Pakistan must not be used for terror, Singh tells Zardari

[afriend]

And how so?

What are the charges against Pakistan?

1. Support for the Kashmiri freedom movement in internationally recognized disputed territory, which you call terrorism.

No we dont call freedom movement terrorism. But using AK-47's and bombing innocent civilians in the name of freedom is terrorism. You might also note that we dont call syed gilani and all other separatists who protest in peaceful ways terrorists...we call them "SEPARATISTS"!!! We have seen lot of armed militants killed at LOC. How come they come from a country who merely supports freedom struggle. The agenda is not limited to the support and that is there for everyone to see.

2. Support for the Taliban regime in attempting to have a favorable dispensation in Afghanistan.

But the support continued well after the fight against the soviets were flushed out, which you may see now have resulted in 9/11 and the problems you face in swat which now you are rightfully recitifing your selves.

Apart from that, Nuclear proliferation happened under a military regime in your country which is also a serious threat and have armed the rougue states like north korea.

What are the charges against India?

1. Support for the East Pakistan separatists, which I consider terrorism, reciprocating your charge against the Kashmiri freedom fighters.

You are taking away the conduct of pakistani military at East pakistan, and india intervend only upon request from the people of bangladesh. And there was a full scale war going out on that country when india intervened. And i havent heard from any news of india sowing the seeds of freedom struggle or watering it for the purpouse of breaking up pakistan. So there is no comparison between kashmir and bangladesh. And you equating kashmir and bangladesh would be just out of the anymosity that has been generated from bangladeshi independence and you have a convinient scape goat in india.

2. Creation and support of the LTTE against a sovereign Sri Lankan government - the repercussions from that spot of adventurism are for everyone to see.

I agree that india supported the LTTE cause when it was founded. But you are also merely forgetting that india distanced itself when LTTE took terrorism as its tool to push forward its policy. You may note that India had sent IPKF which fought a bloody war with LTTE. So you cant point this out for your case.

3. Support for the Northern Alliance warlords, to stop Pakistan from gaining a favorable regime in Afghanistan and increase Indian influence.

In the war against terror, which you are also a part of now, you might note that entire world supported Northern Alliance to over throw taliban. But i dont know how indian support amounts to support of terrosim while the support of WOT allies does not.

I clearly see India using 'terrorism as an instrument of state policy here' - if not, then I fail to see how you can make that charge against Pakistan.

The problem is that belief you have that India's sht doesn't stink. As I suggested to Malay, get off your self-righteous high horse and accept the fact that India has its own skeletons and 'employment of terrorism as an instrument of state policy' - that has been clearly illustrated. no matter how much you attempt to obfuscate the issue by pontificating over minutiae in each instance of Indian adventurism so as to make it appear 'not terrorism', distinct from the policies pursued by Pakistan.

Kindly note that irrespective of the skeltons in the closet, state policy of india is always governed by masses, but state policy of pakistan have been always influenced by military dictators. Hence you cannot compare india and pakistan as both of them are brought up in an entirely different scenarios.

The evidence is clear, I am not sure what significantly lower LoC infiltration, and no more assitance by the PA (in terms of the alleged covering fire) and reduced attacks mean other than the fact that Pakistan has helped to almost eliminate the insurgency.

The difference in the insurgency - pre 2002 compared to post 2002 - is remarkable.

And these changes coincide with the new direction Pakistan's Kashmir policy took after 2002, and is bolstered by the fact that the military establishment (through Musharraf) and the political leadership have all supported the general position espoused by Musharraf - dialog and compromise over Kashmir.

It really can't get any clearer then this - changes in both the political rhetoric and significant changes on the ground in the actual insurgency. I think there is an inability to deal with Pakistan without a sense of moral superiority, and acknowledging Pakistan's contributions to peace and India's flaws denies that sense of moral superiority.

I am very happy to see the change in Pakistan. The strong action against taliban, creation of an independent judiciary, a strong government. However these should be backed up by sustainable action. And not mere two instances of good work.

 

[forcetrip]

You are taking away the conduct of pakistani military at East pakistan, and india intervend only upon request from the people of bangladesh. And there was a full scale war going out on that country when india intervened. And i havent heard from any news of india sowing the seeds of freedom struggle or watering it for the purpouse of breaking up pakistan. So there is no comparison between kashmir and bangladesh. And you equating kashmir and bangladesh would be just out of the anymosity that has been generated from bangladeshi independence and you have a convinient scape goat in india.

It has been documented to be otherwise. The books have been stated by Agnostic. Repeating that it did not happen that way does not make it so.

I agree that india supported the LTTE cause when it was founded. But you are also merely forgetting that india distanced itself when LTTE took terrorism as its tool to push forward its policy. You may note that India had sent IPKF which fought a bloody war with LTTE. So you cant point this out for your case.

Same case for Pakistan. They were assets which became liabilities and are being dealt with accordingly. I fail to see how you can justify one and not the other.

In the war against terror, which you are also a part of now, you might note that entire world supported Northern Alliance to over throw taliban. But i dont know how indian support amounts to support of terrosim while the support of WOT allies does not.

India supported what it thought was in their interest and that seems okay to you? Concluding that the entire world was doing it makes it correct is just not good debating especially in the case when we do the same exact thing.


I am very happy to see the change in Pakistan. The strong action against taliban, creation of an independent judiciary, a strong government. However these should be backed up by sustainable action. And not mere two instances of good work.

I am happy it makes you happy. :]

..........

 

[afriend]

I agree that india supported the LTTE cause when it was founded. But you are also merely forgetting that india distanced itself when LTTE took terrorism as its tool to push forward its policy. You may note that India had sent IPKF which fought a bloody war with LTTE. So you cant point this out for your case.

Same case for Pakistan. They were assets which became liabilities and are being dealt with accordingly. I fail to see how you can justify one and not the other.

You have to understand the premise of the support.. and also the premise of the withdrawel of support. Here you might see that even after 9/11 it took 8 to 9 years for pakistan to act against taliban. That too when they became threat to you. Our policy with LTTE was based on our state policy and not because it was become an existential threat to indian sovereignty. Now i hope you understand the difference.

In the war against terror, which you are also a part of now, you might note that entire world supported Northern Alliance to over throw taliban. But i dont know how indian support amounts to support of terrosim while the support of WOT allies does not.

India supported what it thought was in their interest and that seems okay to you? Concluding that the entire world was doing it makes it correct is just not good debating especially in the case when we do the same exact thing.

Well you are again failing to understand the Point. The support was not for terroism but against it. And i dont agree with your term that you where doing the exact thing. Because supporting taliban and alquaida(which still is not a terrosit organisation in your country) is not what is right, as every sane person will agree, and you are counter arguing with the point of our support against NA against taliban. You too are against taliban..right!!!

 

[Contrarian]

shows up the true nature of the Bharati leadership.

Crass.

I honestly think you'd be lucky to have a Manmohan Singh as your President. Very honest, very straight and very simple, and highly educated. And not just that, he has proved that he was willing to sacrifice his government and his own post for something he believed was good for India. He has put his govt in line and also said clearly that had the Indo-US nuke deal failed in the parliament, he would have resigned. I dont think there are many politicians who'd quite match his standards.

 

[forcetrip]

Again .. Its just beating around the bush.. I clearly stated my point .. LTTE was a terrorist organization for you after they used a suicide bomber against India. From what you are suggesting you were against the Taliban during 1999? It was purely because you saw the danger it would one day pose Pakistan and from the goodness of your heart wanted this not to happen. You were fueling your asset against Pakistan. I see no need for you to deny that.

 

[Contrarian]

As Pakistan is in the midst of its own war against terrorists, with various allegations of Indian support and funding to those very terrorists, and countless innocents and jawans dying in this war imposed upon us while infiltration into IOK is almost at zero due to Pakistan's efforts...

I find Manmohan's statement ill timed, ill advised, ill thought, insensitive and downright offensive. Each time i read those words, I feel the rage welling up inside of me. To use such undiplomatic language at a time wh en they know that we have sent our forces to our western borders shows up the true nature of the Bharati leadership.

Crass.

I have to agree with afriend on this. That Pakistan is fighting a civil war is not India's concern. Its Pakistan's affair and that of NATO/US. India is concerned about terrorism in India that has its roots in Pakistan. And Pakistan must address Indian concerns. And it does seem that they are willing to change their ways, due to internal concerns or outside pressure or both, but there are certainly positive indicators.

 

[afriend]

Again .. Its just beating around the bush.. I clearly stated my point .. LTTE was a terrorist organization for you after they used a suicide bomber against India. From what you are suggesting you were against the Taliban during 1999? It was purely because you saw the danger it would one day pose Pakistan and from the goodness of your heart wanted this not to happen. You were fueling your asset against Pakistan. I see no need for you to deny that.

You are again missing the point. Suicide bombing was done because india sent in IPKF who fought with LTTE. IPKF where controling and manning major towns in LTTE strong holds. Mr. Rajapakse recently in an interview stated, if Indian troops stayed on for 6 more months LTTE would have been finished then and there.

And Taliban was condemned not because of the threat it would create to Pakistan, but to the world and especially India. We knew then and we know it now..!!! Only issue is that you didn't knew it then.. but you know it now..!!!

 

[IceCold]

Well imo singh acted cheap, why because if he had to say something to the president of Pakistan and the one on one talks were about to be held, he would have said it there instead to trying to be the show stopper and putting it infront of the media in an attempt to embarrasses the Pakistani president on a foreign soil.
On the other hand our president got caught completely off guard but then again no surprise from a person of his calliber because one can expect such things to happen.
In any case if singh was too anxious to put it infront of the media in an attempt to embarrasses Pakistan, it would have been better if Zardari sb would have replied equally in the same fashion and should have told singh blunty to stop sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan(baluchistan) like your party did back in 71 in east Pakistan. He should have also told him blunty to stop meddling in other countries affairs because that only leads to further destabilizing the entire region. But then again is it too much to ask from Zardari sb.
Perhaps for future sake it would be better that Zardari sb let some one else take the lead if he is really so incapable to handle situations like these. Perhaps he should take a leaf out of Musharraf's book. He may learn a few thing.

 

[glomex]

Well imo singh acted cheap, why because if he had to say something to the president of Pakistan and the one on one talks were about to be held, he would have said it there instead to trying to be the show stopper and putting it infront of the media in an attempt to embarrasses the Pakistani president on a foreign soil.
On the other hand our president got caught completely off guard but then again no surprise from a person of his calliber because one can expect such things to happen.
In any case if singh was too anxious to put it infront of the media in an attempt to embarrasses Pakistan, it would have been better if Zardari sb would have replied equally in the same fashion and should have told singh blunty to stop sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan(baluchistan) like your party did back in 71 in east Pakistan. He should have also told him blunty to stop meddling in other countries affairs because that only leads to further destabilizing the entire region. But then again is it too much to ask from Zardari sb.
Perhaps for future sake it would be better that Zardari sb let some one else take the lead if he is really so incapable to handle situations like these. Perhaps he should take a leaf out of Musharraf's book. He may learn a few thing.

Remember Pakistani President creating a similar Dram in Agra Summit some time back.....Mr. Musharraf just walked out of the Summit giving media bytes.....

Whats wrong If India did the same.......these are diplomatic tactics to put other country on the backfoot.......

Need to refresh your memory.....

 

[forcetrip]

You knew it then? when? by supporting the opposition?.. So whatever I said is not true .. but what you are saying is correct? .. I see .. I rest your case.

 

[IceCold]

Remember Pakistani President creating a similar Dram in Agra Summit some time back.....Mr. Musharraf just walked out of the Summit giving media bytes.....

Whats wrong If India did the same.......these are diplomatic tactics to put other country on the backfoot.......

Need to refresh your memory.....

no infact you need to understand the difference between the two before trying to compare. Perhaps it would be better if one understands the meaning of one on one talks. The talks havent even begun yet and there we have singh sb trying to embarrasses the president of Pakistan infront of the media.
When Musharraf walked out, i remember there was this particular line that was added in the draft which made him felt embarrassed and as a sign of protest he walked out. Again it was the Indians trying to play smart and embarrasses Pakistan and not the other way round.
Perhaps your kind needs to learn diplomatic manners when hosting diplomatic meetings or meeting your counter part at a foreign soil..

 

[glomex]

no infact you need to understand the difference between the two before trying to compare. Perhaps it would be better if one understands the meaning of one on one talks. The talks havent even begun yet and there we have singh sb trying to embarrasses the president of Pakistan infront of the media.
When Musharraf walked out, i remember there was this particular line that was added in the draft which made him felt embarrassed and as a sign of protest he walked out. Again it was the Indians trying to play smart and embarrasses Pakistan and not the other way round.
Perhaps your kind needs to learn diplomatic manners when hosting diplomatic meetings or meeting your counter part at a foreign soil..

So according to you...India raising a concern in open media is called Embarassing Pakistan...but pakistan doing the same thing is called ..the only way out.....Interesting...

 

[hembo]

That you stopped supporting certain groups does not hide the fact that India has 'employed terrorism as an extension of State policy'.

Has anything beyond the newspaper report allegedly blaming the ISI come about?

@AM
Your own two sentences above oppose each other. While you continue to rant grave alegation of India emplyoing terrorism as an extension of state policy, yet you fail to provide any evidence of substance beyond either your gut feeling or some obscur news report/ blog post.

I hope you'll get my point in the right spirit. Peace!

 

[Jihad]

I think this is a slap on the face for Zardari.
He should've stepped up and told Singh that Indian consulates and meddling in Afghanistan / Balochistan isn't taken lightly either.

Cheap shot by Singh, he's lucky we have a dimwit as President, someone who makes us Pakistanis definitely not proud.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@AM
Your own two sentences above oppose each other. While you continue to rant grave alegation of India emplyoing terrorism as an extension of state policy, yet you fail to provide any evidence of substance beyond either your gut feeling or some obscur news report/ blog post.

On the contrary, if you were to view my views without jaundiced eyes, my accusations of India 'employing terrorism as an instrument of state policy' are a response to such accusations directed at Pakistan. Malay was the one to raise this canard first (and Energon has done so elsewhere), I merely adopted his language to make the point that India has done much the same.

With regards to my second sentence above, what exactly beyond an obscure news report has been offered as evidence of alleged ISI involvement in East India? By that token I am then justified in bringing out allegations over present Indian involvement in supporting terrorism in Baluchistan and North West Pakistan, which would indicate that India has not given up 'employing terrorism as an extension of state policy'.

However, I have refrained from that since there is no conclusive evidence of it yet (as is the case over allegations of Pakistani involvement in East India), unlike the other cases of supporting 'terrorism' I mentioned.

There is nothing obscure about India's support for 'terrorism' in East Pakistan, LTTE and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. So if Indians are going to use this 'terrorism as an extension of state policy' canard against Pakistan, realize that it applies just as well to India.

I hope you'll get my point in the right spirit. Peace!

Your point is flawed, as has been pointed out it detail in past posts, I can't take it any other way.

This is precisely the attitude I was talking about - some Indians refuse to acknowledge the fact that India has used 'terrorism/insurgents/proxies' as a tool just as Pakistan has, despite being given clear examples of such policies. You try and distinguish Indian actions from Pakistani ones by quibbling over minutiae.