Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks for alerting me-
If you haven't googled it on your own you can read it here. Sorry-
9-11 Commission Report
Thanks.
I'm fairly certain that as far as the US state dept. is concerned, this is NOT a group or a "cause" specific order but rather a basic/generalized/comprehensive requirement. I still however mantain that this mandate helps Pakistan first and foremost.While ostensibly the target of such legislation may be groups such as the LeT and acts such as the Mumbai attacks,...
It is rather glaringly evident that terrorism is a zero sum game. There are no "good Indian killing militants" (not to be confused with non-committed combatants in the ranks of sectarian groups). There is no future for Pakistan as long as selective terrorism against India is considered a viable possibility.AgNoStIc MuSliM said:...it will quickly become an issue in terms of support for groups legitimately fighting for Freedom against Indian SF's in Kashmir (In Pakistan's opinion), which are not terrorism.
India will certainly seek to paint all groups in Kashmir, whether they attack non-combatants or not, with the same brush and seek to pressure Pakistan into dismantling them through the US.
Pakistan would prefer to dismantle these groups only as part of a negotiated settlement of Kashmir, given its distrust of Indian intentions to engage in dialog on Kashmir unless pressured to do so.
What a verbose.I'm fairly certain that .............. one's own head.
Well your PERIOD is fine, but do you also include the US and other 'known' aggressors in 'any other nation'?IPakistan, or any other nation for that matter should not be the staging ground of terrorism (attacks or proliferation) against any other nation, period.
And what about the country you are speaking on behalf of? "state actors" are capable of exacting unilateral acts of war upon other nations essentially renders the credibility of US's state apparatus inert. See what you get by removing "non" and changing Pakistan with US.Being a hub of terrorism, where "non state actors" are capable of exacting unilateral acts of war upon other nations essentially renders the credibility of Pakistan's state apparatus inert.
These restrictions aren't designed to function as diplomatic leverage in third party negotiations and they're not really "India specific" per se. They are in place first and foremost to serve the interests of the USA, the donor.US restrictions in this sense then take on the role of coercive diplomacy in the Indo-Pakistan dispute, and therefore are a form of mediation on the part of the Indians.
I don't believe it is a non-starter, as evidenced by the back-channel diplomacy through 2007 and MMS's own comments recently that a solution was possibly close at hand in 2007.The position of "we will dismantle militant/terrorist groups if you..." is a non starter at any credible conflict resolution attempt between two respectable countries.
These restrictions aren't designed to function as diplomatic leverage in third party negotiations and they're not really "India specific" per se.