Pakistan must not be used for terror, Singh tells Zardari

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The moment they started targeting civilians (whether they be Hindus or Muslims ), targeted assassinations of politicians, killing JKLF leaders who were pro Independence but anti-Pakistan, then they seize to be freedom fighters and became just terrorists. LeT, Al Badr e.t.c are all part of these groups.

Sections of the IA did the same.

 

[soldRoMeo1]

They are freedom fighters because they are fighting for freedom from Indian occupation, its simple really.


Pleas stop your bald faced lying and denials of Indian support for the actions pointed out.

Now apparently you want to deny Indian support for the East Pakistan insurgency , Northern Alliance and the LTTE.

Peddle your lies and delusions elsewhere.

The contention was that if these \\\\\\\'freedom fighters\\\\\\\' are in control of another nation, they are not fighting for freedom are they, they just want to take over the region for their masters which in this case as you accepted are Pakistanis.

As for trying to fool people with your arguments about LTTE and Northern Alliance, LTTE was cut off support way back when it was realized they were involved in terrorist acts, and please stop your rant about NA since it was openly supported by India along with the Russians, Americans and Iranians against the Taliban which were the real terrorists here.
India joins anti-Taliban coalition - Jane\'s Security News
Do not try to twist facts to the point of blatant lying just to prove a point.

 

[paritosh]

This is a tired and lame argument debunked over and over again - Kashmir is disputed territory, and I consider India to be occupying it because India has outright refused to implement the UNSC resolutions that she herself agreed to - resolutions that called for the Kashmiri's to vote in a plebiscite to determine their future.

Where are those conditions replicated in Pakistan?

see...the kashmir issue's differences and similarities to the baloch and sindhi and other movements are totally dependent on how you view the kashmiri problem...it is still unclear to what pakistan wants with kashmir...your leaders have stated that the only interest pakistan has in the kashmiri issue is to watch over the power being handed over to the kashmiris from india...but a lot others want kashmir to become another azad kashmir(which both you and i know is not so azad to our liking)
so for the former case wherein pak's intentions are to globally vouch for the kashmiri cause....there reamains no difference as our 'moral' support to the balochi and sindhi separatists should not be questioned...as we dont seek to annex their territory.
in the case where pakistan wants the azad kashmir to double-up...the kashmir issue ceases to be similar to the separatist movements in pakistan...as we all know where the kashmiri territory woud land up...definitely not acceptable by no means.

Nor am I in favor of supporting insurgencies in Indian Punjab, the eastern Indian States etc.

i dont question your wisdom AM...i have always liked your posts...but havent many of the khalistani area commanders being sheltered in pakistan?it is expected...but i must say that the pakistani attitude has had a paradigm shift now....when there is sincerity in trying to get the perpetrators of 26/11 to justice(well almost)

And just so it is clear, India did support an insurgency in a sovereign undisputed East Pakistan.

sovereign and undisputed...are the two words i'd like to bring your attention to...
sovereign-in the events preceeding the war of '71..there was a mass exodus of bengali pakistanis from the sovereign nation of pakistan to the indian state of west bengal...your eastern side lost it's sovereignty there.
now it'd be foolish to think that we were responsible for their arriving in lakhs to our side.Indira Gandhi on record tried all diplomatic tools to engage global attention to the crisis...India was poorer and there was no way an overpopulated and over-stressed nation could handle the burden.Now when these 'pakistanis' came to our side...why wouldn't we train them?we broke no law...no agents had to be sent to the sovereign nation of pakistan...we did not start the problem....bangladesh by 1971 had reduced to being a colony of pakistan...now what pakistan did in '65 was in stark contrast to what we did in '71...you sent your 'tribals' to our side which is the breach of sovereignty....while in '71 pakistanis came to us and we helped them.

undisputed:how was it undisputed AM?

India supported them, it does not matter how you supported them.

true...but we supported them against taliban...which many believe was your satellite state...and the world's most oppressive state...we still did not arm the NA...and to earn the goodwill of the afghani democratic govt...we got heavily involved in civilian projects and invested in constructions...we've lost many men in the process...pakistan on the other hand was a know supplier of arms and ammunition to the taliban...the americans will tell you that.

It is not speculation - India created the LTTE - there was even a video of an LTTE training camp run by India posted in this forum.

that video's source and references have to be checked then...ry to give me a link of that video AM...and i will see that one video that shows india contributing to world harmony by improving relations between china,pak and SL...and thereby diminishing her own influence.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The contention was that if these \\\\\\\'freedom fighters\\\\\\\' are in control of another nation, they are not fighting for freedom are they, they just want to take over the region for their masters which in this case as you accepted are Pakistanis.

That's a flawed contention - they are freedom fighters so long as they are fighting against an occupying entity - and the disputed territory status of J&K, along with the commitments to the UNSC resolutions calling for a plebiscite to determine final status, that India blatantly violated and refused to implement, make India's control and occupation.

As for trying to fool people with your arguments about LTTE and Northern Alliance, LTTE was cut off support way back when it was realized they were involved in terrorist acts, and please stop your rant about NA since it was openly supported by India along with the Russians, Americans and Iranians against the Taliban which were the real terrorists here.
India joins anti-Taliban coalition - Jane\'s Security News
Do not try to twist facts to the point of blatant lying just to prove a point.

Does not matter when you cut off support to the LTTE - the fact remains that India created and supported an insurgent group (terrorists as you people like to call them) against a sovereign government in undisputed land.

The fact remains that India also supported terrorists (insurgents you would say) in undisputed East Pakistan against a soverign government.

Th fact remains that India supported a faction in the Afghan civil war, the Northern Alliance warlords, who committed ethnic massacres and horrible atrocities, just as Pakistan supported a faction in the Afghan civil war. And just because the Russians and Iranians were supporting the NA at that time (the US did not really support them until the invasion of Afghanistan), that does not change the fact that India conducted war through proxy, as did Pakistan.

So yes, earlier you were distorting facts and lying - good to see that yo have at least accepted the fact that India was involved in all these cases of 'terrorism' and 'destabilization' through proxy in other nations.

 

[soldRoMeo1]

That\'s a flawed contention - they are freedom fighters so long as they are fighting against an occupying entity - and the disputed territory status of J&K, along with the commitments to the UNSC resolutions calling for a plebiscite to determine final status, that India blatantly violated and refused to implement, make India\'s control and occupation.


Does not matter when you cut off support to the LTTE - the fact remains that India created and supported an insurgent group (terrorists as you people like to call them) against a sovereign government in undisputed land.

The fact remains that India also supported terrorists (insurgents you would say) in undisputed East Pakistan against a soverign government.

Th fact remains that India supported a faction in the Afghan civil war, the Northern Alliance warlords, who committed ethnic massacres and horrible atrocities, just as Pakistan supported a faction in the Afghan civil war. And just because the Russians and Iranians were supporting the NA at that time (the US did not really support them until the invasion of Afghanistan), that does not change the fact that India conducted war through proxy, as did Pakistan.

So yes, earlier you were distorting facts and lying - good to see that yo have at least accepted the fact that India was involved in all these cases of \'terrorism\' and \'destabilization\' through proxy in other nations.

If the fighters are in control of another country then its one country fighting a proxy war against another country, and not freedom fighters, as you accept that they are proxies we agree they are not freedom fighters.

Please do not twist my statements to your own wishes, LTTE was supported as a political organization not a terrorist one and when it became one, support was withdrawn and we even went in against them.

The difference in the afghan war was that you supported a regime that was considered a terrorist organization by several nations while we joined in on the opposing side that only you consider as proxy fighting which you of course will.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

see...the kashmir issue's differences and similarities to the baloch and sindhi and other movements are totally dependent on how you view the kashmiri problem...

No it is not - it is dependent upon the fact that J&K is internationally recognized disputed territory, and that India and Pakistan committed to the UNSC resolutions calling for a plebiscite to determine final status. It is India that walked out of that commitment, and therefore forcibly occupied the territory, since it refused to allow the Kashmiris to determine their status.

There is simply no such history with Baluchistan or Sindh - there were Jirga's in large parts of what is today Baluchistan that approved joining Pakistan (read through the Baluchistan sticky), and the legislature in Sindh did the same.

So there is no question of equivalence between discontent in parts of a nation that are legally and internationally recognized as part of it, and disputed territory.

i dont question your wisdom AM...i have always liked your posts...but havent many of the khalistani area commanders being sheltered in pakistan?it is expected...but i must say that the pakistani attitude has had a paradigm shift now....when there is sincerity in trying to get the perpetrators of 26/11 to justice(well almost)

Some Pakistanis curse Bhutto for helping end the militant Khalistani movement. There are political Khalistani leaders in North America as well. The difference is when these people support a violent Khalistani cause, which as I mentioned Bhutto is credited to have helped India end.

B Raman in fact argues that India in return (or perhaps even to begin with) was supporting the Jeay Sindh movement at the time, and the two sides stopped supporting the two movements in the others territory through a mutual understanding.

now it'd be foolish to think that we were responsible for their arriving in lakhs to our side.Indira Gandhi on record tried all diplomatic tools to engage global attention to the crisis..

undisputed:how was it undisputed AM?

On East Pakistan, I have made the point several times that the whole refugee argument is a canard - support for destabilizing East Pakistan and support for the insurgents started in the sixties, not after the refugees started arriving. Gandhi was calling for the world to take notice while her nation secretly supported the destabilization of the very territory whose instability she was decrying.

Instability in a sovereign part of a nation is not an excuse for supporting insurgencies, which is what India did. The instability in East Pakistan was for Pakistan to resolve - instead India intervened both covertly and overtly to ensure that the territory was broken off.

East Pakistan was not disputed territory, nor recognized as such by any international entity, hence undisputed. This should be clear ...

true...but we supported them against taliban...which many believe was your satellite state...and the world's most oppressive state...we still did not arm the NA...and to earn the goodwill of the afghani democratic govt...we got heavily involved in civilian projects and invested in constructions...we've lost many men in the process...pakistan on the other hand was a know supplier of arms and ammunition to the taliban...the americans will tell you that.

The taliban came to power and were initially popular because the Northern Alliance was so horrible. The atrocities, ethnic massacres and crimes perpetrated by the NA, that made the taliban look good in comparison at the time, is not something that should make you proud of having supported them back then.

The NA were thugs and warlords, and the Taliban were ideological extremists - its not really much to choose form either way. Pakistan's support for the Taliban in weapons and funds was primarily during the civil war, as was India, Iran and Russia's to the NA. I fail to see why this has to be confirmed from the Americans. You and others supported the NA, and we supported the Taliban. Heck, even the US unofficially engaged with the Taliban in order to get their companies oil pipeline deals.

The reconstruction efforts by India have primarily occurred after the Afghan invasion, and Pakistan has provided over 300 million USD in aid to India's 1 Billion USD. In addition, we are Afghanistan's largest trading partner and responsible for a significant amount of basic goods and food that Afghanistan consumes. So Pakistan's assistance for Afghanistan, both post Taliban and historically, is extremely significant, though we can obviously not match larger nations dollar for dollar in aid.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If the fighters are in control of another country then its one country fighting a proxy war against another country, and not freedom fighters, as you accept that they are proxies we agree they are not freedom fighters.

I suppose you could call them both proxies and freedom fighters - if they were fighting in Indian Punjab for Azadi, then they would be proxies. But since they are fighting in disputed territory where the controlling entity has violated its commitment to allow the people of the territory to exercise their rights to determine their status, the controlling entity can be said to have occupied them and the groups are fighting that occupation with support from other entities.

Please do not twist my statements to your own wishes, LTTE was supported as a political organization not a terrorist one and when it became one, support was withdrawn and we even went in against them.

That training camp video sure does not show 'political training'.

The difference in the afghan war was that you supported a regime that was considered a terrorist organization by several nations while we joined in on the opposing side that only you consider as proxy fighting which you of course will.

The Afghan Taliban were declared a terrorist organization by the UN in 2001 IIRC, and the US followed soon after.

In addition, the NA warlords committed many of the same kinds of atrocities the Taliban did during the civil war. India was not supporting a bunch of angels - there was a reason why the Afghans and even the US initially welcomed the Taliban takeover.

 

[aimarraul]

our president should say the same thing to singh,i really hope chinese govt will help all the anti-india indian,in that case we can creat 100 anti-india dalai-s***,india will be in hell everyday.
man up, india,tells obama"stop creating terrorists"

 

[notsuperstitious]

Whats with this 'disputed terrotory' canard? disputed by who - typically by people who don't live in that territory. there are hundreds of places on earth where the local people are not happy with their governments, if asked to vote, they'll vote their territories to be disputed. Its just an excuse to wage a low intensity war that does not have to follow geneva convention.

If disputed as per UN, then can you be consistent and also show me UN mandate that allows one country to wage low intensity war in 'disputed' territories? Excuse making at its lowest.

 

[BSF]

@
AgNoStIc MuSliM

I suppose you could call them both proxies and freedom fighters - if they were fighting in Indian Punjab for Azadi, then they would be proxies. But since they are fighting in disputed territory where the controlling entity has violated its commitment to allow the people of the territory to exercise their rights to determine their status, the controlling entity can be said to have occupied them and the groups are fighting that occupation with support from other entities.

So you agree that Pakistan's support to terrorist organizations in India is wrong and should be stopped.

Heck, even the US unofficially engaged with the Taliban in order to get their companies oil pipeline deals.

Which Oil deals are we talking about?
Just curious..never heard of any.

Some Pakistanis curse Bhutto for helping end the militant Khalistani movement. There are political Khalistani leaders in North America as well. The difference is when these people support a violent Khalistani cause, which as I mentioned Bhutto is credited to have helped India end.

Din't know that.
A link would be nice,you know .... just to verify.

our president should say the same thing to singh,i really hope chinese govt will help all the anti-india indian,in that case we can creat 100 anti-india dalai-s***,india will be in hell everyday.
man up, india,tells obama"stop creating terrorists"

What is this dude trying to say ....its like talking to a baby...hardly makes any sense.Use a better translator.We really cannot understand what you are trying to say.

 

[IceCold]

see...the kashmir issue's differences and similarities to the baloch and sindhi and other movements are totally dependent on how you view the kashmiri problem...it is still unclear to what pakistan wants with kashmir...your leaders have stated that the only interest pakistan has in the kashmiri issue is to watch over the power being handed over to the kashmiris from india...but a lot others want kashmir to become another azad kashmir(which both you and i know is not so azad to our liking)
so for the former case wherein pak's intentions are to globally vouch for the kashmiri cause....there reamains no difference as our 'moral' support to the balochi and sindhi separatists should not be questioned...as we dont seek to annex their territory.
in the case where pakistan wants the azad kashmir to double-up...the kashmir issue ceases to be similar to the separatist movements in pakistan...as we all know where the kashmiri territory woud land up...definitely not acceptable by no means.


sovereign and undisputed...are the two words i'd like to bring your attention to...
sovereign-in the events preceeding the war of '71..there was a mass exodus of bengali pakistanis from the sovereign nation of pakistan to the indian state of west bengal...your eastern side lost it's sovereignty there.
now it'd be foolish to think that we were responsible for their arriving in lakhs to our side.Indira Gandhi on record tried all diplomatic tools to engage global attention to the crisis...India was poorer and there was no way an overpopulated and over-stressed nation could handle the burden.Now when these 'pakistanis' came to our side...why wouldn't we train them?we broke no law...no agents had to be sent to the sovereign nation of pakistan...we did not start the problem....bangladesh by 1971 had reduced to being a colony of pakistan...now what pakistan did in '65 was in stark contrast to what we did in '71...you sent your 'tribals' to our side which is the breach of sovereignty....while in '71 pakistanis came to us and we helped them.

For the highlighted part, what a pathetic piece of argument you just presented. Dude have you ever heard any one from us saying the same for the khalistan movement or perhaps the movement in Assam and other states of India. By your argument we too have the moral right to support such a movement. When you link Kashmir an internationaly accepted disputed territory with integral parts of Pakistan which is not recognized as disputed by any international body/country and where proxies wars are being waged against us by your support, its simply amazing but then again it is no surprise that both Indians and Idiot start with the letter I.

 

[notsuperstitious]

^^^

Lucky you, no abusive word starts with a P.

And nice attempt at claiming a fake international law that allows one country to send civilian clothed fighters to kill civilians in internationally disputed territories.

A popular canard i see!

 

[IceCold]

Fake international law. So UN resolutions are fake international laws as per you.

 

[notsuperstitious]

^^^

Read that again. I said if you want to claim something disputed as per international law, then you should also stay away from using terrorism as per international law.

 

[soldRoMeo1]

I suppose you could call them both proxies and freedom fighters - if they were fighting in Indian Punjab for Azadi, then they would be proxies. But since they are fighting in disputed territory where the controlling entity has violated its commitment to allow the people of the territory to exercise their rights to determine their status, the controlling entity can be said to have occupied them and the groups are fighting that occupation with support from other entities.

The UN declared Kashmir disputed territory...did it mandate you to send in terrorists as well? Stop throwing the argument that since Kashmir is disputed you have the right to send in your stooges there to spread terror.

That training camp video sure does not show 'political training'.

A single training camp video you saw is what you base your argument on?
If that video was so damning wouldn't Sri Lanka Government be displaying it all around since they are the affected party here.
Moreover whatever influence India had on LTTE was through a moderate faction of LTTE known as Telo. When TELO was eliminated by Prabhakaran no links whatsoever remained.[/QUOTE]

The Afghan Taliban were declared a terrorist organization by the UN in 2001 IIRC, and the US followed soon after.

In addition, the NA warlords committed many of the same kinds of atrocities the Taliban did during the civil war. India was not supporting a bunch of angels - there was a reason why the Afghans and even the US initially welcomed the Taliban takeover.

And India supported NA AFTER Taliban were declared terrorists. Stop hiding behind excuses of India aiding the terrorists to justify your support of Kasmiri terrorists.
We are nowhere near Pakistan in fomenting terrorism, and if any of your above theories was true we sure would have been on the receiving end but even your government cant accuse us because for that you need real proofs not half baked stories.