India training terrorists to strike in Pakistan

[desiman]

That is essentially the position taken by the GoI, and repeated ad hominem by India's political and military leadership, especially since the Mumbai attacks.

So as I pointed out before, why is it acceptable for Indian and US leaders to make unsubstantiated claims and people get into a tizzy when Pakistan does the same? Do your comments above indicate that you now accept that Pakistan is justified in making these allegations against the Indian State since the Indian government does the same?

That is essentially the position taken by the GoI, and repeated ad hominem by India's political and military leadership, especially since the Mumbai attacks.

So as I pointed out before, why is it acceptable for Indian and US leaders to make unsubstantiated claims and people get into a tizzy when Pakistan does the same? Do your comments above indicate that you now accept that Pakistan is justified in making these allegations against the Indian State since the Indian government does the same?

I am not justifying any country to make claims against each other nor am I in a position to do so myself. My aim is to reach a truce with you as there is basically no end to this argument any other way. It will only lead to an endless array of arguments and counter argument and then someone will be labeled a troll and banned lol Yes I realize that there could be some fundamental flaws in our foreign policy and the same applies to Pakistan. The only way to end this vicious cycle of hate is to initiate a transformation on a individual basis. The blame game is endless brother and its up to us to initiate change in our own respective countries.

 

[sur]

India has on it's payroll many crazies, directly or thru Afghan agency, backed by others. They r all acting as one against Pak-istan...

On information given by Beryaam Khan another arrest was made of Moosa Khan....(Next video)


Moosa Khan:-

3 more R.A.W agents arrested:-

 

[sur]

Webster Tarpley on indian involvement..
1

2

3

4

 

[Bang Galore]

So you expect nations to make decisions based on media reports instead of actual evidence?

The GoP denied Kasab was a Pakistan citizen until the GoI provided its dossier of evidence that could be used to verify Kasab's identity. That identity could have been verified much earlier had the GoI focused on cooperating and sharing that evidence instead of beating war drums and mounting an international diplomatic offensive to get Pakistan isolated.


Strawman - when discussing my posts with me I expect you to focus on what I say, not irrelevant arguments made by others from around the web.

I believe the JuD has asked for a proper trial to determine whether they are guilty or not of the accusations made against them. I think they deserve that to determine conclusively whether they are guilty or not.

As for people handed over to Americans without due process, notice that the majority of Pakistanis are livid over those 'handovers', and it is one of the major points of criticism of Musharraf. It should not have happened. That said, the India-Pakistan relationship is nowhere close to the US-Pakistan relationship, so don't expect equal treatment on that count either, especially when it comes to 'treatment' that might have violated Pakistani laws (illegal extraditions, or extraditions without due process).

Nice try to twist the argument around - I have no problem with accepting that Pakistan has not produced evidence backing up its claims publicly, but by that same token neither have the US and India, yet their government and military officials never stopped yapping about Pakistani complicity in terrorism, so why should Pakistan be expected to stop accusing India of this?

on the other thread S-2 was insisting I accept the reports out of NYT maligning Pakistan - why should I or anyone else accept them, when, in your own words, 'you then expect that proof merely claimed but never produced to be accepted merely because you say it to be so.'

Wake up and 'smell the coffee' of 'double standards and hypocrisy' practiced by the US and India.

Strawman ! Lets see !
Pakistan has a serious problems with some Pakistanis (a.k.a. Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan) deciding to take on the Pakistani state and make life hell for those Pakistanis who they don't regard as true Muslims. Pakistan first looks the other way and then when they can no longer pretend that these guys don't exist decides to cut a deal with them ( remember SWAT). No talk of them being Indian agents then. When the Taliban thus emboldened decides to enforce its writ over other areas and faced with severe American pressure the Pakistani state finds itself in direct confrontation with fellow Muslims. This confrontation upsets a large segment of the Pakistani population who have for years been brought up to believe that "Hindus" are their enemy and that Muslims all over the world are their brothers and with whom they living in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan can never have any quarrel let alone having a fight to the death with fellow Pakistani Muslims fighting in the name of Islam. It then becomes imperative for the Pakistani state faced with diminished public support to try and turn the vast majority against the Pakistani Taliban. What better way to do that than by somehow attaching them with the hated enemy "India".? Then we start to see Pakistani official after official start telling journalists about "Indian involvement" without ever producing any proof that would be taken seriously by the international community, proof which if it existed would put all the nations of NATO in the dock along with India since any assistance would have to happen right under the noses of those forces in Afghanistan making them either incompetent or complicit. Since Pakistan with its fantastic economy can't actually afford to piss off the whole world, they start to beat their drums louder about the hated enemy 'India'. Loud enough to drown out any questions that may be asked by anyone who didn't swallow everything that was shoved down their throats.

That ,Sir, is the best example of a Straw man argument if ever there was one.

S

I believe the JuD has asked for a proper trial to determine whether they are guilty or not of the accusations made against them. I think they deserve that to determine conclusively whether they are guilty or not.

Besides the point. What terrorist groups involved in mass murder ask for is not about to be taken seriously by anyone let alone their victims! A pity that you are willing to offer such niceties to the JuD but not insist on the same courtesy being extended to India especially considering that india actually had the gumption to take their case against the JuD to the security council and Pakistan has not. The sanctions against the JuD has come about by the acceptance internationally of proof submitted by India and the U.S. unlike the mere loud claims of some Pakistani officials.

The evidence provided by India is against certain groups, not the Pakistani State and not Pakistani institutions.

So you finally admit that India has actually provide proof ?? Guess the slip is finally showing.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Strawman ! Lets see !
Pakistan has a serious problems with some Pakistanis (a.k.a. Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan) deciding to take on the Pakistani state and make life hell for those Pakistanis who they don't regard as true Muslims. Pakistan first looks the other way and then when they can no longer pretend that these guys don't exist decides to cut a deal with them ( remember SWAT). No talk of them being Indian agents then. When the Taliban thus emboldened decides to enforce its writ over other areas and faced with severe American pressure the Pakistani state finds itself in direct confrontation with fellow Muslims. This confrontation upsets a large segment of the Pakistani population who have for years been brought up to believe that "Hindus" are their enemy and that Muslims all over the world are their brothers and with whom they living in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan can never have any quarrel let alone having a fight to the death with fellow Pakistani Muslims fighting in the name of Islam. It then becomes imperative for the Pakistani state faced with diminished public support to try and turn the vast majority against the Pakistani Taliban. What better way to do that than by somehow attaching them with the hated enemy "India".? Then we start to see Pakistani official after official start telling journalists about "Indian involvement" without ever producing any proof that would be taken seriously by the international community, proof which if it existed would put all the nations of NATO in the dock along with India since any assistance would have to happen right under the noses of those forces in Afghanistan making them either incompetent or complicit. Since Pakistan with its fantastic economy can't actually afford to piss off the whole world, they start to beat their drums louder about the hated enemy 'India'. Loud enough to drown out any questions that may be asked by anyone who didn't swallow everything that was shoved down their throats.

That ,Sir, is the best example of a Straw man argument if ever there was one.

An excellent example of a Strawman, yes, since what the above rambling rant has to do with my earlier comments I have no clue.

Besides the point. What terrorist groups involved in mass murder ask for is not about to be taken seriously by anyone let alone their victims!

How can you declare the group a terrorist group without a trial? Where is the evidence establishing this? Why does the UNSC declare groups terrorist groups without a proper trial and the opportunity for those groups to present their arguments and clarify their positions? Perhaps because the UN has become a club dominated by the big five and they choose to conduct such actions in order to safeguard their own interests with minimal checks and balances.

A pity that you are willing to offer such niceties to the JuD but not insist on the same courtesy being extended to India especially considering that india actually had the gumption to take their case against the JuD to the security council and Pakistan has not. The sanctions against the JuD has come about by the acceptance internationally of proof submitted by India and the U.S. unlike the mere loud claims of some Pakistani officials.

Another strawman - what is being argued here are 'State on State' accusations. India has not provided any evidence against the Pakistani State to back up the histrionics by its military and political leadership of the Pakistani State and its institutions supporting terrorism.

So you finally admit that India has actually provide proof ?? Guess the slip is finally showing.

There is nothing 'finally' about this - you are dissembling and moving onto a different argument. The evidence provided by India is evidence related to individuals, and not evidence against the State or institutions of Pakistan, which is often the accusation made by Indian military and political leaders.

 

[karan.1970]

Why is demanding proof to substantiate US and Indian allegations 'apples' and similar demands of proof from India 'oranges'.

No its not.. You misread.. Apples and oranges apply to the fact that India and US have actually provided evidence against Pakistani nationals and organizations where as Pakistan has simply made comments about having evidence which will be shared at appropriate time

And none has been provided by either the Indians or Americans 'except with inner sources of the CIA/RAW GoI/GoUS.'
So your point is .....

Not really.. There have been credible evidence provided against LeT, JuD and a series of such pakistani organizations that led to a UN ban on those.. Known terrorists who target other countries (Afghan taliban who are sanctioned by the UN ) are regularly killed on Pakistani soil.On the other hand all you hear from Pakistan is promises of providing evidence

The evidence provided by India is against certain groups, not the Pakistani State and not Pakistani institutions.

true...

The accusations here revolve around the complicity of the Indian State in terrorism in Pakistan.

without evidence and thats the key debate..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am not justifying any country to make claims against each other nor am I in a position to do so myself. My aim is to reach a truce with you as there is basically no end to this argument any other way. It will only lead to an endless array of arguments and counter argument and then someone will be labeled a troll and banned lol Yes I realize that there could be some fundamental flaws in our foreign policy and the same applies to Pakistan. The only way to end this vicious cycle of hate is to initiate a transformation on a individual basis. The blame game is endless brother and its up to us to initiate change in our own respective countries.

I completely agree - but given that, from a Pakistani perspective, the Indians and Americans refuse to give up blaming Pakistan without evidence, I have no option but to take the position I do.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No its not.. You misread.. Apples and oranges apply to the fact that India and US have actually provided evidence against Pakistani nationals and organizations where as Pakistan has simply made comments about having evidence which will be shared at appropriate time



Not really.. There have been credible evidence provided against LeT, JuD and a series of such pakistani organizations that led to a UN ban on those.. Known terrorists who target other countries (Afghan taliban who are sanctioned by the UN ) are regularly killed on Pakistani soil.On the other hand all you hear from Pakistan is promises of providing evidence


true...

without evidence and thats the key debate..

My references to Indians and Americans being hypocritical are in the context of their claims that the Pakistani State and Pakistani institutions are involved in terrorism, and not in the context of organizations such as the LeT or Taliban.

Pakistan is not accusing the Shiv Sena here, Pakistan is accusing the Indian State and Indian institutions, much like India has accused the Pakistani State and Pakistani institutions - neither side (nor the US) has publicly presented evidence supporting their contentions, yet it appears that only Pakistan gets criticized on this point.

That double standard is what I am referring to.

 

[karan.1970]

There is not parallel between East Pakistan and Kashmir, since East Pakistan was sovereign Pakistani territory, whose people chose to become a part of Pakistan, and it was internationally recognized as such.

Indian support for terrorists and separatists was therefore interference in the affairs of a sovereign state.

Thats one way to look at it.. Another is following
India did in BD in 1971 what Pakistan did in Kashmir in 1947. Without going into all the propoganda about the validity of document signed by the maharaja of kashmir, the state of kashmir formally decided to join india and pakistan (despite whatever justifications you may give) invaded using proxy soldiers a sovreign state and converted kashmir into a disputed area by capturing a part of it. This was in part due to Pt Nehru taking the matter to UN which in my opinion was a mistake, but whats done is done.

India did the same in 1971 (whatever the justifications) but was a tad more successful than what Pakistan was in 1947 and created BD

So if you go back to the begining of both issues.. They are not really that different..

Kashmir is recognized internationally and by Indian and Pakistan, through the acceptance of the UNSC resolutions by India and Pakistan, as disputed territory whose resolution will be centered on the principle of self-determination. It is therefore not Indian territory and unilateral annexation of the territory by India amounts to an illegal occupation.

If I take your arguement, same applies to NA and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir..

What was the use of trying to push your own proxies in Afghanistan? To deny Pakistan any advantage and harm Pakistan of course.

Unsubstantiated propoganda at best. Using a baseless claim to justify another??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thats one way to look at it.. Another is following
India did in BD in 1971 what Pakistan did in Kashmir in 1947. Without going into all the propoganda about the validity of document signed by the maharaja of kashmir, the state of kashmir formally decided to join india and pakistan (despite whatever justifications you may give) invaded using proxy soldiers a sovreign state and converted kashmir into a disputed area by capturing a part of it. This was in part due to Pt Nehru taking the matter to UN which in my opinion was a mistake, but whats done is done.

India lost the right to argue on the basis of the instrument of accessions (which some sources also claim Mountbatten made conditional to a plebiscite) when it militarily invaded and annexed Junagahd and Hyderabad. Had India not done that you might have been able to use that excuse.

India did the same in 1971 (whatever the justifications) but was a tad more successful than what Pakistan was in 1947 and sliced away that part from Pakistan ..

No comparison - East Pakistan was not disputed nor in flux.

If I take your arguement, same applies to NA and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir..

But neither have been annexed into Pakistan as Pakistani territory...

Unsubstantiated propoganda at best. Using a baseless claim to justify another??

Indian support for the NA, logistical or otherwise, is well documented by Indian writers.

 

[Trichy]

India lost the right to argue on the basis of the instrument of accessions (which some sources also claim Mountbatten made conditional to a plebiscite) when it militarily invaded and annexed Junagahd and Hyderabad. Had India not done that you might have been able to use that excuse.

But till now no public or people will offend this in Hyderabad or in Junagadh

No comparison - East Pakistan was not disputed nor in flux.

ya but Hyderabad or Junagadh a disputed one?

But neither have been annexed into Pakistan as Pakistani territory...

Letter Inviting India to Intervene
Dear Mr. Buch,

After discussion with Mr. Samaldas Gandhi at Rajkot on 1 October, Capt. Harvey Jones, senior member of Junagadh State Council, brought certain proposals for the consideration of the Council. The Council were prepared to accept them under protest but before a final decision could be communicated to Mr. Samaldas Gandhi it was thought necessary to ascertain the opinion of the leading members of the public. A meeting was therefore held this evening and the view of the leaders was unanimously expressed that instead of handing over the administration to the Indian Union through the so-called Provisional Government, it should be directly given over to the Indian Union, through the Regional Commissioner at Rajkot.

The Junagadh Government, therefore, has requested that in order to avoid bloodshed, hardship, loss of life and property and to preserve the dynasty, you should be approached to give your assistance to the administration particularly with a view to preserve law and order, which is threatened by aggressive elements from outside. This arrangement is sought pending an honourable settlement of the several issues involved in Junagadh's accession. We have already wired to His Excellency Lord Mountbatten, Mahatmaji, Prime and Deputy Prime Ministers of India, Hon'ble Abul Kalarn Azad and the Governor-General and Prime Minister of Pakistan.

I hope you will kindly respond to this request.

Yours sincerely,
Sd/S.N. Bhutto,
Dewan, Junagadh.

The Government of Pakistan protested, saying that since the Nawab had chosen to accede to Pakistan, the Dewan had no authority to negotiate a settlement with India. Also, if India could acquire Kashmir (with an overwhelming Muslim majority) because its ruler had decided to accede to India, then Pakistan could claim Junagadh.

The government of India rejected the protests of Pakistan and accepted the invitation of the Dewan to intervene. A plebiscite was conducted in February 1948, which went almost unanimously in favour of accession to India. Junagadh became a part of the Indian state of Saurashtra until 1 November 1956, when Saurashtra became part of Bombay state. In 1960, Bombay state was split into the linguistic states of Maharashtra and Gujarat, in which Junagadh was located.

Same the India Claimed but not accepted by GoP in Kashmir

Indian support for the NA, logistical or otherwise, is well documented by Indian writers.

i dont know that much about this issue...

 

[karan.1970]

My references to Indians and Americans being hypocritical are in the context of their claims that the Pakistani State and Pakistani institutions are involved in terrorism, and not in the context of organizations such as the LeT or Taliban.

Pakistan is not accusing the Shiv Sena here, Pakistan is accusing the Indian State and Indian institutions, much like India has accused the Pakistani State and Pakistani institutions - neither side (nor the US) has publicly presented evidence supporting their contentions, yet it appears that only Pakistan gets criticized on this point.

That double standard is what I am referring to.

But I think the current stand of GoI(leave aside media reports)is not accusing Pakistani state of terrorism but Pakistani nationals and organizations. It does accuse Pakistan of not going fast enough on acting against those individuals and organizations which is very different that accusing Pakistan govt of sponsoring terrorism

 

[karan.1970]

India lost the right to argue on the basis of the instrument of accessions (which some sources also claim Mountbatten made conditional to a plebiscite) when it militarily invaded and annexed Junagahd and Hyderabad. Had India not done that you might have been able to use that excuse.

sources really dont mean much unless backed by documentation..And I am not blaming Pakistan here for Kashmir. I am saying in all both cases there was an attack on a sovreign nation. And hence in origination, the 2 cases are not that different.

No comparison - East Pakistan was not disputed nor in flux.

Neither was Kashmir before Pakistani Tribals were sent to invade it..

But neither have been annexed into Pakistan as Pakistani territory...

You and I both know its just terminology. Calling it Azad doesnt make it Azad. And arent NA anyway getting absorbed in Pakistan...??

Indian support for the NA, logistical or otherwise, is well documented by Indian writers.

You will find as many pakistani writers writing about Pakistani strategy of state sponsored terrorism..Doesnt hold its own in a legal discussion..

 

[Bang Galore]

An excellent example of a Strawman, yes, since what the above rambling rant has to do with my earlier comments I have no clue.
QUOTE]

Gee ! And i actually thought that all your arguments are based on the premise of this thread claiming Indian involvement in supporting the Taliban.

How can you declare the group a terrorist group without a trial? Where is the evidence establishing this? Why does the UNSC declare groups terrorist groups without a proper trial and the opportunity for those groups to present their arguments and clarify their positions? Perhaps because the UN has become a club dominated by the big five and they choose to conduct such actions in order to safeguard their own interests with minimal checks and balances.

Ok, the whole world got it wrong. A pity for you that we( all countries except Pakistan) are not agreeable to make you the sole arbiter of what constitutes terrorism and who exactly is a terrorist. You accuse every country of having an agenda except of course for Pakistan. Where then do you propose to have that trial? At your house ?? If evidence submitted to the U.N. is not acceptable to you, where do you want the Indian and U.S. governments to send that evidence? To you?

The evidence provided by India is evidence related to individuals, and not evidence against the State or institutions of Pakistan, which is often the accusation made by Indian military and political leaders.

Whatever ! Its still evidence. Something that Pakistan has not been able to provide an iota of ! Which, come to think of it might also explain their not being able to recognise evidence when they are presented with it.

The only one guilty of dissembling is you. Counter my arguments with your own , no need to accuse me of anything.

 

[desiman]

and we go on and on and on and on ....... lol