India not against US-Pak nuclear deal: Pranab

[ashfaque]

Dude which news paper do you read anyways? Just qurious to know. What a waste of Bandwidth

TOI, Indian express, ET from print. From online - CNN, BBC, TOI, IE, Dawn, thenews.com.pk, hindu and many more.

 

[Goodperson]

Not entirely true - Pakistan opposed the Nuclear deal because it had genuine concerns that it would allow India to violate safeguards and boost production of its WMD stockpile, and this would be a unilateral boost - i.e. only India would get to violate those safeguards.

This was the Irony, especially when US and other NSG partners do not think so.

Now the deed is done, Pakistan's argument of a similar deal is to restore balance, along with meeting its own genuine energy needs.

India has given affirmation for such deal.

There is nothing ironic about it.

Its evident in reply.

 

[Desipride]

Apparently its classified information to the extent of not even existing, and no, it was not a 'one off incident".

Other nations have confirmed what India has been saying so whether the classified info exists or not is not the moot point. Well I have not read such stories where Indian establishment failed to provide proof so lets leave that too.

Pakistan had been demanding that both the GoA and the GoI give it any evidence they had ever since they started voicing their allegations.

US(NATO) too supported Indian and Afghani claims. Pakistan has constituted an inquiry into the same, if it weren't guilty cent per cent why would it?

The conference was weeks later, at which point still no evidence had been shared, and one woudl have expected any senior official to have knowledge of that when repeating the allegation. That he didn't is quite telling of the fact that there was no evidence, rather the same old blame game.

He could have been spooked, didn't want to give evidence without prior approval, wasn't supposed to be the one delivering the evidence, probably Pakistan was not his forte, probably India didn't want to share sensitive info with Pak which could've helped them cover up their tracks etc. etc..
Lets not base Pak's innocence or India's deceit on one incident involving second/third rung officers.

Militants crossing the border, yes indeed we should not support them anymore.

don't lionize them too.

But the Kashmiris fighting Indian occupation do not come under that ambit.

Do you support arming Kashmiris against "Indian occupation of Kashmir"?
If Pakistanis very proudly and openly support the Terrorists/Militants/Jihadis/Freedom Fighters etc. then why is it so aghast when India allegedly supports Baloch Terrorists/Militants/Jihadis/Freedom Fighters etc. (leave the disputed tag alone for a minute).

What kind of checks are there to ensure that these people are not killing innocents ? what kind of checks are there to ensure that Pakistanis are not crossing over to ? what kind of checks are there to ensure that aid collected is not misspent ? what kind of checks are there that these people don't turn renegade and create havoc in Pakistan ? etc etc.

Support for an insurgency with arms, weapons, support, men or money will ultimately affect Pakistan equally if not more than it will affect India.

Personally I disagree with his classification of 'terrorist', since by that definition, India sponsored 'terrorists' in East Pakistan, and the US sponsored terrorists in Latin America and Afghanistan.

The Head of State of Pakistan so calls them, as for others lets not digress.

The Baluch organizations fighting in Pakistan and Iran are different, with different leadership, and as of now, no clear connection or joint cause. Therefore your Iran relationship argument does not fly.

your post
"Jundullah however is not fighting an Iran specific campaign, but a Baluch independence campaign, so inevitably the repercussions of any such policy of support for Baluch separatists are felt by Pakistan as well."
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/12882-balochistan.html#post176443

The US world has acknowledged no such hand of Pakistan in terrorism, it has recognized that Pakistan supported militants in a disputed territory

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/world/asia/01pstan.html?em
rediff.com: Links between ISI, militant groups: Straw
BBC NEWS | UK | Iraq war 'recruiting extremists'
Nato's top brass accuse Pakistan over Taliban aid - Telegraph
Bush warns Pakistan of ‘serious action’
State-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- actions that the West itself has taken in other countries, and that India took in East Pakistan.

Lets stick to Pakistan for now.

he only 'acknowledgment', we have is from 'anonymous sources' in newspapers, which do not sync with facts on the ground.

Lets not discredit quality world newspapers and credible govts etc. the world is scary as it is.

You are an Indian, of course you believe your nation to be 'innocent', I do not view her that way given the evidence I see, and her actions historically.

If India is branded by the world to be as vile as you, a Pakistani, feels it is, then I(and others) will do something about it otherwise I am okay with the bouquets showered upon India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Other nations have confirmed what India has been saying so whether the classified info exists or not is not the moot point. Well I have not read such stories where Indian establishment failed to provide proof so lets leave that too.

US(NATO) too supported Indian and Afghani claims. Pakistan has constituted an inquiry into the same, if it weren't guilty cent per cent why would it?


He could have been spooked, didn't want to give evidence without prior approval, wasn't supposed to be the one delivering the evidence, probably Pakistan was not his forte, probably India didn't want to share sensitive info with Pak which could've helped them cover up their tracks etc. etc..
Lets not base Pak's innocence or India's deceit on one incident involving second/third rung officers.


don't lionize them too.

Do you support arming Kashmiris against "Indian occupation of Kashmir"?
If Pakistanis very proudly and openly support the Terrorists/Militants/Jihadis/Freedom Fighters etc. then why is it so aghast when India allegedly supports Baloch Terrorists/Militants/Jihadis/Freedom Fighters etc. (leave the disputed tag alone for a minute).

What kind of checks are there to ensure that these people are not killing innocents ? what kind of checks are there to ensure that Pakistanis are not crossing over to ? what kind of checks are there to ensure that aid collected is not misspent ? what kind of checks are there that these people don't turn renegade and create havoc in Pakistan ? etc etc.

Support for an insurgency with arms, weapons, support, men or money will ultimately affect Pakistan equally if not more than it will affect India.



The Head of State of Pakistan so calls them, as for others lets not digress.



your post
"Jundullah however is not fighting an Iran specific campaign, but a Baluch independence campaign, so inevitably the repercussions of any such policy of support for Baluch separatists are felt by Pakistan as well."
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/12882-balochistan.html#post176443



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/world/asia/01pstan.html?em
rediff.com: Links between ISI, militant groups: Straw
BBC NEWS | UK | Iraq war 'recruiting extremists'
Nato's top brass accuse Pakistan over Taliban aid - Telegraph
Bush warns Pakistan of ‘serious action’
State-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Lets stick to Pakistan for now.



Lets not discredit quality world newspapers and credible govts etc. the world is scary as it is.



If India is branded by the world to be as vile as you, a Pakistani, feels it is, then I(and others) will do something about it otherwise I am okay with the bouquets showered upon India.

The first point is that the Indian Military Officials inadequate response to a demand for evidence was not an 'off day' - as I pointed out to you earlier, India had not given Pakistan any evidence relating to that incident at that point, weeks later. As far as I know India still has not provided any evidence to Pakistan, so it does indeed seem that there was no case for institutional Pakistani involvement in the bombing.

I dispute your assertion that other nations have agreed with the assertion that Pakistan institutionally supports terrorism- I imagine you are validating your argument with the links that you posted later on in the post, and here is why I do not believe they are accurate:

1. The statement by Jack Straw was on the relationship with kashmir mujahideen groups, which Pakistan did support, as has been admitted. The statement was in 2002, after the 911 attacks, when the dynamic had changed. It was a reflection of the shifting priorities of the West, and therefore an opportunistic recasting of the definition of the Kashmiri groups. It was opportunistic because as I pointed out, Indian and US support for similar insurgencies and groups committing atrocities has not been called terrorism. Nonetheless, Pakistan's support for many of those groups was toned down after that (post 2002) as well.

2. The articles of Mark Mazetti have been extensively critiqued on this forum - they lack specifics, are almost entirely based on 'anonymous sources' and in the last one even went so far as to suggest that Gen. Kiyani was involved in the bombing - the COAS who continues to elicit praise from almost all US civilian and military officials and even Hamid Karzai. They do not represent therefore anythign but innuendo and speculation timed to coincide with the Pakistani PM's visit to the US, ostensibly to pressure him.

The biggest failing in those articles, and the reported US accusation remains the same as that of the Indian accusation - no evidence was provided. Remember that the US had no qualms about giving Pakistan evidence against a man considered a 'national hero' - AQ Khan - and demanding action against him. I fail to see why the US would not share evidence implicating some officers who were involved, as the US seems to claim. By the way, the same sets of meetings with the president that this alleged 'evidence was presented to Pakistan' was also the reportedly the same meeting where Pakistan presented its evidence against Indian involvement in Baluchistan.

And it is indeed legitimate to criticize these articles on their content, since these 'reputable' news organizations were some of the very ones that also carried the false stories of Iraqi WMD's, and helped build the case for war in the publics mind. The name of the News organization does not count - the content of their reporting does, and in Mazetti's case, content is sorely lacking and full of inconsistencies and evidence.

3. The BBC 'recruiting extremists' piece is best answered by the official UK statement about that report in that very article:

An MoD spokesman said: "The academic research notes quoted in no way represent the views of either the MoD or the government.

"To represent it as such is deeply irresponsible and the author is furious that his notes have been wilfully misrepresented in this manner.

"Indeed, he suspects that they have been released to the BBC precisely in the hope that they would cause damage to our relations with Pakistan.

"Pakistan is a key ally in our efforts to combat international terrorism and her security forces have made considerable sacrifices in tackling al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

"We are working closely with Pakistan to tackle the root causes of terrorism and extremism."

4. The Telegraph piece primarily echoes the concern that Pakistan has not acted against Taliban sanctuaries in FATA and Baluchistan - which is true, though the Pakistani dynamics behind not acting against the Taliban have to be understood as well, since the fear always was that the terrorism and violence we are seeing in Pakistan now is what the result would be. Rogue support from the ISI and FC is not something that is disputed, Musharraf and others have admitted as much - institutional support is.

5. I am not going to bother responding to Wiki.

Pointing out Indian interference in East Pakistan and US support for insurgencies in Latin American and Afghanistan is very relevant, since it indicates that those nations have resorted to the very same actions that they are quite hypocritically calling 'terrorism' now, it indicates why the argument that Pakistan alone has supported terrorism is flawed.

Checks do not exist in an insurgency - checks did not exist in Latin America, when atrocities were committed by groups supported by the US, they did not exist in East Pakistan and Baluchistan, when atrocities were committed by Indian supported groups, and they did not exist when Pakistani supported groups committed atrocities in IK or elsewhere. However in none of the above cases was it the intention of the controlling entity to support those atrocities - they are a sad fact of irregular warfare. Ahmed Shah Massoud, of whom Indians wax eloquent, and who they supported, committed many atrocities as well.

Secondly, the fact that IK is disputed territory is also very relevant, since it goes to motive - Indian support of militants in East Pakistan was done out of pure hostility and nonacceptance of Pakistan (Indira Gandhi's statement that 'India will never accept Pakistan), without provocation, and with the intention to damage and dismember Pakistan. Pakistani support for the militants in disputed territory was a last resort to force to make India resolve the dispute, since India closed off any diplomatic avenues to dispute resolution as early as 1951. ***

***See this thread for discussion on why India was responsible: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...zardari-accepts-j-k-militants-terrorists.html

 

[Desipride]

The first point is that the Indian Military Officials inadequate response to a demand for evidence was not an 'off day' - as I pointed out to you earlier,

I am sure if Pakistani officials heckle or catch Indian officials by surprise they would give similar soundbytes again and again

India had not given Pakistan any evidence relating to that incident at that point, weeks later.

Do you have proof supporting your statement ? and can I have a link to that incident please.

As far as I know India still has not provided any evidence to Pakistan, so it does indeed seem that there was no case for institutional Pakistani involvement in the bombing.

Evidence/material provided to Pakistan not up to date nor extensive.
Evidence/material provided to Pakistan
The Hindu : Front Page : ``Manmohan, Musharraf can meet on NAM sidelines''
Untitled Document
'Kathmandu meet was nearly doomed'
I don’t keep tab nor am I privy to information when and what type of information India exchanges with other nations.

I dispute your assertion that other nations have agreed with the assertion that Pakistan institutionally supports terrorism

Taliban, Kashmiri Groups etc.
Further a large number of groups were tolerated institutionally. Recent admission by Rehman Malik absolves India and should help Pakistanis realise India is not a danger to them.

I imagine you are validating your argument with the links that you posted later on in the post, and here is why I do not believe they are accurate:

These are some of the statements that came up on google. Otherwise if someone were to embark on this endeavour, the result would be a voluminous list. In any case I don’t expect Pakistan to wash its dirty linen in public.

1. The statement by Jack Straw was on the relationship with kashmir mujahideen groups, which Pakistan did support, as has been admitted. The statement was in 2002, after the 911 attacks, when the dynamic had changed. It was a reflection of the shifting priorities of the West, and therefore an opportunistic recasting of the definition of the Kashmiri groups. It was opportunistic because as I pointed out, Indian and US support for similar insurgencies and groups committing atrocities has not been called terrorism. Nonetheless, Pakistan's support for many of those groups was toned down after that (post 2002) as well.

The West’s hypocrisy ensured Pak could freely support the terrorists till they were not affected but once they were, the support stopped. Pakistan President has in any case branded the previously lionized freedom fighters as the demonical terrorists.

2. The articles of Mark Mazetti have been extensively critiqued on this forum - they lack specifics, are almost entirely based on 'anonymous sources' and in the last one even went so far as to suggest that Gen. Kiyani was involved in the bombing - the COAS who continues to elicit praise from almost all US civilian and military officials and even Hamid Karzai. They do not represent therefore anythign but innuendo and speculation timed to coincide with the Pakistani PM's visit to the US, ostensibly to pressure him.

New York Times certainly enjoys a lot of credibility worldwide.

The biggest failing in those articles, and the reported US accusation remains the same as that of the Indian accusation - no evidence was provided. Remember that the US had no qualms about giving Pakistan evidence against a man considered a 'national hero' - AQ Khan - and demanding action against him. I fail to see why the US would not share evidence implicating some officers who were involved, as the US seems to claim. By the way, the same sets of meetings with the president that this alleged 'evidence was presented to Pakistan' was also the reportedly the same meeting where Pakistan presented its evidence against Indian involvement in Baluchistan.

Evidence is provided to the authority which is impartial, powerful and capable enough to act on the information. Perhaps US, India and others feel it is wise to not pass on evidence which will forewarn the culprits or unduly pressure the Pakistan govt or wait for the opportune moment etc. These are matters of GeoPolitics .

And it is indeed legitimate to criticize these articles on their content, since these 'reputable' news organizations were some of the very ones that also carried the false stories of Iraqi WMD's, and helped build the case for war in the publics mind. The name of the News organization does not count - the content of their reporting does, and in Mazetti's case, content is sorely lacking and full of inconsistencies and evidence.

Non-Presence of WMDs was a failure of the then US intel not the news agencies IMO. Iraq did use WMDs in Iran-Iraq war.

Au contraire it counts for a lot but you are free to discredit any newspaper not advancing your cause.

3. The BBC 'recruiting extremists' piece is best answered by the official UK statement about that report in that very article:

Double standards at work again. Pakistan is needed in this WoT.

4. The Telegraph piece primarily echoes the concern that Pakistan has not acted against Taliban sanctuaries in FATA and Baluchistan - which is true, though the Pakistani dynamics behind not acting against the Taliban have to be understood as well, since the fear always was that the terrorism and violence we are seeing in Pakistan now is what the result would be. Rogue support from the ISI and FC is not something that is disputed, Musharraf and others have admitted as much - institutional support is.

Well the Telegraph article emphatically paints ISI, Pak Army soldiers as active supporters of the Taliban and AQ. Pakistan expectedly denies this. Govts do nothing against Pak, double Standards at work again.

5. I am not going to bother responding to Wiki.

List of references at the bottom of the article (11-52)
What happened to no.5 ? Bush warns Pakistan of ‘serious action’

Pointing out Indian interference in East Pakistan and US support for insurgencies in Latin American and Afghanistan is very relevant, since it indicates that those nations have resorted to the very same actions that they are quite hypocritically calling 'terrorism' now, it indicates why the argument that Pakistan alone has supported terrorism is flawed.

Nope the question is of nomenclature, Pakistan itself brands the erstwhile freedom fighters whom it supported as terrorists, and under pressure from the world had to stop support to them. The modus operandi of the groups is not of concern.

Checks do not exist in an insurgency - checks did not exist in Latin America, when atrocities were committed by groups supported by the US, they did not exist in East Pakistan and Baluchistan, when atrocities were committed by Indian supported groups, and they did not exist when Pakistani supported groups committed atrocities in IK or elsewhere. However in none of the above cases was it the intention of the controlling entity to support those atrocities - they are a sad fact of irregular warfare. Ahmed Shah Massoud, of whom Indians wax eloquent, and who they supported, committed many atrocities as well.

Checks are the onus of Pakistan if it harbours thoughts of usurping the disputed land, ruling the same people, blaming India for atrocities and patronizing the insurgents. Now that Pakistan has admitted that it has been supporting terrorism, has succumbed to western pressure to stop support to the terrorists, it should come clean and redeem itself.

BTW Is there a code of fighting for Mujahids or something in the Quran?

I don’t care what happened in Afghanistan. India did what was necessary to protect its territorial integrity as Islamic terrorism of the Taliban kind seeks to do the exact opposite. In any case the atrocities of Masoud are far lesser than those committed by Narendar Modi, Indira Gandhi etc.. If all the guilty parties in Afghanistan are to be tried and punished, I expect India to be there too.

Secondly, the fact that IK is disputed territory is also very relevant, since it goes to motive - Indian support of militants in East Pakistan was done out of pure hostility and nonacceptance of Pakistan (Indira Gandhi's statement that 'India will never accept Pakistan), without provocation, and with the intention to damage and dismember Pakistan.

What happened in Bangladesh is incomparable to Kashmir as Kashmir is a disputed territory. I have not heard of the above statement by Gandhi in any case Mr. Vajyapayee had declared that we accept Pakistan as a sovereign nation when he was in Lahore.

Pakistani support for the militants in disputed territory was a last resort to force to make India resolve the dispute, since India closed off any diplomatic avenues to dispute resolution as early as 1951. ******See this thread for discussion on why India was responsible: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...zardari-accepts-j-k-militants-terrorists.html

To be honest I am not bothered that Pakistan considers itself morally, ethically or diabolically bound to help militants. Fact is Kashmiri militants are terrorists as admitted and having admitted they should be treated as such. The world’s double standards ensured India’s hands were tied before and Pakistan could operate with impunity, not anymore.

PS: Having branded the Kashmiri militants as terrorists makes one question the Pakistani motive wrt Kashmir was the support to terrorists an attempt to avenge Bangladesh or was it a part of larger Islamic agenda at work ? Further Pakistan has now acknowledged that terrorists acts committed in Pakistan have been done by locals ought to reduce India-phobia in Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

DP:

First off, please try and avoid chopping up my posts in order to reply, since it demolishes the context and content and leads to pointless and repetitive exchanges, often where the same point ends up being repeated, or an argument advanced to cover similar issues ignored, as has happened in your last reply.

I am sure if Pakistani officials heckle or catch Indian officials by surprise they would give similar soundbytes again and again

Do you have proof supporting your statement ? and can I have a link to that incident please.

Evidence/material provided to Pakistan not up to date nor extensive.
Evidence/material provided to Pakistan
The Hindu : Front Page : ``Manmohan, Musharraf can meet on NAM sidelines''
Untitled Document
'Kathmandu meet was nearly doomed'
I don’t keep tab nor am I privy to information when and what type of information India exchanges with other nations.

Taliban, Kashmiri Groups etc.
Further a large number of groups were tolerated institutionally. Recent admission by Rehman Malik absolves India and should help Pakistanis realise India is not a danger to them.

These are some of the statements that came up on google. Otherwise if someone were to embark on this endeavour, the result would be a voluminous list. In any case I don’t expect Pakistan to wash its dirty linen in public.

The West’s hypocrisy ensured Pak could freely support the terrorists till they were not affected but once they were, the support stopped. Pakistan President has in any case branded the previously lionized freedom fighters as the demonical terrorists.

New York Times certainly enjoys a lot of credibility worldwide.

Evidence is provided to the authority which is impartial, powerful and capable enough to act on the information. Perhaps US, India and others feel it is wise to not pass on evidence which will forewarn the culprits or unduly pressure the Pakistan govt or wait for the opportune moment etc. These are matters of GeoPolitics .

Non-Presence of WMDs was a failure of the then US intel not the news agencies IMO. Iraq did use WMDs in Iran-Iraq war.

Au contraire it counts for a lot but you are free to discredit any newspaper not advancing your cause.

Double standards at work again. Pakistan is needed in this WoT.

Well the Telegraph article emphatically paints ISI, Pak Army soldiers as active supporters of the Taliban and AQ. Pakistan expectedly denies this. Govts do nothing against Pak, double Standards at work again.

List of references at the bottom of the article (11-52)
What happened to no.5 ? Bush warns Pakistan of ‘serious action’

Nope the question is of nomenclature, Pakistan itself brands the erstwhile freedom fighters whom it supported as terrorists, and under pressure from the world had to stop support to them. The modus operandi of the groups is not of concern.

Checks are the onus of Pakistan if it harbours thoughts of usurping the disputed land, ruling the same people, blaming India for atrocities and patronizing the insurgents. Now that Pakistan has admitted that it has been supporting terrorism, has succumbed to western pressure to stop support to the terrorists, it should come clean and redeem itself.

BTW Is there a code of fighting for Mujahids or something in the Quran?

I don’t care what happened in Afghanistan. India did what was necessary to protect its territorial integrity as Islamic terrorism of the Taliban kind seeks to do the exact opposite. In any case the atrocities of Masoud are far lesser than those committed by Narendar Modi, Indira Gandhi etc.. If all the guilty parties in Afghanistan are to be tried and punished, I expect India to be there too.

What happened in Bangladesh is incomparable to Kashmir as Kashmir is a disputed territory. I have not heard of the above statement by Gandhi in any case Mr. Vajyapayee had declared that we accept Pakistan as a sovereign nation when he was in Lahore.

To be honest I am not bothered that Pakistan considers itself morally, ethically or diabolically bound to help militants. Fact is Kashmiri militants are terrorists as admitted and having admitted they should be treated as such. The world’s double standards ensured India’s hands were tied before and Pakistan could operate with impunity, not anymore.

PS: Having branded the Kashmiri militants as terrorists makes one question the Pakistani motive wrt Kashmir was the support to terrorists an attempt to avenge Bangladesh or was it a part of larger Islamic agenda at work ? Further Pakistan has now acknowledged that terrorists acts committed in Pakistan have been done by locals ought to reduce India-phobia in Pakistan.

You still have not presented any links suggesting any evidence about the Embassy bombing has been given to Pakistan by the GoI. That in conjunction with the Indian Official's inadequate response indicates that there is no case for institutional Pakistani involvement. It is not a matter of 'taken by surprise' - the official brought up the issue of Pakistani involvement, and should have therefore known on what basis he was making that allegation and why India was not sharing evidence with Pakistan. Whatever reason you want to speculate is behind that lack of provision of evidence to Pakistan is just that - speculation. The fact remains that no evidence has been provided, hence there are no grounds for the accusation you leveled.

The remainder of your links deal with older incidents, and the 'evidence' purportedly shared is based on Indian intel - not to mention that the hostility between India and Pakistan would preclude any cooperation between the two sides. Pakistani officials have also alleged that Brahamdegh Bugti is in India and receives support from her - India denies it, much like these articles claim Pakistan does.

The Wests hypocrisy is not that it stopped India from doing anything, but that it does not brand Indian support for militants who committed atrocities and violence in East Pakistan as terrorism, nor its own actions in various countries. Secondly, the West has done nothing to tie your hands, the fact is that what has been within India's means militarily to do it has done, beyond that she has been checkmated by Pakistan's military.

Nomenclature is not important here, modus operandi is, since it is the actions of groups that are being judged (whether in Palestine, Afghanistan Kashmir or East Pakistan). What is important is that the West and India have supported insurgencies and militants in other nations that have had disastrous consequences and left a trail of death and destruction - if Pakistan's support for militants in Kashmir is terrorism, then India and the West have committed terrorism as well - whats good for the goose is good for the gander - You cannot just say 'nope', the parallels between all of these events are unquestionable.

You can keep talking voluminous, only a handful are credible, and I have given my arguments on why your links are flawed - you consider the British Govt.'s response to the article in the Telegraph as 'double standards', I see that as vindication of Pakistan's innocence, while I view Jack Straw's branding of Kashmiri groups as 'double standards' given Western and Indian culpability in supporting insurgencies and violence of their own.

The NY Times ran articles based on flawed intel and deliberate Bush propaganda to sell their 'cause':

When George W. Bush and Tony Blair made their fraudulent case to attack Iraq, The Times, along with most corporate media outlets in the United States, became cheerleaders for the war. And while Jayson Blair was being crucified for his journalistic sins, veteran Times national security correspondent and best-selling author Judith Miller was filling The Times’ front pages with unchallenged government propaganda. Unlike Blair’s deceptions, Miller’s lies provided the pretext for war. Her lies cost lives.
Democracy Now! | Online Exclusive...Fatal Error: Lies of The Times, Their Lies Took Lives

And in that deliberate propaganda and flawed intel we see why articles that are based on even more spurious information and 'anonymous sources' making grand claims of this and that should be taken with a grain of salt, and not as an oracle spouting unshakable truth. They published what turned out to be lies once, that is not much of a case to make for the media - if anything, it shows how the media can be manipulated by governments to promote their propaganda and advance whatever cause they want. What matters is content, not merely credibility, and content in the NYT's articles, in terms of evidence rather than conjecture, was sorely lacking.

As to your question about 5, and Bush's reported comments, I had already answered that as part of another response in an earlier part of the post, hence my comments to you about 'line by line' replies.

Going back to the 'checks' - India had no checks on the militants committing atrocities in East Pakistan, and neither did the US in Afghanistan or in Latin America, I fail to see why Pakistan should be asked about 'checks'.

Indeed what happened in East Pakistan should not be compared to Kashmir as it was far worse, and a direct manifestation of the hatred India and its leaders bore towards Pakistan, as manifested by the statement of IG. It was more than anything an Indian policy that the definition of 'state sponsored' terrorism applies to, yet we see double standards in how India is given a free pass on that, despite it inflicting grievous harm on Pakistan.

The point here being that India must accept that it sponsored terrorism against Pakistan in East Pakistan, ,and per some Pakistani officials continues to do so in Baluchistan, and the US in Latin America and Afghanistan, instead of only accusing Pakistan of doing so.

Your arguments about the motives behind supporting kashmiri militants are inaccurate - it was a means to drive a resolution of the Kashmir dispute after India had ended the diplomatic channels for resolution - revenge for East Pakistan is not a valid argument since Pakistan was looking to resolve a dispute over territory, not dismember India. The reason behind not supporting militancy now, we can see that violence has not worked, and that the relative peace of the last few years has in fact given Pakistan an ideological victory in Kashmir, as seen by the massive protests against Indian occupation.

Pakistan acknowledging that terrorism is committed by Pakistanis is an axiomatic realization, one that unfortunately has eluded India - the terrorism in India is primarily committed by Indians as well. Both nations would do well to remember this, rather than finding scapegoats as India seems to have traditionally done in the links you posted.

 

[Desipride]

Geopolitics is not like a court case where there are guilty parties and punishments it is a delicate world of diplomacy. Providing evidence is the prerogative of the Indian govt, and not something in the public sphere. US(NATO), Afghanistan and India all have accused Pakistan. For me it suffices that there is triangulation of data, some of Pakistan’s key allies are accusing it too. US ‘s action against terrorists inside Pak with the tacit approval of Pak govt. at the same time Pakistani PM having ordered an inquiry into the Kabul bomb blast, under pressure from Indian Govt.s evidence is enough for me. Pakistan’s serious of welcoming statements suggest that they are trying to set their house in order.
Well your selective approval of news makes you no better than the west with all its double standards and hypocrisy, you can claim victory or defeat when it suits you or not, unfortunately Pakistan has won itself public indignation thanks to its transgressions combined with its impotence.
Pakistan is accountable for Kashmir because it claims the land and the representation of both the perpetrators and the victims. It patronizes, supports, lionizes the militants many of whom are Pakistanis, who claim they are freedom fighters fighting against illegal occupation, (as per tenets of Islam?) have popular support and attack only the security agencies.
In case of others that you mention, they are all acting as per their self-interest and have no interest in that nation or its people.
India should apologize for supporting Mukhti Bahini a terrorist organizabetion and the Pakistanis who committed the genocide, supported Taliban, LeT etc should be canonized as saints right ? Are you referring to the same hate which resulted in the Simla Accord of 71 and release of 100,000 PoW without a war trial a la Nuremberg? Sir you can call it hate viz a viz Pakistan I call it proclivity for compassion viz a viz East Pakistanis, you can call it support for terrorism but most Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians have not branded India as supporter of terrorists when speaking of 1971. Lets leave Bangladesh’s war of independence for other threads. I am sure Bangladeshis will have a lot to say about the same. I have no interest in discussing it anymore in this thread.
President Zardari recently declared that India has never been a threat and Mr. Rehman Malik has recently asserted that attacks in Pakistan are done by Pakistanis this absolves India of false accusations of committing terror attacks in Pakistan. Indian public and PM’s statements and attitudes are commensurate with the statements of the Pakistani government, much to the chagrin of the Pakistani public, which is sadly a cause of worry.
Your arguments on Kashmir are not accurate either, why the need for Kargil misadventure with Pak soldiers then? The relative peace coupled with massive voter turnout is reflective of Kashmiri denouncement of Pakistan and terrorists, the “massive protests” you speak of are commonplace in the Subcontinent and rarely have they been able to impact the popular public opinion, establishment or achieve anything worthwhile etc. They are an attempt to garner attention to gain support for this dwindling expensive holy Jihad from across the border, for every picture of a Kashmiri protestor raises the passion and loosens the purse strings of Jihadi supporters.