This is what happens when you send Islamist proxy warriors to fight your battles

[Windjammer]

It's convenient for any Tom, Dick and Harry to sit in some Western Capital and start pointing fingers just to recieve applause from a certain criteria. Majority of terrorist attacks inside Pakistan originate from the Eastern border. The author stretches back to the Second World War but conveniently ignores the 80s era, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent so called Jihad initiated at behest of US and other Champions of the world. Did Pakistan fly in and funded every rag tag who could pull a trigger from all the democracy loving nations in Middle East and Africa. We probably even set up a Stinger missile production facility to keep the erstwhile Mujahideen busy in target practising the Soviet Gunships. And it wasn't exactly Pakistan which had diplomatic relations with the man who turned into worlds most wanted. And once the job is done, you walk away, leaving your guests to tend for them self, then you see the 9/11 and all else that's been happening. But yea let's just deposit it all on Pakistan and all troubles are over.

 

[xyxmt]

so you sir agree that your institutions like armed forces & its top brass are as corrupt and responsible to situation in pakistan like its ruling feudalistic beorocracy , judicarry and executive (political) elite ?

no I am not saying that, dont put words in my mouth, read it again

 

[GURU DUTT]

no I am not saying that, dont put words in my mouth, read it again

saeen ji mai thehra ek adna sa kamzaat,short dark,smelly,kamakl ,evil,yaindoo baniya aap hi samjha do fir kya matlab thaa aapka

 

[xyxmt]

saeen ji mai thehra ek adna sa kamzaat,short dark,smelly,kamakl ,evil,yaindoo baniya aap hi samjha do fir kya matlab thaa aapka

itney neech logon ko samjhaney ka kya faida, use whitening cream, bring yourself up to our standard then i will try to explain

 

[Nicky G]

It's convenient for any Tom, Dick and Harry to sit in some Western Capital and start pointing fingers just to recieve applause from a certain criteria. Majority of terrorist attacks inside Pakistan originate from the Eastern border. The author stretches back to the Second World War but conveniently ignores the 80s era, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent so called Jihad initiated at behest of US and other Champions of the world. Did Pakistan fly in and funded every rag tag who could pull a trigger from all the democracy loving nations in Middle East and Africa. We probably even set up a Stinger missile production facility to keep the erstwhile Mujahideen busy in target practising the Soviet Gunships. And it wasn't exactly Pakistan which had diplomatic relations with the man who turned into worlds most wanted. And once the job is done, you walk away, leaving your guests to tend for them self, then you see the 9/11 and all else that's been happening. But yea let's just deposit it all on Pakistan and all troubles are over.

If you allow yourself to be used by others for some short term gains without making sure your bases are covered, you are asking for trouble.

The US does not allow its land or its neighbor's land to be used for games against the Soviets. We know how hyper they became during the Cuban crisis. You however, not only allowed your land and resources to be used in US proxy war against Soviets, you created the mercenaries.

Childishly short-sighted. You can't really blame those who used you when you provided the services willingly and eagerly.

Since the very beginning, your establishment was willing to do US dirty work in exchange for support in weapons, grants etc. that you would never be able to pay for otherwise. They provided you support when it suited them and withdrew when they felt like it.

Now, you increasingly have a similar relationship with China who will use and throw you just as easily if not more so.

Unless you guys work out this short term benefits vs long term problems, these things will continue to happen.

 

[Azizam]

Same thing applies to India too. Indira ghandi armed and trained LTTE and it ended up killing her son. Indians then tried to advise us on how to treat minoroties but India's own communal problems are growing so fast now. It's image in international community is polluted because of recent events.

 

[Nicky G]

Same thing applies to India too. Indira ghandi armed and trained LTTE and it ended up killing her son. Karma is a bitch.

Yes, what a great loss that was.

Besides, LTTE is much more trouble for others than it ever was for us.

Most importantly, we categorically deny anything to with LTTE. India is a poor nation incapable of such things that are more suited to world class agencies such as the ISI.

 

[Azizam]

Yes, what a great loss that was.

Besides, LTTE is much more trouble for others than it ever was for us.

Most importantly, we categorically deny anything to with LTTE. India is a poor nation incapable of such things that are more suited to world class agencies such as the ISI.

It doesn't matter. It killed Indira Ghandi's own son which could have been a personal matter, too bad that she didn't live to see it.

 

[Nicky G]

It doesn't matter. It killed Indira Ghandi's own son which could have been a personal matter, too bad that she didn't live to see it.

Come on, it obviously does. In terms of national impact, one politician is irrelevant. India continued and progressed after the so-called father of nation was done in. US continued just fine after Kennedy, though there the path might have been different in term of Vietnam, so maybe that's not an entirely fair comparison.

However the larger point is that to compare one leader's demise to large scale impact such the bad terrorists continue to have in Pak is severely flawed.

Though if it makes you feel better to engage in that comparison, carry on.

However, you are basing all this on the assumption that we had anything to do with that group, when I have already stated that we do not possess such capability, unlike our neighbors to the west, as a matter of fact, to our east as well.

 

[Windjammer]

If you allow yourself to be used by others for some short term gains without making sure your bases are covered, you are asking for trouble.

The US does not allow its land or its neighbor's land to be used for games against the Soviets. We know how hyper they became during the Cuban crisis. You however, not only allowed your land and resources to be used in US proxy war against Soviets, you created the mercenaries.

Childishly short-sighted. You can't really blame those who used you when you provided the services willingly and eagerly.

Since the very beginning, your establishment was willing to do US dirty work in exchange for support in weapons, grants etc. that you would never be able to pay for otherwise. They provided you support when it suited them and withdrew when they felt like it.

Now, you increasingly have a similar relationship with China who will use and throw you just as easily if not more so.

Unless you guys work out this short term benefits vs long term problems, these things will continue to happen.

It's not quite simple as you make it out or take a dig at Pakistan. Successive governments of the day implement their policy as they deem see fit. I'm sure had Indira Gandhi known that it was going to cost her life, she wouldn't have ordered Blue Star. During cold war era, the Soviets from Cuban missile crisis, to shooting down of South Korean Airliner and gate crashing into Afghanistan, displayed a belligerent attitude, There was a good reason to believe that their ultimate goal is to reach warm waters of the Arabian sea, Pakistan was in a vulnerable position and if you think providing services is our policy then the Saudi example pours water on any such notions.
As for China, you may have disputes with them but surely even you can't deny the fact how successful their foreign policy works. How China has made inroads into all India's neighbours and elsewhere only because their old example of not feeding you the Fish but teaching you how to catch one.....so you never go hungry.

 

[Nicky G]

It's not quite simple as you make it out or take a dig at Pakistan. Successive governments of the day implement their policy as they deem see fit. I'm sure had Indira Gandhi known that it was going to cost her life, she wouldn't have ordered Blue Star. During cold war era, the Soviets from Cuban missile crisis, to shooting down of South Korean Airliner and gate crashing into Afghanistan, displayed a belligerent attitude, There was a good reason to believe that their ultimate goal is to reach warm waters of the Arabian sea, Pakistan was in a vulnerable position and if you think providing services is our policy then the Saudi example pours water on any such notions.
As for China, you may have disputes with them but surely even you can't deny the fact how successful their foreign policy works. How China has made inroads into all India's neighbours and elsewhere only because their old example of not feeding you the Fish but teaching you how to catch one.....so you never go hungry.

Its never simple, however, any discussion by outsiders, would by definition be a simplification.

The Saudi example is not apt as that has a Chinese angle, at least the decline does. Let China ask you do something serious and lets see you decline that.

Chinese foreign policy is hit and miss like most others, nothing unique. They have problems with plenty of their neighbors. As for encircling India, that's a joke, an old one, hardly relevant anymore.

These days they have their hands full trying to keep people out of SCS. I hear a lot of their warnings that are summarily ignored.

 

[Azizam]

Come on, it obviously does. In terms of national impact, one politician is irrelevant. India continued and progressed after the so-called father of nation was done in. US continued just fine after Kennedy, though there the path might have been different in term of Vietnam, so maybe that's not an entirely fair comparison.

However the larger point is that to compare one leader's demise to large scale impact such the bad terrorists continue to have in Pak is severely flawed.

Though if it makes you feel better to engage in that comparison, carry on.

However, you are basing all this on the assumption that we had anything to do with that group, when I have already stated that we do not possess such capability, unlike our neighbors to the west, as a matter of fact, to our east as well.

Sure, the consequences were insignificant because India is a large country but because of what India did, SL, a smaller country, was dragged behind 30 years all for nothing.

 

[Nicky G]

Sure, the consequences were insignificant because India is a large country but because of what India did, SL, a smaller country, was dragged behind 30 years all for nothing.

If one were to accept that, the original point you made does not stand. Pak is being hurt by the forces it created/helped create against someone else, actually it had no business messing with in the first place; where as the forces you allege India created/armed hurt others. So it would seem India knew what it was doing allegedly, while Pak did not.

As for being dragged behind for nothing, perhaps you might consider your role in '71 and alleged Indian response.

 

[MarkovChain]

Same thing applies to India too. Indira ghandi armed and trained LTTE and it ended up killing her son.

Indeed. That was a blunder from our part which is why we quickly backed out of supporting LTTE. I guess India started to support LTTE initially because Sri Lanka leaned towards with Pakistan in 1965 and 1971 war where they allowed Pakistani ships to refuel.

Indians then tried to advise us on how to treat minoroties but India's own communal problems are growing so fast now. It's image in international community is polluted because of recent events.

Not really. Sri Lanka still has huge problems with integrating Tamils into your society while muslims in India are much more integrated. It's always work in progress.

 

[Azizam]

Not really. Sri Lanka still has huge problems with integrating Tamils into your society while muslims in India are much more integrated. It's always work in progress.

No, it doesn't. Tamils who want to be integrated are already integrated. There are many Tamils who are in armed forces too. There is a section of Tamils who just don't want to integrate anywhere they go. There are those types in the UK who have been here for decades but can't speak English. How do you explain that?