Search results

Nah. It doesn't matter to India, one way or other, whether you accept or refuse US demands of going into N.Waziristan. However, what is working for you is not cold start doctrine, but the threat of talibankruptcy. I am not sure if breadcrumbs off the table qualifies as 'genuine concern'...

And what constitutes winning to you people? Loosing most and holding an insignificant part of land. :no:

Re:bold, I was under the impression that it was the other way round, that resources flowed from East to the West, and that sowed the seed of dissent. Anyway, what its good to see is that some Pakistanis are coming around to realise that there is more to human aspiration than an empty desire...

To me, this 'cold start' doctrine is probably India's most successful psyops against Pakistan. And, as Vassnti said, a perfect Loch Ness monster.

^^Just a quick addendum. The LoC is what has been defined as, and accepted by both India and Pakistan, and recognized by UN, in Karachi Agreement, 1949.

I guess, the part that says 'alter'. And also the part that says 'unilateral'.:pop:

:rofl: Analogy is not proof. It merely highlights a point. :lol: Read it here. While at it, learn the meaning and proper usage of the term 'red herring'. If anything, your quibble with my analogy qualifies as red herring.:lol: Until next time...

Hopefully this is a joke.

So you are back to square one. You started out with a critique of an analogy, forgetting that an analogy is meant to highlight a point and is not in itself a point of debate, then halfway through you realised that you really don't understand half the things being said here, and so, after 4/5...

He didn't have to. Any debate on TNT invariably encroaches upon the understanding of what constitutes a 'nation', which in turn depends upon the understanding of who constitute the 'peoples'. As usual, wrong. PS: Its getting a tad boring.

You have assumed wrong, quite predictably. If you had any clue to what I'm saying you obviously wouldn't have jumped into this trying to fault that analogy. And yes, 'peoples' is very much a word. I know google wouldn't help you much with this unless you know what to look for. And no, I'm not...

The very point of the analogy is to drive home the point that peoples can't be defined in terms of a single identity marker, e.g. religion. It is as absurd as expecting pigs to grow wings and fly away. PS: I have a feeling that you didn't quite grasp the meaning of peoples.

Proved me wrong? When? Where?

You haven't provided any fact to deny. It was merely an opinion with which I disagreed. You however avoided to take up the points of disagreement. Any special reason?

That requires a priori assumption that Siachen was part of Pakistan, i.e. fell on Pakistani side of LoC. There is nothing in Karachi Agreement 1949 that conclusively proves that assumption. That aside, India's take over of Siachen was in response to Pakistan's preparation to do the same...

I seriously doubt if Mr Noorani had indeed said anything like that. Even if we assume he had indeed said this, it is strange that he had access to both Chinese and Pakistani archives. To the best of my knowledge, he can't speak, read or write Chinese. In any case, he got the Article number...

Seriously? Thats what you got from my post? That I am agreeing that there is a difference between those who attack Indian forces and those who attack civilians.

Nope. Thats not how it works. A resolution is first sponsored (means proposed), debated at UN meetings (if not vetoed), and then passed or rejected through votes. India and Pakistan didn't accept many such resolutions, but that still didn't stop those resolutions from being passed. So...

We can tango only if the stage is set. Have you even remotely attempted to set that stage? The onus is now on you, since its Pakistan, who is getting impatient to hold a plebiscite. So show your sincerity and push for a fresh resolution for plebiscite. If India doesn't agree it will be...

What is stopping Pakistan from pushing for fresh resolutions at UN, instead of sticking with the old ones?