What's new

India may end support to Palestine at U.N.

Well, with what happened in Libya in 2011, everyone feels that Gaddafi was just another nutjob 'dic'tator. I'm myself not aware of what he was or what he wasn't and what he did for Libya since I don't care much about Africa and M.E but thats how it is.

he was one of the most brilliant people in human history... his ideas and solutions are for all humanity, not just for africans, for arabs, for muslims.... what a million others say shouldn't matter... a billion others support capitalism, doesn't mean they are correct... 35+ nato militaries and puppets invaded libya, what does that tell you??

i urge you make up your own mind by reading...

1. Refworld | Libya: Great Green Charter of Human Rights of the Jamahiriyan Era

2. The Green Book - I

3. Al Gaddafi speaks - English / Kashmir: The Definitive Solution
 
.
Try nt to blow yourself up if you "guess" something wrong about me next time Mr cousin fucker :lol:

lagta hay nishana theek jaga pe laga hay cock worshiper ko (I have few question about that too i will ask in the next post)
 
.
Iranians actually saved our A$$ on the Kashmir issue back in 1994 when we were really down and out. Pity, that we voted against them in the IAEA multiple times (thanks to Uncle Sam) which caused them to support Kashmir now (if only through lip-service).

Saved our A$$..

What an archmoronic sentiment is this?

What harm could a useless motion in a toothless organization do to us?
 
.
Saved our A$$..

What an archmoronic sentiment is this?

What harm could a useless motion in a toothless organization do to us?
'Archmoronic' LOL
Somebody give this guy a cookie.

So you think that a UNHRC approved resolution is useless? And UNSC is a toothless organization?
 
.
'Archmoronic' LOL
Somebody give this guy a cookie.

So you think that a UNHRC approved resolution is useless? And UNSC is a toothless organization?


Another braindead apologist.

Someone toss this guy a falafel.



UNHRC is a useless organization with it's resolutions not worth the paper they are written on. It issues motion of condemnation against Israel on monthly basis but " Zhaat bhi nahi ukhad paye Israel ki".

All punitive actions in UN are taken by UNSC, and the motion was never to sanction India ,but to condemn Human right atrocities. In was never supposed to go to UNSC. So LOL , a big LOL for your ignorance.

Also, in UNHRC, every country vote independently and motions are passed by majority. There is no en-block voting. Iran blocked the motion in OIC where decisions are taken by consensus. OIC is most useless organization in world when it comes to India , and Iran blocking that motion in IOC has no outcome on UNHRC vote. SO LOL again, a big LOL for your ignorance.

This piece of feel good bullcrap is from an article published in milli gazzate whose aim was to advocate good relations with Iran and not to inform it's readers.Only People with some reasoning abilities left intact could see through deliberate mixing of two different events.
 
Last edited:
.
Another braindead apologist.

Someone give this guy a falafel.



UNHRC is a useless organization with it's resolutions not worth the paper they are written on. It issues motion of condemnation against Israel on monthly basis but " Zhaat bhi nahi ukhad paye Israel ki".

All punitive actions in UN are taken by UNSC, and the motion was never to sanction India ,but to condemn Human right atrocities. In was never supposed to go to UNSC. So LOL , a big LOL for your ignorance.

Also, in UNHRC, every country vote independently and motions are passed by majority. There is no en-block voting. Iran blocked the motion in OIC where decisions are taken by consensus. OIC is most useless organization in world when it comes to India , and Iran blocking that motion in IOC has no outcome on UNHRC vote. SO LOL again, a big LOL for your ignorance.

This piece of feel good bullcrap is from an article published in milli gazzate whose aim was to advocate good relations with Iran and not to inform it's readers.Only People with some reasoning abilities left intact could see through deliberate mixing of two different events.
Why do I get that distinct feeling that this is going to be a waste of time, bandwidth and energy.

So, you wasted 4 hours googling this shit and reached here.
How Iran saved India – in 1994
Had you done a little more googling, you would have reached here
Revealed: Why Iran did for India and why it hurts
Ah well, the site is down, here's the cached version
Revealed: Why Iran did for India and why it hurts
Obviously, you are clueless about how things happen in the real world so read on

Revealed: What Iran did for India and why it is hurt

October 03, 2005

Strikingly similar to the crisis that Iran faced at the IAEA Board meeting in Vienna last weekend, India too found itself in a tight spot in April 1994 at the United Nations Human Rights Commission's annual session in Geneva.

Curiously, India and Iran found themselves entangled with each other then too, as of now -- but with an entirely different body language.

If there is a Shakespearean touch to the sense of betrayal that Iran is so evidently harbouring today over India's vote against it at Vienna, how much of that harks back to silent memories of what had transpired between the two countries in 1994, we shall never quite know.

Persians may find it to be in bad taste to be blunt and forthright on such delicate issues as trust and betrayal.

In April 1994, when the UNHRC was assembling in Geneva, India faced an ugly situation. We were just pulling out of a grave economic crisis (of our own making, though) and were extremely vulnerable to the goodwill of international financial institutions.

More importantly, the Kashmir valley was burning -- witnessing some of the bloodiest violence in its unhappy history. The country itself was panting and heaving from the bloodletting of communal violence -- hidden medieval passions were tearing it apart.

Back in 1994, India was not yet possessed with the swagger and all-knowing cockiness of its current middle class optimism -- or, for that matter, its frightening pragmatism that is determined to make every relationship outright profitable.

Internationally too, the climate was uncertain. Boris Yeltsin's Russia was lurching toward the West in drunken stupor, and there was a big question mark as to the availability of a 'Soviet' veto if the Kashmir file ever again got reopened in the UN's business dealings.

Technically, if the UNHRC in Geneva adopted a resolution condemning India for grave human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, a pathway would have opened for any of India's detractors (not only Pakistan) for referral of the 'Kashmir problem' to the UN in New York. The crisis was comparable to what could happen today if the IAEA indeed decided on a UN Security Council referral apropos of the Iran's 'nuclear problem.'

The assessment in the foreign policy establishment in Delhi at that time was that in the event of the Kashmir resolution coming up in Geneva, it had a strong possibility of getting adopted.

The draft resolution enjoyed the support of the 54-member states of the Organisation of Islamic conference and possibly some faraway countries in the Western world. Of course, Pakistan was its prime mover.

>Thus it was that on a cold wind swept morning in late March in 1994 with the Elbruz Mountain still wrapped in sheets of snow that an Indian military plane landed in Teheran airport bearing the then Indian external affairs minister Dinesh Singh and three accompanying officials from Delhi as his co-passengers.

The minister was visiting Iran to deliver in person an urgent letter from Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao addressed to Iranian President, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Rao was seeking Iran's last-minute intervention at the OIC with a view to ensuring that the Kashmir resolution did not pass through the UNHRC.

The OIC (like the IAEA) too had a convention that all decisions had to be arrived at through consensus. So, Rao shrewdly assessed that if a prominent OIC member like Iran were to abstain, there would be no 'consensus.' Rao was greatly averse to Dinesh Singh undertaking the mission, as the minister was seriously ill from the multiple strokes he had suffered a few months ago.

But Dinesh Singh ("Raja Saheb") would have no one else undertake such a crucial mission -- and Rao reluctantly gave in. Sadly, that also happened to be the last mission undertaken by Dinesh Singh in a diplomatic career spread over five decades.

In fact, after one look at Dinesh Singh alighting from the aircraft, Iranian Foreign Minister Dr Ali Akbar Velayati, who was waiting at the tarmac, impulsively asked what on earth could be of such momentous importance for the minister to undertake such a perilous journey in such a poor state of health.

Dinesh Singh went through his 'Kashmir brief' diligently through the day's meetings with his Iranian interlocutors -– apart from Dr Velayati, President Rafsanjani and the Speaker of the Iranian Majlis Nateq-Nouri. The Iranian side politely noted the minister's demarche.

All in all, the business was transacted in a matter of 6 or 7 hours. Dinesh Singh left immediately for the airport for his return journey.

As he was emplaning, Dr Velayati who had come to the airport, reached out and holding Dinesh Singh's hands together in his, said: 'Ali Hashemi (President Rafsanjani) wanted me to convey his assurance to Prime Minister Rao that Iran will do all it can to ensure that no harm comes to India.'

After the plane took off, Dinesh Singh and his three co-passengers pondered over the import of what Velayati said. Did it mean that Iran would get the OIC resolution watered down? Or, would the resolution leave out any outright condemnation of India that attracted the UN's wrath?

It took 72 anxious hours more for Delhi to realise that instead of a halfway solution, Iran went ahead with surgical skill and literally killed the OIC move to table the resolution at a UN forum. We heard later that as the Pakistani ambassador sought to move the OIC resolution, his Iranian counterpart in Geneva acted on directives from Teheran and made an intervention.

He said that for Iran, both Pakistan and India were close friends, and Iran would be loathe to the idea that problems between friends could not be sorted out between the two of them, and needed instead to be raised at an international forum.

That was the last time that Pakistan sought to get a resolution over Kashmir issue tabled at a UN forum.

Thus, when the head of Iran's National Security Council, Ali Larijani said last Tuesday with a palpable sense of hurt: 'India was our friend. We did not expect India to do so' -- he would have had much more in mind than the 'shock and awe' that India administered to Iran last weekend at Vienna.

Larijani's erudite mind could not have missed the dramatic irony of it all -- that Teheran should have salvaged India's day at the OIC 11 years ago, and Delhi having a sudden, unexplained, inexplicable memory lapse in the IAEA.

And, on both occasions, it boiled down to how to kill a mocking bird -- how to keep a festering wound from being prised away for therapy in distant New York.

M K Bhadrakumar is a former Indian ambassador with extensive experience in handling India's relations with Iran
 
. .
Well, with what happened in Libya in 2011, everyone feels that Gaddafi was just another nutjob 'dic'tator. I'm myself not aware of what he was or what he wasn't and what he did for Libya since I don't care much about Africa and M.E but thats how it is.

I knew many Libyans and they did not really have great things to say about him though they believed that some of his aspects were quite good... He was just another dictator who had his ideas and wanted to impose them on others...
 
.
I knew many Libyans and they did not really have great things to say about him though they believed that some of his aspects were quite good... He was just another dictator who had his ideas and wanted to impose them on others...

where did you meet these libyans... where were they in 2011 and after...
 
.
Why do I get that distinct feeling that this is going to be a waste of time, bandwidth and energy.

So, you wasted 4 hours googling this shit and reached here.
How Iran saved India – in 1994
Had you done a little more googling, you would have reached here
Revealed: Why Iran did for India and why it hurts
Ah well, the site is down, here's the cached version
Revealed: Why Iran did for India and why it hurts
Obviously, you are clueless about how things happen in the real world so read on

Revealed: What Iran did for India and why it is hurt

October 03, 2005

Strikingly similar to the crisis that Iran faced at the IAEA Board meeting in Vienna last weekend, India too found itself in a tight spot in April 1994 at the United Nations Human Rights Commission's annual session in Geneva.

Curiously, India and Iran found themselves entangled with each other then too, as of now -- but with an entirely different body language.

If there is a Shakespearean touch to the sense of betrayal that Iran is so evidently harbouring today over India's vote against it at Vienna, how much of that harks back to silent memories of what had transpired between the two countries in 1994, we shall never quite know.

Persians may find it to be in bad taste to be blunt and forthright on such delicate issues as trust and betrayal.

In April 1994, when the UNHRC was assembling in Geneva, India faced an ugly situation. We were just pulling out of a grave economic crisis (of our own making, though) and were extremely vulnerable to the goodwill of international financial institutions.

More importantly, the Kashmir valley was burning -- witnessing some of the bloodiest violence in its unhappy history. The country itself was panting and heaving from the bloodletting of communal violence -- hidden medieval passions were tearing it apart.

Back in 1994, India was not yet possessed with the swagger and all-knowing cockiness of its current middle class optimism -- or, for that matter, its frightening pragmatism that is determined to make every relationship outright profitable.

Internationally too, the climate was uncertain. Boris Yeltsin's Russia was lurching toward the West in drunken stupor, and there was a big question mark as to the availability of a 'Soviet' veto if the Kashmir file ever again got reopened in the UN's business dealings.

Technically, if the UNHRC in Geneva adopted a resolution condemning India for grave human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, a pathway would have opened for any of India's detractors (not only Pakistan) for referral of the 'Kashmir problem' to the UN in New York. The crisis was comparable to what could happen today if the IAEA indeed decided on a UN Security Council referral apropos of the Iran's 'nuclear problem.'

The assessment in the foreign policy establishment in Delhi at that time was that in the event of the Kashmir resolution coming up in Geneva, it had a strong possibility of getting adopted.

The draft resolution enjoyed the support of the 54-member states of the Organisation of Islamic conference and possibly some faraway countries in the Western world. Of course, Pakistan was its prime mover.

>Thus it was that on a cold wind swept morning in late March in 1994 with the Elbruz Mountain still wrapped in sheets of snow that an Indian military plane landed in Teheran airport bearing the then Indian external affairs minister Dinesh Singh and three accompanying officials from Delhi as his co-passengers.

The minister was visiting Iran to deliver in person an urgent letter from Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao addressed to Iranian President, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Rao was seeking Iran's last-minute intervention at the OIC with a view to ensuring that the Kashmir resolution did not pass through the UNHRC.

The OIC (like the IAEA) too had a convention that all decisions had to be arrived at through consensus. So, Rao shrewdly assessed that if a prominent OIC member like Iran were to abstain, there would be no 'consensus.' Rao was greatly averse to Dinesh Singh undertaking the mission, as the minister was seriously ill from the multiple strokes he had suffered a few months ago.

But Dinesh Singh ("Raja Saheb") would have no one else undertake such a crucial mission -- and Rao reluctantly gave in. Sadly, that also happened to be the last mission undertaken by Dinesh Singh in a diplomatic career spread over five decades.

In fact, after one look at Dinesh Singh alighting from the aircraft, Iranian Foreign Minister Dr Ali Akbar Velayati, who was waiting at the tarmac, impulsively asked what on earth could be of such momentous importance for the minister to undertake such a perilous journey in such a poor state of health.

Dinesh Singh went through his 'Kashmir brief' diligently through the day's meetings with his Iranian interlocutors -– apart from Dr Velayati, President Rafsanjani and the Speaker of the Iranian Majlis Nateq-Nouri. The Iranian side politely noted the minister's demarche.

All in all, the business was transacted in a matter of 6 or 7 hours. Dinesh Singh left immediately for the airport for his return journey.

As he was emplaning, Dr Velayati who had come to the airport, reached out and holding Dinesh Singh's hands together in his, said: 'Ali Hashemi (President Rafsanjani) wanted me to convey his assurance to Prime Minister Rao that Iran will do all it can to ensure that no harm comes to India.'

After the plane took off, Dinesh Singh and his three co-passengers pondered over the import of what Velayati said. Did it mean that Iran would get the OIC resolution watered down? Or, would the resolution leave out any outright condemnation of India that attracted the UN's wrath?

It took 72 anxious hours more for Delhi to realise that instead of a halfway solution, Iran went ahead with surgical skill and literally killed the OIC move to table the resolution at a UN forum. We heard later that as the Pakistani ambassador sought to move the OIC resolution, his Iranian counterpart in Geneva acted on directives from Teheran and made an intervention.

He said that for Iran, both Pakistan and India were close friends, and Iran would be loathe to the idea that problems between friends could not be sorted out between the two of them, and needed instead to be raised at an international forum.

That was the last time that Pakistan sought to get a resolution over Kashmir issue tabled at a UN forum.

Thus, when the head of Iran's National Security Council, Ali Larijani said last Tuesday with a palpable sense of hurt: 'India was our friend. We did not expect India to do so' -- he would have had much more in mind than the 'shock and awe' that India administered to Iran last weekend at Vienna.

Larijani's erudite mind could not have missed the dramatic irony of it all -- that Teheran should have salvaged India's day at the OIC 11 years ago, and Delhi having a sudden, unexplained, inexplicable memory lapse in the IAEA.

And, on both occasions, it boiled down to how to kill a mocking bird -- how to keep a festering wound from being prised away for therapy in distant New York.

M K Bhadrakumar is a former Indian ambassador with extensive experience in handling India's relations with Iran


I do not spend by whole day on internet.


And try to understand the content of link that you have post ( If you are biologically capable of doing that ). Iran blocked that resolution in OIC. In UNHRC every country votes independently and Iran vote count as only one vote.

Alas! if only you had reasoning capability to look beyond adjectives.
 
.
Without prejudice to the issue at hand, Gandhi's position was at a different time period and was mainly about the logic of settling European Jews in Palestine. That made perfect sense then but now that Israel is a reality, that position should not be used as an excuse for automatic support. India does not support an active liberation struggle of the Tibetans, morality has very little to do with this. Your argument that Israel is in the wrong on its treatment of the Palestinians is not really questionable, the point here is whether it makes sense for India to single out just that one country, a country that has now become a close friend.

India is supporting Palestine's right to their land and that is through mere symbolism and not actually helping Palestine by jeopardizing its own national interests so I don't think our support for Palestine really hurts Israel. Yes what you say does makes sense though I personally would have wanted India to do more than just symbolism.

Israel as of now is a reality but looking at the rate of increase in illegal settlements Palestine may not be a reality may be in near future...

where did you meet these libyans... where were they in 2011 and after...

In UK before, during and after revolution. I regularly speak to them on phone/internet who presently are in Libya - Tobruk
 
.
I do not spend by whole day on internet.


And try to understand the content of link that you have post ( If you are biologically capable of doing that ). Iran blocked that resolution in OIC. In UNHRC every country votes independently and Iran vote count as only one vote.

Alas! if only you had reasoning capability to look beyond adjectives.
I knew it. Waste of time
Final reply
  • Pakistan backed draft proposal for Geneva with OIC support(54 countries). If motion for resolution passed in OIC (mere formality as all had sponsored the draft), then all OIC member states to table the resolution in UNHRC. If passed in UNHRC (highly likely as explained in the link), then off to UNSC for sanctions (Russian veto looking grim).
  • Indian FM goes off to Iran in critical condition to ask them to........well... help us
  • Iran blocks proposal in OIC (consensus required). Resolution never tabled in Geneva. India never sanctioned by UNSC.
  • Happy ending for India
  • 20 years later, thorough embarrassment for anonymus only warded off thanks to the anonymity provided by Internet.
 
.
In UK before, during and after revolution. I regularly speak to them on phone/internet who presently are in Libya - Tobruk

1. that was no revolution... it was invasion by 35+ militaries of nato, slave nations ( saudia, qatar etc ) and puppets ( qaeda/taliban/ikhwaan etc )... they invaded and murdered 200,000+ libyans.

2. britain was a prime place where lived young thugs of libyan origin... aggressive, slave to mullahs, drug-addicted... who were born to libyans exiled during gaddafi years... these young thugs formed the ntc, which was the backup team to their seniors, groups like qaeda and ikhwaan... these young thugs were also paid by the gulfis and the usa government and european governments... your british contacts may be people like these... one youtube channel carried interviews of a fine libyan-origin young man in london in 2011 and 2012... he had views contrary to what you described.

3. if you can presently talk to contacts in libya without them worrying about security, then they are not the company you should keep... they may have participated in these acts... ( :: www.uruknet.info :: informazione dal medio oriente :: information from middle east :: [vs-1] )... or they may support them, so i urge you to break contact... don't get yourself into trouble, either on pdf or outside.

listen to this brave lady from 2011...

 
Last edited:
.
I knew it. Waste of time
Final reply
  • Pakistan backed draft proposal for Geneva with OIC support(54 countries). If motion for resolution passed in OIC (mere formality as all had sponsored the draft), then all OIC member states to table the resolution in UNHRC. If passed in UNHRC (highly likely as explained in the link), then off to UNSC for sanctions (Russian veto looking grim).
  • Indian FM goes off to Iran in critical condition to ask them to........well... help us
  • Iran blocks proposal in OIC (consensus required). Resolution never tabled in Geneva. India never sanctioned by UNSC.
  • Happy ending for India
  • 20 years later, thorough embarrassment for anonymus only warded off thanks to the anonymity provided by Internet.


Duh.

Final reply ( that too because reasoning is not your strongest suit )

1. Iran veto only works inside OIC. Even if Iran vetoes, any of rest 53 countries could move that resolution. There is no precondition that OIC's nod has to taken for any Islam related resolution.

2.Voting in UNHRC is individual, not block wise, and only vote of members of UNHRC counts. Any member could have moved that motion and it was votes of 53 others that would have counted. It was probebly dropped because it had no chance of passing through in UNHRC, even after IOC throwing it's whole weight behind it.

3. Motion was about condemning India's role, not imposing sanction. It was never meant to go to UNSC. You would have understood that point if you could differentiate between meaning of "Could" and "Would".

4. Looke like Heroine abuse has stunted your reasoning capabilities so you could not comprehend the meaning and subtext of said article.
 
.
1. that was no revolution... it was invasion by 35+ militaries of nato, slave nations ( saudia, qatar etc ) and puppets ( qaeda/taliban/ikhwaan etc )... they invaded and murdered 200,000+ libyans.

2. britain was a prime place where lived young thugs of libyan origin... aggressive, slave to mullahs, drug-addicted... who were born to libyans exiled during gaddafi years... these young thugs formed the ntc, which was the backup team to their seniors, groups like qaeda and ikhwaan... these young thugs were also paid by the gulfis and the usa government and european governments... your british contacts may be people like these... one youtube channel carried interviews of a fine libyan-origin young man in london in 2011 and 2012... he had views contrary to what you described.

3. if you can presently talk to contacts in libya without them worrying about security, then they are not the company you should keep... they may have participated in these acts... ( :: www.uruknet.info :: informazione dal medio oriente :: information from middle east :: [vs-1] )... or they may support them, so i urge you to break contact... don't get yourself into trouble, either on pdf or outside.

listen to this brave lady from 2011...


Dude let's not get into this Gaddafi/revolution discussion, I very well know who Gaddafi was and what he did. And let me tell you that those Libyans who I knew were either Post graduates or PHD students and were matured married men. They were no thugs and some of them were very close to me(On off days we spent good time in each other's company). They did not seem to be aggressive, drug addicts etc... People have diverse opinions. You have to respect them instead of just dismissing them off as thuggery....
 
Last edited:
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom