IceCold
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 19,236
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
If you are saying that he is a slippery customer, I agree with you.
He has been able to manipulate even the US for such a long time. He promises things when pressured with no intention to keep the promises after things cool down.
Even you will remember the start of a new crackdown after any big terror event happened that implicated pakistan in some way, be that Indian parliament attack (and Op. Parakram), the 7/7 UK attacks and I don't remember how many more.
After every such event, some noise was made about Madaressa reform, some peopel were arrested and things got back to normal before you know it, as soon as things cooled down.
Vinod you are taking things very differently. You see when we talk about India vs Pakistan, all of this terror related things are not considered on equal footings as those of the world, Why because we are traditional rivals. Now how can you relate these things with connections in the world? that is simply not understandable. As for the UK terror connection, i've debated on it on numerous occasions with other indians who call it a pakistani terror attack. You see a guy who wasnt even born in pakistan, his ancestors were of pakistani orgin but had left pakistan long ago, the guy was born in UK, studied there, spent whole life there suddenly decides to blow something up, you cannot blame pakistan for that because he isnt pakistani anymore. He's a british citizen. Moreover when someone from abroad comes to pakistan, the GOP doesnt really check everybody whos coming to pakistan, your review suggests that actually the GOP was somehow involved with that. AND lets not forget that it was due to pakistan that bombings in UK were stopped in time.
Now coming back to the original topic, you see thats not the case when india comes into the equation one for the very reason that no matter what happens in india, pakistan will and always have been blamed in the past at the very first hand without giving due creditability and proof. This makes things even shady and complicated for pakistan who might be of some assistance if done through proper channel. Now back in 2002, my comment was that it wasnt india that dragged musharraf out like you proposed, why because actually in reality the 2002 standoff, we made you change your whole strategy, " india's new cold start doctrine". What Musharraf did was to actually show it to the whole world that pakistan isnt a terrorist sponspering state which india always blamed and yet we are ready to go to war with india if india decides to carry on with the misadventure. I remember he also said something about using the nuclear weapons if we have too.
So you cant relate the two very different things on the same page, pakistans contribution on WOT and pakistan VS india.
Hope my point is clear.