arjun:

Why are you so rude? What is up with your way of addressing other interactors? Whenever someone has lame arguments he/she distracts the reader by being funny and rude. That`s how most of your posts are addressed to other interactors. No doubt you have difficulty in interacting with your neigbour and understanding their rationale.

Disappointed!

Friend: bari unFriendly post likhhy hai!! la hola wala!! ha! ha! Did the reference to monkey genes comment hit a tender spot??

#235 by shishapa

``One more suggestion, I think you should change your nick to tahmad64.
Whole world is moving on to 64 bit and you are stuck on 32? ``

Dear Shishpa
One explanation...
64 years is Shri Ahmed Sahib`s actual age. 32 years is what he wants everyone to believe. Why will he change his nick?

Another explanation
Have you heard about ``Tees maar khan``! Our Ahmek mian is ``buttees maar Khan``, not because he killed buttees flies. Because he got maar buttees time.

#244 HP, RSS talking point of not, as far as you get it, thats great ;-)
Part of `diplomacy` is pressuring the elite thru highlighting their sordid deads at various fora. there seems to be some effect on the elite .. an op-ed in WP gets attention in GHQ. this is low-cost and guess what, no bombs or shahids are needed!

this is the war of thousand paper-cuts LOL

your ``whining`` about bangladesh liberation is duely noted.

#243 by prophet tahmed(peace be unto his self-righteous left butt cheek) on October 19, 2005 1:00pm PT


I thought you were ignoring me...

#240 by Netizen

Neti,
I know what is going on in Kashmir and around it. My post was in response to Jang following on the RSS talking points memo ala Sadna; though ordinarily he is a very reasonable person:)


“also, having armed maoist struggle within india doesn`t give pak license to sponsor jihad across kashmir.” –Netizen

You are not making a reasonable argument here and my response again would be that Pakistan does not need a license from India as there is a de facto conflict already on between India and Pakistan and that’s been going on for the last sixty years. For crying out loud, for a long time they did not even have diplomatic relations. You don’t need a license from the enemy to attack the enemy. It is a matter of opportunity…if India gets the opportunity like it did in Bangladesh, it will act on it. And if Pakistan creates an opportunity like they did in Kashmir, they will act on it. This is a dog fight whether you like it or not.

Now how do you deal with? Really only three ways.

1. You take out the enemy completely, (attack Pakistan)
2. You fight the proxy and war of attrition for as long as you can, (continue with the thousand cuts)or
3. You sit down, take a timeout and discuss the issue with the enemy.( like its being done now)

None of these three options recommend crying and whining. You deal with the situation. You can attack Pakistan, failing that you get ready to talk and that is what is happening now. Whiners are not going to change a thing.

Militant armed struggles in India are common and there are other areas in India where that is happening. So the armed struggle in Kashmir should not surprise anyone. Pakistan support to it is also there you got deal with it.

“if pak still things that jihadis are the way to the future, then good luck to pak.”

If this does bother you, then there are many things India can do here. You find a way to influence Pakistan’s internal politics. There is nothing wrong with that and many countries do that. It is an acceptable international diplomatic course of action.

Re: # 244

Yes you are right that it was/is a proxy war.
india initially tried to label pak as terrorist nation but now realises that geopolitical realities are quite different. india has foolishly tried to get help from other nations to dissuade pak but now realises that each own has his own axe to grind.
at the same time pak can`t do much either rather than support jihadis who kill 30-40 poeple every month. kargil demonstrated the world opinion about the sanctity of LoC.
india will contuinue with this route, it will hold on to kashmir and simultanouly encourage peoples participation in decision making in kashmir while concentrating on its own economy and military strength. thats why india wants to engage pak in other spheres of activities like trade, cultural exchange so that it would have an adverse effect on jihadi mindset. but time and again pak comes back to the samw old kashmir issue.

but what wonders me is, recently pakis are talking about jihadis in their midst, especially after 9/11 and british bombings. weren`t these people around since 1990`s? wasn`t that mindset/culture encouraged to liberate kashmir?

pinching india with the jihadi needle and expecting to have a freindly relationship won`t last long. hence i fear that these talks are going to collapse and we will be back at each others throat.

arjun #242 you forgot to add ``paki! paki! paki! hoooo! hooo! hooo!`` at the end of your message. Trying to get over your monkey genes, i see.

I think the Indian expat community in the US and the Indian diplomats worldwide need to keep following the basic rule...stay on message...

pakistan...terrorism..pakistan..jihad..pakistan...osama..pakistan..A.Q.Khan..

Trust me...it`s working better than you know it...

Diplomatic faux pas?



By Andleeb Abbas



General Pervez Musharraf may come across as a flamboyant
media-savvy person, but at the recent UN summit, Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh won himself more trust in the eyes of the world than his
Pakistani counterpart



Is the honeymoon over? This is the burning question troubling most
minds after the Musharraf-Manmohan Singh meeting at the UN summit. A
meeting which was supposed to make active progress in settling
disputes, ended on a limp note with both parties making the usual
ramblings of more of it next time.



The recent hardline statements and postures by Pakistan and India
have an uncomfortable twist to them. The Indian prime minister’s claims
in his speech that cross border militancy has not stopped, Musharraf’s
attempt to restore relations with Israel ending in Palestinian
retaliation, and of course those disastrous remarks by the president on
women using rape as an excuse for moving to Canada resulting in the
Canadian prime minister’s objections — all these faux pas at the UN
summit have left a sour political taste making many people wondering as
to what is the political future of this country.




This Musharraf-Singh meeting had already been adversely affected by
the sentencing of Sarabjit Singh for carrying out a series of bomb
blasts in 1990 in Pakistan. The case had received wide publicity in
India and the government had come under tremendous political pressure
to intervene. Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh met Pakistan’s high
commissioner in Delhi, and asked for Singh to be pardoned on
humanitarian grounds. However, Pakistan did not relent causing a
hardening of stances at the UN summit.



That is how it goes in this strange world. For some it is a time
for worries, apprehension, and consternation; for others it is a time
for rejoicing, revelling and celebration. In the former category come
Pakistan and many other Muslim countries, while in the latter cadre
come India and many other US blessed countries. Such a contrast in
fortunes of Pakistan and India has rarely been witnessed before. India
already heralded as the second major economic force along with China,
managed to get confirmation from the US for its total support, nuclear
or economic, while Pakistan already suffering from an image of
instability, got a confirmation of being a terrorist hub post-London
blasts. All turns in history are preceded by conflicts all across the
world and the present conflict and its response in the West in the last
few weeks is perhaps an indicator of the new world order to follow.



A WAR OF WORDS: As Manmohan Singh made selected and pointed
remarks on Pakistan’s continuous support to terrorists, Musharraf’s
rather impulsive and elaborate rhetoric on rape victims angered many in
the US and within the country. It seems that unlike India’s clear and
clever foreign moves, Pakistan’s foreign policy is in a shambles.
The president’s meeting with the Iraqi president and the chance meeting
with Ariel Sharon at the UN summit along with his address to the Jewish
lobby, have not won Pakistan many friends in Iraq and Palestine.
Without a clear-cut strategy the president seemed to adopt the
typically chaotic stance of “we did, we said, but we did not really
mean it”, which, actually shows political immaturity. The president
completely lost his cool when at a press conference human right
activists questioned his comments on women exploiting rape to get
visas. Instead of using this meeting to promote Pakistan’s soft image,
it became an ugly bout of confrontations in which the president
actually said “I am a fighter, I will fight you and if you can shout I
will shout louder”. It became so bad that the president had to be led
away and counselled for a while to make him capable of controlling
himself, before being sent back to resume the meeting. Denials never
win you much credibility. After the summit it has been a constant line
of denials, of no trade with Israel, no offence to the NGOs and women,
and no problems with the relationship with India. This continuous
back-tracking of issues has become the hallmark of Pakistan’s foreign
policy and has put the government’s local and international credibility
at stake.



THE FRIENDLY ENEMIES: It all started with the glaring
contradiction in the treatment meted out to Indian and Pakistani prime
ministers on their visit to America a few weeks ago. The Indian Prime
Minister, Manmohan Singh not only got a rousing welcome in the US, but
got a lot more than what India may have hoped for; while the
Pakistani Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz had to call off his scheduled
visit to the US, as he probably would not have got the same protocol
and reception; just as well, as the contrast was striking and
delivering a very important message about the political inclinations of
the White House.



Manmohan Singh was invited to address the joint session of US
congress, an honour given to very few heads of state, and the response
to his speech showed how pro-India US policy-makers are. One must give
credit to Indian think-tanks who helped prepare the speech. It was a
master piece of shrewd diplomacy. All the right topics, phrases and
words were used. Buzzwords and phrases like ‘commitment to democracy’
are guaranteed applause-bait, and they did not disappoint. References
to initiatives jointly agreed on between President George W Bush and
Prime Minister Singh, too, invited and got applause; as did a reference
to the achievements of the Indian American community. References to the
need for a hard line on terrorism, without sacrificing the openness
that characterizes democracies of the US and India, were similarly
guaranteed to go down well with the assembled law-makers of both
houses. They did.




The cleverly worded and articulated part of the speech was the one
referring to the US and India as natural partners. “Partnerships can be
of two kinds,” Manmohan Singh told the eager congress. “There are
partnerships based on principle, and partnerships based on pragmatism.
I believe we are at a juncture where we can embark on a partnership
that can draw both on principle as well as pragmatism.”



The speech was the classic case of killing two birds with one
stone. He not only marketed India as a model of democracy and economic
progress, but also subtly highlighted Pakistan’s lack of democracy and
inability to handle and curb terrorism. Of course, nothing binds
countries together more than common enemies and shared interests. Thus,
the Assistant Secretary of State, Christina Rocca’s insistence of
complete restoration of democracy in Pakistan on her recent visit is
almost predictable.



MUTUAL REWARDS: The “too close for comfort” US-India relations on
display during last month’s visit to Washington by India’s Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh, thus, is a result of a well-planned strategic
statecraft. India is a rising power in Asia, a democracy integrating
into the global economy, a foe of terrorist fanatics, and a potential
counterweight to China. Thus the reward for such multi-benefits was
that Bush agreed to sell to India desperately needed nuclear fuel for
the US-built civilian reactors in Tarapur and to provide components for
such reactors.



Though India agreed on placing its civilian nuclear reactors under
International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, prolonging its
moratorium on nuclear weapons tests, accepting guidelines of the
International Nuclear Suppliers’ Group that ban the proliferation of
fissile material, and adhering to the Missile Technology Control
Regime, these compliances are still not enough. India is still not
permitting full-scope IAEA safeguards for its military as well as
civilian facilities, nor has it agreed to curtail development of its
nuclear weapons and delivery systems. By allowing India to have the
advantages of being one of the acknowledged nuclear powers without
signing onto the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Bush passed India’s litmus
test — its price for permitting a true strategic partnership with
Washington. The West has hailed this as Bush’s recognition of the value
of such a partnership on the basis that it may be a reassuring sign
that he and his advisers are coming to understand that the United
States cannot move alone in the world. However, the message of Bush’s
nuclear deal with India to other countries that might be pondering a
pursuit of nuclear weapons could hardly be worse. They are being shown
that acquiring those ultimate terror weapons can be a steppingstone to
recognition as a major power and that, after a decent interlude, they
can expect to be pardoned for developing and testing those weapons. Why
are Pakistan, Iran and North Korea not given the same concessions? The
answer is simple. None of them present the economic might and political
advantages India has.



India is a huge market for US businesses and a convenient and capable outsourcing centre for their operational functions. GE
Chief Executive Jeff Immelt, one of the most influential businessman in
the US, a contributor to Bush’s presidential campaigns, had a coveted
seat at the president’s table during this announcement. For GE, one
of the largest and the only US-owned company still in the nuclear
business, it marked a possible turning point in a years-long push to
re-enter the Indian nuclear power market, which it was forced to leave
in 1974 when India conducted its first nuclear test. Immelt — who said
in May that “all conditions are right to invest in India” and predicted
that GE revenues from there could jump to $5 billion by 2010 — was not
the only American executive at the state dinner with a reason to court
Manmohan Singh. Bush also invited Lockheed Martin Corp. chief Bob
Stevens and Boeing Co.’s new chief executive, James McNerney. Bush
cleared the way in March for the two defence contractors to compete for
a potential $9 billion market selling combat planes to India. GE makes
jet engines for Lockheed and Boeing. Thus India is a very important
market for the gigantic defence industry of America.




According to a report, Condoleezza Rice also spoke to President
Musharraf and said that his reaction was “constructive” and “not overly
problematic”. Thus India gets away once again with concessions which
are openly violating the very principles on which the US has based its
peace and security treaties. While Pakistan can just moan and blame its
bad luck.



The Indian prime minister is definitely a smooth opportunist. In
order to cash upon the anti-British and American sentiments in the
Muslim world, and in particular in Pakistan, the Indian prime
minister highlighted two facts in his public speeches. One, that in the
recent survey on American image abroad, India turned out to be the
country with the highest favourable rating for America and its
policies, thus emphasizing that Americans were more popular in India
than in America itself, and secondly, the amazing statement he made
in which he categorically claimed that the British were the best
colonial rulers in the world despite admitting that the economy of the
subcontinent went to ruins under their rule. These statements at a
time, when both the US and the UK are desperate and hungry for support
for their rather tarnished international image, are definitely food
from manna for the two countries.



INBRED FRAGILITY: In times of crisis the true strength of a nation
emerges. For Pakistan it is really a time for taking tough decisions.
To take tough decisions you need tough leaders. The president and the
prime minister are under all sorts of pressures to take steps which may
or may not be in national and international interests. Very clear
commands from the British and American governments have come for a
ruthless hounding and extermination of any madressah, organization or
individual with the slightest of suspicion of being involved in any
form of anti-western intentions. In compliance to these commands, the
government has started the clean-up operation, which in turn, has
created a great deal of resentment and reaction in many national
circles who feel that the legitimate and clean madressahs are also
being hounded unnecessarily in this process. The decision to oust all
foreign students is simply ridiculous, as those who preach hatred, that
is, the teachers, are still there to make the usual mischief.



CONCLUSION: While India steadily plays the role of the peace
loving, purposeful emerging power, Pakistan struggles to establish any
definite international identity, thus the constant insecurity of being
economically abandoned and politically stranded.



At the meeting at the UN, the Indian premier seems to have managed
to win the world by his crafty diplomacy. On the other hand, the belief
in style over substance, as far as saying and doing is concerned, is
the undoing of the present government. President Musharraf may have
developed an impressive rhetoric and may come across as a flamboyant
media-savvy person, he still lacks the ability to put action into
words. His constant chant of enlightened moderation has been quoted
over various media across the world, but his dithering over controlling
immoderate elements, and his indiscreet comments about the NGOs has
decreased his credibility. In contrast the Indian prime minister
comes across as a-man-of-few-words leader, but his belief in action
speaking louder than words has won him more trust than his Pakistani
counterpart. The self-reliance policy of India and a higher focus on
education and skill development has paid off, as today India is
recognized as a power to be. In contrast, relying on external aid, both
political and economic, and the lack of focus on education and skill
development, have led to Pakistan being viewed as a powerless and
vulnerable state, which can be exploited and manipulated for vested and
western interests. As the saying goes: “The fault, dear friend, does not lie within our stars, but within ourselves.”

#238 by HP on October 19, 2005 9:22am PT

Mullah HP...most Indians couldnt` care less about Paki-Kashmir...OTOH, most Pakis really really want Indian Kashmir and it really burns them up that their one-muslim-equals-10-hindus army hasn`t been able to do squat about it...

shishapa: i think even 32-bit is an overkill on chowk. hell, my 16-bit apple computer from the early 80`s could have written smarter posts than the ones seen from indian posters on this board (e.g.).

:-)

#229 by jang

“Mr HP has started his abusive language..normally he reserves it for Sadna, and AlephNull, now arjun had joined the elite company ;)”

“Always start your mornings with a few snarky smoothies...”-Jay Leno

Everyone gets what they deserve. That’s life. Live with it or find some other pastime. President Bush calls Karl Rove turd blossom you think he is abusing him? It is a term of endearment in the US Whitehouse. Live with it and stop complaining.

“One gets a feeling that pre 9/11 the elites were having a sense of satisfaction at the war of thousand cuts.”

The sense of entitlement just keeps growing in India (puking). Pakistan and India are at each other for the last 60 years, it is not the Pakistan elite alone, the Indian political elite like it that way too. You expect Pakistan to worship India at the altar of the Birla Mandir in Delhi? If Pakistan has an aggressive policy you respond to it instead of crying all over the place. Attack Pakistan. What stops you?

At different times one sees 3 or 4 armed struggles in India from Maoist to the people in AP. Who is supporting them? Are they Hindu Jihadi? A country, as big and as dirt poor as India, needs to live with the reality that there are going to be some militant groups. Kashmir is unique. India has a dispute over it with another country and that country supports militants.

Either you deal with it internally or duke it out with another country. But the Indian approach seems to be crying all over the place. Cry, cry and cry baby cry. If you can’t deal with Pakistan physically, you talk to them and that’s what India is doing now.

India is not the only country that is being poked by a neighboring country.
Holy cow! Wasn’t India supporting Tibet before India got shown by China? Why can’t you do the same to Pakistan… but no… you just have to cry! Losers... Numbnuts!
Stand up and deal with the problem!

Turd Blossom, You don`t deserve more than one post...