Pakistan must not be used for terror, Singh tells Zardari

[notorious_eagle]

What the f*** is wrong with Zardari, if Musharraf was there i am sure he wouldnt have let Manmohan get away like this. What is wrong with my people, how can they possibly tolerate this clown as our leader. Zardari should have bluntly replied to Manmohan that "India also needs to stop funding groups that are spreading terror in Pakistan". Even if our current COAS was there, he could have never taken this insult from his counterpart. Our COAS shown his worth when he bluntly told Mullen that next time we will bring Indian warplanes down if they dare misadventure inside Pakistan.

 

[jeypore]

While India sees Pakistan as having supported Islamic terrorists, Pakistan makes a bunch of distinctions (in the increasing order of popularity within Pakistan, as far as I can make out).

1) Taliban (Afghan and Pak) - Nowadays most of the opinion seems to be "Kill all Taliban". The earlier Afghan/Pak Taliban divide seems to have vanished. Pakistani Taliban are seen in a slightly more favorable light than the Afghan variant.

2) LeT/JeM - They were Kashmir oriented and were funded earlier, but now they are seen as putting Pakistan in a bind when they expanded their operations. Their involvement in Lal Masjid is also questioned. The term for them is now "non-state actors", signifying, I think the idea that they have no state support. There might still be people's support.

3) Assorted Kashmiri terrorists who were earlier funded, but no longer are. There is some disagreement in Pakistan about whether they are good guys or not. Earlier statements used to say "we provide political support to freedom fighters" but nowadays it is "We hate terrorists, but have issues with India over Kashmir". They may still have camps in Pakistan territories.

4) Gangsters, spies etc. who were Indian but now are in Pakistan (the older Mumbai blast, counterfeiters) - The military establishment atleast in Pakistan seem to view them as not-terrorists or as extensions of the secret service.

5) The extremists in the establishment, in ISI and the Nuke scientists - Absolutely seen as Pakistan's own.


Pakistan is offering to act on first two. India seems to want commitment that the people on items 3&4 will never act against India.

The language has changed, but has the perception changed? I think not.

If the Pakistan is serious in regards to India's concerns, why there is no actionable outcomes. You see the results on the talibans after US preassure on Pakistan, do you see the same actionable results from the Indian preassure. Pakistan is not serious about the kashmir terrorist (freedom fighter they call them) at all.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If the Pakistan is serious in regards to India's concerns, why there is no actionable outcomes.

Has kasab been sentenced to death by the Indian courts yet?

 

[jeypore]

Has kasab been sentenced to death by the Indian courts yet?

You have any doubts, that he will be not?

 

[BaburCM]

Zardari is useless. I actually pity this man. A man with no plan. Well, Indian whining shouldn't surprise us any more. Let's take it with a pinch of salt. Put it in one ear and take it out of the other. Indian and American whining has reached such a stage that we've become quite accustomed to it. It's like a tape-recording being played over and over again. It's predictable, boring and irrelevant. No one cares.

 

[Contrarian]

There is little to no evidence that there was any state support for the militants in planning or perpetrating the Mumbai attacks.

Continuously harping on that will not make it reality.

And the Kashmiri freedom movement in internationally recognized disputed territory is not terrorism - it can be called terrorism when the US and India accept the fact that they supported terrorism when they supported rebel groups against governments in sovereign nations in Latin America, Asia and East Pakistan.

Let me repeat - no evidence that there was any institutional support in planning or carrying out the Mumbai attacks. If there is then present it, otherwise stop harping about it.

Did i not say that there is no concrete evidence of Pakistani state support for the Mumbai attacks?

I am now talking about general issues, of the fact that Pakistan has consistently employed terrorism as an extension of state policy.

 

[wtf]

The language has changed, but has the perception changed? I think not.

If the Pakistan is serious in regards to India's concerns, why there is no actionable outcomes. You see the results on the talibans after US preassure on Pakistan, do you see the same actionable results from the Indian preassure. Pakistan is not serious about the kashmir terrorist (freedom fighter they call them) at all.

Pakistan obviously is afraid of losing the last bargaining chip on Kashmir.

Both countries do not have the same aims.

Indians care about economic prosperity and peace much more than Kashmir (taken on average, especially with Manmohan at helm). Pakistani public opinion is one of fear of a big neighbour and "we'll starve for Kashmir". So obviously in a deal about Kashmir, they want the perception that "make a deal, or else"- the or else part is the one which seems to link every single issue in India to Kashmir.

Sort of like how Saddam had destroyed all WMD, but kept up appearances that he might still have them.

India on the other hand wants peace, so Manmohan Singh seems to be saying "we'll ignore all the terror funding in the past, if you can make a guarantee about future".


And about pressure from US working more than pressure from India - that'd be obvious. Pakistan needs US funding for its survival (OK, survival is probably an exaggeration). So they will do whatever they need to do. The same applies to India though - before the Nuke deal, India would have signed a lot up for US support, but not anymore.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Did i not say that there is no concrete evidence of Pakistani state support for the Mumbai attacks?

Glad you admit it - lets not hear these canards again.

I am now talking about general issues, of the fact that Pakistan has consistently employed terrorism as an extension of state policy.

Not anymore than India has in East Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

And unlike Indian support for insurgent and rebel groups in other Sovereign nations, Pakistani support has primarily focused on fighting a freedom movement against Indian occupation in disputed Kashmir.

Get off your self-righteous high horse - India has engaged in enough 'employment of terrorism as an extension of state policy' of its own.

 

[wtf]

Glad you admit it - lets not hear these canards again.


Not anymore than India has in East Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

Theoretically speaking, Mukti Bahini would not qualify as a terrorist movement. They wore uniforms and fought in organized formations against military. Indian direct involvement in Bangladesh started only after Pakistan fired first. And again that was India's standing Army.

Indian terrorism in Afghanistan is pure conjecture as I see it. Spying, road building into Iran, yes. Terrorism is going too far with the accusation.

 

[wtf]

And unlike Indian support for insurgent and rebel groups in other Sovereign nations, Pakistani support has primarily focused on fighting a freedom movement against Indian occupation in disputed Kashmir

If that was the case, why not just hand over the culprits who stuck non-Kashmiri parts ? LeT/JeM/Dawood etc ?

I understand that, there is no point asking you to hand over them, it is more a rhetorical question.

But nevertheless, it is quite suspicious that Pakistan would not hand over people who killed people in other countries (at the same time also being "unable" to keep them in Pak jails).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Theoretically speaking, Mukti Bahini would not qualify as a terrorist movement. They wore uniforms and fought in organized formations against military. Indian direct involvement in Bangladesh started only after Pakistan fired first. And again that was India's standing Army.

Terrorism is subjective isn't it.

The Mukti Bahini could wear uniforms and organiza themselves into whatever force they wanted to, the fact remains that they were a non-government entity wielding arms and fighting the government of Pakistan through violence.

Many of East Pakistan rebels were also trained in Indian camps per Manekshaw and authors like Raina.

Raina also argues that Indian involvement in destabilizing East Pakistan started in the 1960's.

Indian terrorism in Afghanistan is pure conjecture as I see it. Spying, road building into Iran, yes. Terrorism is going too far with the accusation.

I was referring to Indian support for the Northern Alliance warlords.

 

[Energon]

So doesn't the body language sum up everything? Confidant Indian PM sends a strong message to Pakistan in front of the journalists. But Zardari simply can not backfire, requests journalists to leave. So what does one make out of this? Who's the bad guy here?

There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" here. Zardari wasn't directly responsible for creating the terrorism institutions that all the violence in question has been traced back to. He is nonetheless the current leader of a state that has over time accumulated all of these virulent entities.

Singh's message was apt, clear and precise.

In regards to Zardari wanting the reporters to go away... its about time everyone accepts that a lot of the information is sensitive and not everything is divulged to everyone for the sake of settling internet debates. So as long as Zardari is willing and able to utilize the state's resources to clamp down on the terrorism emanating from Pakistan (which he seems to be doing so far) nothing else matters in the short term.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If that was the case, why not just hand over the culprits who stuck non-Kashmiri parts ? LeT/JeM/Dawood etc ?

I understand that, there is no point asking you to hand over them, it is more a rhetorical question.

But nevertheless, it is quite suspicious that Pakistan would not hand over people who killed people in other countries (at the same time also being "unable" to keep them in Pak jails).

Dawood is not in Pakistan. Miandad went to the UAE for his daughters wedding, and given the rather obtuse interpol reference to DI's alleged 'address', I wonder if the Sheikh's are being appeased. Perhaps pressure needs to be exerted elsewhere, not on Pakistan, for DI.

There is no evidence, that I have seen, that JuD was involved in violence outside of Kashmir after it split off from the LeT.

I don't think the Pakistani establishment really buys the argument that Hafiz Saeed was involved, because I don't think any conclusive evidence has been presented linking him to Mumbai, but it is going along on that count to ease international pressure.

I mean, this evidence cannot be that secretive and classified - eventually you need to present it in a court of law, yet we have almost no idea of what exactly the case against Saeed is based on, other than the fact that he used to be part of the LeT.

The alleged masterminds of the Mumbai attacks (Lakhvi, Shah and others) are still under arrest AFAIK, and allegedly the Indians have intercepts and testimony from Kasab validating their identities as the masterminds. Why is there nothing similar against Saeed? Or did I miss it?

 

[wtf]

Terrorism is subjective isn't it.

The Mukti Bahini could wear uniforms and organiza themselves into whatever force they wanted to, the fact remains that they were a non-government entity wielding arms and fighting the government of Pakistan through violence.

Many of East Pakistan rebels were also trained in Indian camps per Manekshaw and authors like Raina.

Raina also argues that Indian involvement in destabilizing East Pakistan started in the 1960's.


I was referring to Indian support for the Northern Alliance warlords.

Armies in uniform have generally been not considered terrorists. An example is French Army based in England which fought Germany in WW2. Neither is the aim of a uniformed group to "provoke terror". They did not target civilians etc. They basically wanted to liberate Bangladesh.

What you call Northern Alliance was the recognized government of Afghanistan. Only Pakistan and Saudi recognized the Taliban rule. Sovereign to sovereign arms deals are OK in my book,especially when the rebels (Taliban) were going about kidnapping Indian aircrafts.

 

[Contrarian]

Glad you admit it - lets not hear these canards again.


Not anymore than India has in East Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

East Pakistan has been explained above. And what about Afghanistan? Despite what you and many others espouse in Pakistan, no other country has even bothered to acknowledge that Pakistan's accusations are even remotely valid.

SriLanka?? Has India not stopped support for LTTE for decades now? Need i remind you, that the ONLY reason why SLA defeated LTTE recently has been because of India. India has been supporting Sri-Lanka in its war for a long time, visible material support however is kept to a minimum because of sensitivities in South India.

Just like US stopped support for Taliban for over decades now. Times change, however Pakistan still harbours the militants and training camps.

And unlike Indian support for insurgent and rebel groups in other Sovereign nations, Pakistani support has primarily focused on fighting a freedom movement against Indian occupation in disputed Kashmir.

Do read the recent reports about ISI being involved in smuggling weapons to insurgents in North East India.

Get off your self-righteous high horse - India has engaged in enough 'employment of terrorism as an extension of state policy' of its own.

Yes it has, a good while back. Pakistan however seems to be the only one left holding the baton of supporting militancy in other countries now.

Heck the British PM has had to say that 2/3rds of all the terrorist activities there have links to Pakistan. Why is Pakistan the center for Global terrorism? Why does the rest of the world point its finger directly at Pakistan?