What's new

Cameron's inflammatory comments against Pakistan: I meant Pakistanis are terrorists..

Here are a few links:

ISI used LeT for anti-India activities: UN report

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21658.pdf

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R40087.pdf

http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/65/PakistanReport.pdf

If you expect a kind of proof that links pakistan to majority of terror activities is in a form of a lollywood movie, then i am afraid that no such evidence exists!!:disagree:
Feel free to disagree.
I am posting few documents i found in the public domain.

lol, providing links of indian media propaganda articles or home made Pdf files are proof for you?
As said by SMC, you are clearly a teenage armchair expert.

Even I, myself can make much better pdf files then given by you.
 
Last edited:
And going by the history of pakistan's involvement in terror, these links might not be too old to be discarded.:cheers:
 
Here are a few links:

http://www.ndtv.com/news/world/isi-used-let-for-anti-india-activities-un-report-20112.php

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21658.pdf

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R40087.pdf

http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/65/PakistanReport.pdf

If you expect a kind of proof that links pakistan to majority of terror activities is in a form of a lollywood movie, then i am afraid that no such evidence exists!!:disagree:
Feel free to disagree.
I am posting few documents i found in the public domain.

do you know what proof means? please pull out a dictionary look it up then come back.
 
May i know what is your definition of proof?
Proof presented in the form of a lollywood movie??:rofl::rofl::lol::lol:

Proof is something like what you call Kasab, or some phone conversations recorded, or some communications between terrorists captured, stuff like that. Some photographs showing ISI/army personnel meeting Taliban. Akin to what Indians ask us for proof for their involvement.

The UN report deals with old information, one of the other reports does not mention statement involvement, and the rest do not provide any proof.

Kid, let's just cut it out for you. You have little intellectual capability for these kinds of discussions and are in no position to discuss this. So it's for you to deal with things that more suit your age.
 
The UN report deals with old information, one of the other reports does not mention statement involvement, and the rest do not provide any proof.

And you think that the UN didn't considered those proofs before making such an accusation against an important country like pakistan??

And frankly speaking, do you really expect that top secret proofs are a thing to be posted in public domain??:disagree:

Think mate. Think.
 
By the way, it's quite pathetic some indians don't know what proof is and are asking it on here. Not knowing what proof is tells a lot about your intellectual capability, but more importantly, that you're not qualified to be taking up these discussions.

The examples of proof I gave above are obviously only a few examples. There's a lot more things that can qualify as proof.
 
And you think that the UN didn't considered those proofs before making such an accusation against an important country like pakistan??

The accusations are old (from the 80s and 90s) and are known to be true. I am talking about this day and age.

And frankly speaking, do you really expect that top secret proofs are a thing to be posted in public domain??:disagree:

Think mate. Think.

No, dude, no. Top secret proofs are never released to the public.
:disagree:
 
And the argument continues. Even if all the terrorist networks are traced back to Pakistan in one form or the other, it does not make Pakistan believe they are sitting in a mine field. AM, looks like I have stepped on a painful zone and you are close to banning me ... thanks for the warning but not sure if the same holds for people who support your opinion.

Anyways, everyone without an exception knows the security situation in Pak. Calling PM cameroon as a liar wont change ground realities.
:cheers:
 
And the argument continues. Even if all the terrorist networks are traced back to Pakistan in one form or the other, it does not make Pakistan believe they are sitting in a mine field. AM, looks like I have stepped on a painful zone and you are close to banning me ... thanks for the warning but not sure if the same holds for people who support your opinion.

Anyways, everyone without an exception knows the security situation in Pak. Calling PM cameroon as a liar wont change ground realities.
:cheers:

do you believe in sense checks?

lets take your argument at face value - suppose pakistan is exporting terrorism.

answer this, what on gods earth do they have to gain when the whole world is watching them? when the whole world is taking action against terrorism according to you pakistan stands firmly in favour of terrorism
at any stage does common sense kick in?

your thrust per-supposes pakistan is insistent on self destructing.

secondly, suppose pakistan is "sponsoring" terrorism, but there is no proof - why on earth should pakistan admit defeat something in which is not even proven?

does india accept complicity in destabilising pakistan based on hearsay? no

why should pakistan
 
Having asked three different [British] cabinet ministers in private for their views on India and Kashmir, not one of them was willing to tell me what they really thought.

They all remembered the awkward photographs and offence David Miliband the former foreign secretary caused on his previous visit to Kashmir - not to mention the slightly unedifying sight of Gordon Brown pronouncing from India on the racist row over Shilpa Shetty on Celebrity Big Brother.

Add to that the irritation in some quarters that Mr Cameron described the UK as America's "junior partner" last week, and his slip over the history of when America joined the Second World War and perhaps it is worth asking just what is going on?

Is this David Cameron finding his feet on the world stage, not quite yet firmly planted in the niceties of foreign affairs?

Is it the stubborn habits of opposition, when what you say to capture attention arguably matters more than what you do?

Or are these errors brought on by exhaustion from the extraordinarily intense and punishing six months of British politics that he has just been through?

Perhaps it is a little of all of the above, but maybe something else too.

David Cameron often pitches himself as a realist, a pragmatic politician more interested in solving problems than being hitched to ideology.

BBC News - Candid Cameron ruffles diplomatic feathers
 
do you believe in sense checks?

lets take your argument at face value - suppose pakistan is exporting terrorism.

answer this, what on gods earth do they have to gain when the whole world is watching them? when the whole world is taking action against terrorism according to you pakistan stands firmly in favour of terrorism
at any stage does common sense kick in?

your thrust per-supposes pakistan is insistent on self destructing.

secondly, suppose pakistan is "sponsoring" terrorism, but there is no proof - why on earth should pakistan admit defeat something in which is not even proven?

does india accept complicity in destabilising pakistan based on hearsay? no

why should pakistan


Thanks for posing genuine questions and I believe I know some reasons if not all.

India is a major foreign policy challenge for Pakistan. From its birth the importance of Army in Pakistan affairs is heightened due to perceived animosity with India. Any geo political scenario with little or no friction with India will make Army not an important player. The army with the intelligence agency in Pakistan have vested interest in keeping the flame burning. At no point I am saying that the Indian agencies are saints but I would like to emphasize that Indian influence can be stalled by a babu and same is not the case in Pakistan.
The struggle for Kashmir is something many Pakistanis identify with. Using non state actors was a policy some time back and this is well documented. However, now, it is not expected that such policies can be discussed openly. It could well be stalled and the civilian government does not want to use terror as a state policy. However, few security agencies over the period of time have built strong relations with extremists and consider them as assets. This is not healthy when the civilian and military sources diverge in the belief of policy in such dimensions.

Proof even if presented will not be acceptable on this forum. Lets not get to proof mode as no more proof than Mumbai is required. The revelations by David Headley in FBI custody shocked even the US.

BTW, India has not been provided even a dossier forget proof. The opportune moment for providing proof has not come yet.

:cheers:
 
do you believe in sense checks?

lets take your argument at face value - suppose pakistan is exporting terrorism.

answer this, what on gods earth do they have to gain when the whole world is watching them? when the whole world is taking action against terrorism according to you pakistan stands firmly in favour of terrorism
at any stage does common sense kick in?

your thrust per-supposes pakistan is insistent on self destructing.

secondly, suppose pakistan is "sponsoring" terrorism, but there is no proof - why on earth should pakistan admit defeat something in which is not even proven?

does india accept complicity in destabilising pakistan based on hearsay? no

why should pakistan

The bolded part itself has answer to your question....Pakistan strongly feels that India is causing trouble in Baloch....India Strongly feels that Pakistan is causing trouble in Kashmir and other parts(mumbai attacks etc)...So we are even out there.....

However what you are missing is the world community and their views on it....People outside India and Pakistan even if after being neutral have very contrasting views on Claims by Pak and India.....US is investigating ISI role in mumbai, they are not investigating RAW role in Baloch....Don't you think this one example speaks a lot about what world community thinks??? There is a strong perception in the world that your establishment(read ISI) is somewhere involved and i am sure you would agree that it is not India who has fed this perception....There has to some fire for the smoke, no???

Latest remarks by Cameroon also gives an inclination about what i infer...there are many such examples but bottom line is world community do not endorse your claim....They do not say openly about your establishment involvement as far as Indian claims is concerned but do not hesitate to call you as haven for terrorist and suspicion about factions involved....wikileaks again share the same opinion that there is lot of doubts about the sincerity of your establishment in dealing with so called GOOD and BAD terrorist....
 
Back
Top Bottom