Sure!
I dont no how to tell you but times of india isnt chinese newspaper
The UK:
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
WOw what a surpprise a terrorist state full of opium calling pakistan names.
Indian media writing against pakistan wow what a surpprise.
YEah weapons of mass dectruction are in iraq.american intelligence report
Indian source
Centre for Research on Globalization:
CRG -- Who Is Osama Bin Laden?
If they dont no who osama is (saudi trained by americans)they should stop reascerching and start selling popcorns at the cinemas no brains required
Also known as indian broadcasting company
same **** different link
98% indians working in bbc
New York Times:
YEah jewsih newpaper going bankrupt as people dont wanna pay for jewish propogenda.
jewish Media writing against muslim nuclear power hmmmmmmmmmm i wonder if that can be considered say propogenda.
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=india
stop comparing sizes on the back of jewish and indian media can one even imagine any thing good from either of them for pakistan doubtfull.
PAKISTAN MISSION TO THE
RAw in afghanistan training and helping afghans and baloch one can also say most terrorist acts carried out in pakistan are with the help of RAw.
Asia Times: COMMENTARY: Qualifying as a terrorist state
COMMENTARY: Qualifying as a terrorist state
By Ninan Koshy*
In asking the United States to declare Pakistan a terrorist state,
India(
so you stealth are carrying on indian policy eh) has implicitly accepted the following terms: The United States is the competent authority to make such a declaration. In the absence of any international law or inter-governmental procedure to designate a state as a sponsor of terrorism, US law regarding such a designation has international jurisdiction. Recognizing that it is not just technical or legal evidence that leads to such classification, the political assumptions behind it also are justifiable and correct. The seven states designated by the State Department - Cuba, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Libya and North Korea - are all terrorist states and should be treated as such and the US sanctions against them should be continued.
''The government would work systematically to ensure that major nations of the world declared Pakistan a terrorist state.
India expected the USA to take the initiative in this direction, '' stated Prime Minister Vajpayee in the first press conference after the resolution of the hijack. The prime minister added that all the information now available within the government about the hijack and subsequent developments made it clear that it was an integral part of a Pakistani-backed campaign of terrorism. For some time now
India has been trying to convince the United States that the continuing terrorist threat to both the USA and India emanates from the same or closely related sources. The prime minister's statement is part of a political effort to focus the attention of the US administration on the source of international terrorism inside Pakistan itself. India cannot be unaware that the US does not need any additional evidence against Pakistan and that it is political considerations that prevent the USA from declaring Pakistan a terrorist state. Reiteration of the demand will not change the political assumptions that lie behind the USA's relationship with Pakistan.
If one does not accept the US designation of states sponsoring terrorism, then one can play a fascinating game of name calling.
''India should be declared a terrorist state,'' said the Hon Edolphus Towns in the US Congress on October 6, 1998. Quoting the News India Times, Towns told the Congress that Kuldip Nayar, a veteran journalist, a former Indian ambassador to the UK who is now a member of the upper house of India's parliament, had admitted that India is a terrorist state. Towns asked ''How long will it take for America to admit it?'' Nayar was reported to have said that
Pakistan's attack on the village of Doda was an act of retaliation for the Indian massacre in the Pakistani state of Sindh. A demand to declare Pakistan a terrorist state was made to the US Congress several times by some Indian organizations supported occasionally by Congressman Frank Pallone and others.
You will find that some of the closest allies of the US and the US itself may qualify to be states sponsoring terrorism more than those in the list made by the US.
On August 20, 1997, four Israeli warplanes raided Lebanon and fired rockets in the area of Jenata in the Bekka valley near Baalbek. Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri sharply criticized the Israeli attacks saying that ''this is a terrorist act from Israel. Israel is proving that it is a terrorist state killing civilians, attacking civilians.'' Hariri was not the first or the last to call Israel a terrorist state. Israel has sponsored terrorism and perpetrated terrorist attacks abroad. It definitely qualifies more than some of its neighboring Arab states for designation as a terrorist state. But for obvious reasons the USA's special criteria exclude Israel from the list.
In fact the question that has been posed by many is, whether the United States itself does not qualify as a terrorist state. President Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan has been widely condemned as a terrorist act. By launching missiles to combat terrorists and killing innocent civilians, the United States reduced itself to the level of terrorists. A most reckless aspect of the missile attack was the targeting of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, alleging that it was a chemical weapons plant. The pharmaceutical factory produced half the medicines for the entire country, press reports indicated.
Ambassador Michael A Sheehan, Coordinator for Counterterrorism in the US government, in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommttee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, on November 2, 1999, stated that ''The center of anti-American terrorism has moved from the Middle East to South Asia.'' He added, ''As direct involvement in terrorism by most Middle Eastern state sponsors and groups has declined, our attention has increasingly focussed on Usama bin Laden and the alliance of groups operating out of Afghanistan with the acquiescence of the country's de facto rulers, the Taleban.'' After pointing out that Afghanistan has become a new safe haven for terrorist groups, including Kashmiri separatists, this is what the ambassador said about Pakistan in his testimony, ''Within the territory of Pakistan there are numerous Kashmiri groups and sectarian groups involved in terrorism which use Pakistan as a base. Pakistan has frequently acknowledged what it calls 'moral and diplomatic support' for militants in Kashmir who employ violence and terrorism against Indian interests.''
What is most interesting about this testimony is its admission that, with the exception of Iran, none of the other countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism by the US any longer directly sponsors terrorist acts. Yet they are all retained in the list while Pakistan, about which new evidence of increased support to terrorism abroad formed an important part of the testimony, was not considered for such a designation.
The demand made by the government of India to the United States to declare Pakistan a terrorist state, or rather to go by the terminology of US law, a state sponsoring terrorism, raises fundamental questions about our foreign and security policies as well as our diplomacy. The government has to do a lot of explaining in this matter. For example, will the government tell the people whether it accepts the US designation of Cuba as a terrorist state and whether it is asking the US to equate Cuba and Pakistan.
*Ninan Koshy formerly served as the Director of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, World Council of Churches. A version of this article was published by the Indian Express on January 27, 2000.
And one cannot forget indian terrosit acts on 1971 getting involve in internal parts of a country and supporting it or you will deny that terrorist act.
