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

[GreenStar]

GreenStar, you have repeated this like a stuck tape recorder for 3 times. I said tory for lib dems. That makes it shameful in your perspective. Gr8... you are a genius. happy ?

well from your post you said clearly tory and conservatives.........I will repeat it everytime when you booast to others that you are more intellectual than them. My advice is take a chill pill.........I can see the frustration building up.........stress is bad for your body.

 

[ramu]

well from your post you said clearly tory and conservatives.........I will repeat it everytime when you booast to others that you are more intellectual than them. My advice is take a chill pill.........I can see the frustration building up.........stress is bad for your body.

Please do. Sounds like that makes you happy This gives a good indication of your mental state.


IQ and Global Inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For now, IQ is not the focus. The troubled Pak relations and the anxiety of condemnation from various quarters is biting Pakistan in the backside...

http://www.economist.com/node/16693723

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

so you are saying that the executive branch of the govt is not in sync with the legislative that passed that resolution?? And if I remember right, the resolution was tabled by the PM

It does not explain the variance in execution by the military against the intent the civilian government has advertised in its media briefings.

Since I am arguing the GoP is in control of military actions, the question of a variance in the public position of the GoP vs the cooperation on the ground is best addressed to the GoP - the variance in public vs private positions does not automatically indicate the military is acting on its own.

The GoP has good reason for this variance - it is able to gain US economic and military support through privately cooperating, and is able to minimize the domestic political fallout by denying it publicly.

 

[ramu]

Since I am arguing the GoP is in control of military actions, the question of a variance in the public position of the GoP vs the cooperation on the ground is best addressed to the GoP - the variance in public vs private positions does not automatically indicate the military is acting on its own.

The GoP has good reason for this variance - it is able to gain US economic and military support through privately cooperating, and is able to minimize the domestic political fallout by denying it publicly.

Here is an article from what most people in this forum believe as a reasonable source.

Pakistan has spent most of its 63-year history under military rule—General Pervez Musharraf quit only in 2008. The army remains the country’s dominant force, and many believe General Kayani’s extension is a blow to a fragile democracy. “This strengthens the institution that should be subservient to civilian authority,” says Imtiaz Gul, an analyst and author of “The Most Dangerous Place”, a book about Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The laconic General Kayani has mostly kept out of domestic politics, but he has left no doubt who is in charge. The armed forces have kept a tight grip on two crucial areas: security policy and the sensitive bits of foreign policy, which means relations with Afghanistan, America and India. Extending the general’s term will entrench his position.

Despite its robust action against the Pakistani Taliban, there is scant evidence that the Pakistani army has fundamentally changed its policy towards Afghan insurgents. Most believe that it has little reason now to turn on the Taliban and the Haqqani networks, given that the Afghan war seems to be reaching an end-game which could give the insurgents some measure of power. And many ordinary Pakistanis much prefer the Taliban to Westerners. A survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project this week suggested that 65% of Pakistanis want American and NATO soldiers out of Afghanistan, and just 25% think it would be bad if the Taliban took over in Kabul.

America, Afghanistan and Pakistan: Kayani's gambit | The Economist

Your comments please...

 

[SMC]

^ Oh dear, same old rumours, hearsey, conspiracy theories.

"There is scant evidence.." Economist has to provide evidence that ISI is supporting Taliban. ISI does not have to provide evidence that it is supporting Taliban.

"Most believe.." yeah, beliefs are something that matter without evidence.

Btw, when did we consider The Economist as a good source? Anti-Pakistan material is rife on that website.

 

[ramu]

^ Oh dear, same old rumours, hearsey, conspiracy theories.

"There is scant evidence.." Economist has to provide evidence that ISI is supporting Taliban. ISI does not have to provide evidence that it is supporting Taliban.

"Most believe.." yeah, beliefs are something that matter without evidence.

Btw, when did we consider The Economist as a good source?

Don't get into a tangle and get the foot in mouth syndrome. Here is the relevant bit with Cameron making a comeback. this article is as old as this morning's newspaper.

Pakistan contends that it can get the Taliban and the Haqqani network to join talks. It aims to promote groups that will ensure Afghanistan is friendly to Pakistan, and that Indian influence is kept at bay. Might General Kayani thus become a power behind the throne in Afghanistan too? The WikiLeaks disclosures, alleging Pakistani double-dealing, will not serve such dreams. This week David Cameron, the British prime minister, who was visiting India in an effort to improve relations, warned Pakistan that it could not look “both ways”, being a friend of the West yet “exporting terrorism”.

 

[ramu]

Btw, when did we consider The Economist as a good source? Anti-Pakistan material is rife on that website.

If we implies SMC + like minded, then I agree. Rupee News without anti-Pak is a good source.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Here is an article from what most people in this forum believe as a reasonable source.

Your comments please...

It is an opinion like mine, it does not factually negate the arguments I made.

 

[ramu]

It is an opinion like mine, it does not factually negate the arguments I made.

Agreed but none the less it supports my opinion. AM, till date, I have not heard one leader in Pakistan call for introspection. Even a class tenth student will introspect when asked to do better. It takes courage to look back at the actions of the security establishment in Pakistan and call a spade a spade. It cannot be a coincidence that, Indian long standing claims, Wiki leaks, Ajmal Kasab and Mumbai, David Headley and so on can all point at the elephant in th room and no one in Pakistan is willing to consider such a possibility even.

It talks lowly of the public in Pakistan who can be easily mislead with hate directed at India, US, UK and Afghanistan but are unwilling to even for a moment that the security establishments eating into the tax payers money and enjoying the first share and a lion share on aid from foreign land could be using emotions and hate as weapons to polarize a population for gain.

 

[SMC]

If we implies SMC + like minded, then I agree. Rupee News without anti-Pak is a good source.

Or anything without anti-India stuff is a good source for ramu + like minded? And if it contains anti-India stuff then it's not? Don't forget dude, Indians are not special people when coming to things like this. Your personal attacks on me usually backfire on you.

Don't get into a tangle and get the foot in mouth syndrome. Here is the relevant bit with Cameron making a comeback. this article is as old as this morning's newspaper.

You should post what you want people to respond to then. I read the part you quoted and it didn't contain anything such.

Regarding what journalists say, I couldn't care less. The allegations they say are unproven and there's nothing to look at.

 

[ramu]

Thr is enough anti india content on BBC, Economist and many more. That does not make me judge the credibility of any source based on how anti - xyz a medium is. Grow up.

You blurted without looking at the content and then you come up with reasoning. I expected better but I better recalibrate my expectations.

 

[SMC]

Agreed but none the less it supports my opinion. AM, till date, I have not heard one leader in Pakistan call for introspection. Even a class tenth student will introspect when asked to do better. It takes courage to look back at the actions of the security establishment in Pakistan and call a spade a spade. It cannot be a coincidence that, Indian long standing claims, Wiki leaks, Ajmal Kasab and Mumbai, David Headley and so on can all point at the elephant in th room and no one in Pakistan is willing to consider such a possibility even.

It talks lowly of the public in Pakistan who can be easily mislead with hate directed at India, US, UK and Afghanistan but are unwilling to even for a moment that the security establishments eating into the tax payers money and enjoying the first share and a lion share on aid from foreign land could be using emotions and hate as weapons to polarize a population for gain.

You could and other indians could do the same perhaps. You talk about circumstantial evidence (that too not too strong) between being strong evidence and foreign aid. Perhaps you could think about this:

US gives us $10 billion aid, 7.5B more to come, military assistance and aid, sells us F-16s, etc. If we were supposedly supporting Taliban (there's no proof for that but let's just assume it to be true), do you seriously think they'd give us aid? Not to mention, our economy was doing pretty good at the time and we didn't actually need the aid.

I am not just talking about democrats. We are alleged to have supported Taliban when republicans were in power. Now we all know their policy as far as any anti-American aggression/anti-american support goes. Instead of attacking us or even speaking out against us they gave us 10B aid, and were ready to sell us 76 F-16s. Note that they gave us aid AT THE SAME TIME we're alleged to have supported Taliban.

Something is clearly not right as far as these allegations go. But I guess some prefer keeping their head buried in sand.

 

[ramu]

SMC as long as you just quote me but don't engage in a debate like AM does, I will just ignore your posts. Read my post carefully. Read your reply. Is that a reply to my post ?

 

[SMC]

Btw, "long standing Indian claims", "wikileaks", "Ajmal Kasab and Mumbai" are irrelevant and do not even help you prove your point. The reasons why they are irrelevant have been mentioned several times and I am sure you know them.

 

[SMC]

SMC as long as you just quote me but don't engage in a debate like AM does, I will just ignore your posts. Read my post carefully. Read your reply. Is that a reply to my post ?

It certainly is. I am talking about hypocrisy from indians. You want us to do introspection - consider doing that on yourself too. Your reasons for doing introspection (at least in the way you suggest) are not too strong btw as mentioned in my last post, plus the fact that you're relying heavily on circumstantial evidence (that too, very weak).