Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
India Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism"  
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1918 times:

India has labelled Pakistan as the "epicentre of terrorism" and has ruled out the prospect of any talks to improve relations with its Islamic neighbour state.

This comment was made by the Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha at the NAM Summit in Kuala Lumpur that is also being attended by the Pakistani leader, General Pervez Musharraf.

Sinha expressed a wish that the United States apply more pressure upon Pakistan to "dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism" that exists there.

Sinha also stated that India supports the US position on Iraq to the extent that they recognize that force may be required to disarm Iraq and called upon the UN Security Council to pass a resolution with stronger and clearer conditions to that effect. However, India remains opposed to the stated US policy of regime change in Iraq, maintaining that "it is not for outside forces to decide if Governments should be changed" and that military action must be conducted within the scope of United Nations mandates.

Among other interesting snippets of information, Sinha acknowledged publicly for the first time close links between India and Israel in the fields of "defence co-operation", "intelligence sharing" and counter-terrorism. Ironically, India and Israel did not even have diplomatic relations until the last decade but the relationship has grown by leaps and bound since then. India still maintains very close economic ties with the Arab states as well.

More details in articles here and here.

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

If a precident of pre-emptive action is set by the US, UK etc, let's just hope that India doesn't invade Pakistan.

User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1734 times:

If a precident of pre-emptive action is set by the US, UK etc, let's just hope that India doesn't invade Pakistan.

Oh, I see, that would be the US' fault, now. Gimme a break!

Pete


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1723 times:

Which country will the UK and US pre-emptively attack then?

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1723 times:

India (or Pakistan) could easily say "well, the world's only super-power can invade pre-emptively, why not us?".

Donder10...Iraq has attacked us?


User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1715 times:

If the precedent of pre-emptive action is set by the US, UK etc, let's just hope that India doesn't invade Pakistan.

The precedent of pre-emptive action was set by the Pakistanis when they invaded Kashmir multiple times in the past. Alas for them, they got their asses kicked.

India has no intention of invading Pakistan. Simply put, India would rather that Pakistan just went away and left us alone. As long as they continue to support cross-border terrorism, that will not be happening however.


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1700 times:

This is all about getting extra attention for the upp coming World cup match
between the two countries....


User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

all about getting extra attention for the upp coming World cup match

There is absolutely NO WAY that there can be any more attention on that match than already exists! Big grin


User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1682 times:

Incorrect Sean, when other countries strike pre-emptively the UN/US/world have spoken out against it. The US is legitimising pre-emptive strikes with their issue with Iraq (remember, not a single person on this site has explained yet the direct threat Iraq is to the US).

That means that in future when the US bitches about other pre-emptive strikes they will have absolutely zero credibility. I've said before it's a dangerous precedent to set, particularly in light of the fact that with our without WMD Iraq is at the moment no threat to the US.




ADG


User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1655 times:

The US is legitimising pre-emptive strikes with their issue with Iraq

I don't think "legitimising" is an appropriate word here. That implies widespread acceptance, which is certainly not the case.


User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1634 times:

Hasn't the US opted to stay completely neutral in the India-Pakistan crisis?

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineCyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1630 times:

It's another example showing that the pre-emptive war doctrine is a very very dangerous one...

User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1622 times:

Hasn't the US opted to stay completely neutral in the India-Pakistan crisis?

No, the United States provided military and political support to Pakistan all the way upto the mid-1980s.


User currently offlineCyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1614 times:

Another problem is the fact that western countries continues to sell weapons to India and Pakistan, despite the threat to peace these countries could become in the near future.

(France, for example, sells Mirages and aeronautic technology to India, and nuclear submarines to Pakistan... )


User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1607 times:

I was too general in my last comment...I was referring to the Kashmir crisis between India and Pakistan, thats my fault...

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1589 times:

No, the United States provided military and political support to Pakistan all the way upto the mid-1980s.

Rightfully so. The biggest threat to the US until the mid-80's was Russia & Communism. Pakistan was a far more reliable Western ally against Soviet hegemony than India ever was. India was always cosying up to Russia.

Presently, the US and most Western countries are effectively neutral in the India-Pakistan conflict except Israel which is pro-India.

Another problem is the fact that western countries continues to sell weapons to India and Pakistan, despite the threat to peace these countries could become in the near future.

Pakistan & India have the right to buy arms abroad....and Western arms producers have the right to sell them to I & P.....as long as no laws are broken.

If the worst happens with India & Pakistan having a nuclear war, the damage and death (while horrific) will be localized due primarily to their crude outdated weapons. Neighbouring countries have little to fear directly from an India-Pakistan conflict.









Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2207 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1578 times:

India was always cosying up to Russia.

That's not particularly accurate. India chose to remain non-aligned, though we had rather blinkered economic and foreign-policy agendas, the former motivated by Fabian socialism, and the latter by 'righteousness', rather than any sense of geo-political reality. On the other hand, Pakistan firmly joined the American side, as a member of SEATO and CENTO. India did not start 'cozying up to the Soviets' until:
1. Pakistan used its American arms in wars against us, despite oft-quoted 'assurances', especially the pathetic one from Eisenhower, that those arms were meant to be used only for the purpose of holding the USSR at bay.
2. The American action of sending in the U.S.S. Enterprise to browbeat India into going easy during the 1971 war. Not that it helped; Pakistan lost half its territory and had about 100000 of its soldiers taken as POW / LJPZ), Slovenia">POW.

If the worst happens with India & Pakistan having a nuclear war, the damage and death (while horrific) will be localized due primarily to their crude outdated weapons.

Interesting. Can you provide references to back up your comments on the design of the weapons ? How does the 'crudeness' of the design localize its lethality ? How does a 'crude' 45kT thermonuclear weapon like the one tested in 1998 differ from say, a 'refined' U.S. version of the same destructive power ?

[Edited 2003-02-24 04:56:37]


India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

..No, the United States provided military and political support to Pakistan all the way upto the mid-1980s.

Rightfully so. The biggest threat to the US until the mid-80's was Russia & Communism...

..and the overall geopolitical stupidity that went with a viewpoint dictated strictly by coldwar politics. Funding the mujahadeen in Afghanistan and Pakistan with Saudi and US funds and then pretending they would just miraculously all go away.

As far as Pakistan goes, India has to walk a very careful path. Musharraf may be a scoundrel, but as far as Pakistani scoundrels go, he is a damn sight better than any Islamo-fascist anti-US thug who may take his place. Someone of that ilk may not think twice before launching into a more agressive provocation of India. And we all know that the short-sighted right wing Hindu nationalists are just itching for a crossborder exchange of heavy arms.


User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1559 times:

ADG... the "direct" (indirect? - what difference would that distinction make?) threat supposedly posed by Iraq to the US is that it will provide weapons of mass destruction to Al Queda. At least that is what has been said/explained...whether and whoever believes this is a credible threat is another story..but its a simple postulation.

Beyond that, I suppose the US effort is an effort to head off future problems that could be caused by a dangerous Sadam & co. Iraq. and to stabilze the region to the liking and security of the US...in regard to Saudi Arabia and Iran. Whether any of that results, I could not tell you.

The first strike option and execution *is* a very destabilizing policy on the surface and could perhaps be a grave error, no doubt. Time will tell.

On the other hand, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction changes the equation... Many countries may be in a position of damned if they do..and damned if they don't. Certainly that appears to be the situation in which the USA finds itself.

We're living in interesting times...unfortunately.

Tom


User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1544 times:

I don't think "legitimising" is an appropriate word here. That implies widespread acceptance, which is certainly not the case.

*IF* they attack Iraq without the UN mandate then they are doing exactly as I suggest. Acceptance is irrelevant because the next time anyone else wants to do similar they simply have to say "The US did it".

By the way, this will most likely occur even if the UN mandate it as many feel the UN is simply bowing to the cash cow.

ADG... the "direct" (indirect? - what difference would that distinction make?)

It makes a HUGE difference. A country has every right to defend itself from a direct threat and no right to defend from an indirect (implied) threat. After all, america is an indirect threat to all of us so would you say a pre-emptive strike on the US is appropriate? (i'd say not).

threat supposedly posed by Iraq to the US is that it will provide weapons of mass destruction to Al Queda.

What rot. That's never been an issue. Indeed, Al Quaeda have more chance of getting hold of one of the 11 missing US nukes than weapons from Iraq. Again, should we pre-emptively strike the US?

At least that is what has been said/explained...whether and whoever believes this is a credible threat is another story..but its a simple postulation.

It's nothing but rubbish, I can find nothing on this subject anywhere but in the US. Other countries aren't suggesting it, which really points towards more US Government dishonesty.

Beyond that, I suppose the US effort is an effort to head off future problems that could be caused by a dangerous Sadam & co. Iraq. and to stabilze the region to the liking and security of the US...in regard to Saudi Arabia and Iran. Whether any of that results, I could not tell you.

The US has NO RIGHT to interfere with the internal politics of other countries and indeed other regions, that's my point. When there is a DIRECT THREAT against the US then, and only then, do they have the right to pre-emptive strikes. This is why there is such huge anti-war sentiment out there.

On the other hand, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction changes the equation... Many countries may be in a position of damned if they do..and damned if they don't. Certainly that appears to be the situation in which the USA finds itself.

Well as the holder of more WMD than any other country they are being hugely hypocritical, particularly in light of the fact that they really are currently protecting nobody.

We're living in interesting times...unfortunately.

Yes, and it is reminiscent of the 1970's and the USSR behaviour .. unfortunately, guess nothing is learnt.





ADG


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1544 times:

Musharraf may be a scoundrel, but as far as Pakistani scoundrels go, he is a damn sight better than any Islamo-fascist anti-US thug who may take his place.

I agree. He seems rather moderate (by the belicose standards of the Indian subcontinent) & has done a good job of supporting the West while containing his irrational religious factions. He may prove to be a far more long lasting Western ally than India. India likes to wrap itself up in its so-called moral democratic blanket.....but let's face it, India is a corrupt semi-democracy. The West should choose between India and Pakistan (if it has to) based on security & regional stability, not wobbly democracy. This may mean supporting Pakistan diplomatically over India if their Kashmir shenanigans threaten to go nuclear.









Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1540 times:

Neil, if you can say with a straight face that Pakistan wins out over India on the basis of "security and regional stability", then you are either EXTREMELY clueless or simply trying to push buttons!  Smile

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1537 times:

Well, you can't deny that Musharraf has done a good job of keeping the lid on his Muslim religious factions. Yes he has been outspoken to India but really no more than India has in return. In terms of political positioning, he's a good leader for Pakistan.

If nothing else, both India and Pakistan can be praised for not letting their border issues get out of hand, despite frequent skirmishes. A war could easily be started by a random event on either side.

Regarding India, the Hindu/Sikh and Hindu/Muslim tension could easily rise up at any time (although they seem quiet now) which would reduce perceived Indian stability.

Am I trying to push buttons? Well, honestly a little, but not unreasonably so.  Big grin




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1472 times:

I have to agree with -437B on this one. Pakistan is a disaster in terms of stability and security. I think the best evidence of this is foreign direct investment (FDI). India attracts far more FDI than Pakistan because of it relative stability, less corruption, and decent legal system. Despite corruption in India, it has had a democracy that has been pretty much functional for the past 50 years. The transfer of power is usually peaceful in India. Pakistan seems prone to coups and military dictators. I guess the bottom line to my post is "follow the money."

User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2207 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1458 times:

He may prove to be a far more long lasting Western ally than India.

Musharraf is more concerned about his own survival than being allied with the West. There's nothing wrong with that, except that to survive he works directly against Western interests, such as in the case of the Kunduz airlift and the killing of Daniel Pearl. It is this duplicity that makes him dangerous; short-sighted 'band-aid' fixes will hurt more in the long run, the way the darling mujahideen who were the apple of Zbigniew Brzezinski's eye later became the taliban and Al-Qaeda. Check out this excellent PBS interview of Seymour Hersh: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hersh.html

India likes to wrap itself up in its so-called moral democratic blanket.....but let's face it, India is a corrupt semi-democracy. The West should choose between India and Pakistan (if it has to) based on security & regional stability, not wobbly democracy.

Unless you can back up how Indian democracy is 'wobbly' (and I've argued against precisely that assertion on your part, in the thread about the IAF forcing down the US jet, which you never responded to), you merely come across as someone with a monotonous anti-Indian agenda.

As far as India and Pakistan goes, the West has more to lose by supporting a nation under a dictator who makes a show of being their ally, as compared to a nation that actually works according on the same democratic ideals as them, BUT choses to put its own interests above Western ones.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
25 Yyz717 : back up how Indian democracy is 'wobbly' Any country where 1/3 of the population is illiterate, where there is widespread corruption, where there is o
26 Post contains images BarfBag : Any country where 1/3 of the population is illiterate, where there is widespread corruption, where there is on-going religious strife, severe poverty,
27 Jaysit : ...Pakistan has been a very good ally to the US since 9-11... Thats a real stretch. Pakistan has hardly been a good ally. It had no choice whatsoever
28 Yyz717 : You can't expect illiterate people to make an informed choice when voting. They'll vote for who they're told to vote for, whether from the village eld
29 N79969 : Yyz717, You make good points about the connection between literarcy and effective democracy. However, despite massive and grotesque economic failings,
30 BarfBag : You can't expect illiterate people to make an informed choice when voting. They'll vote for who they're told to vote for, whether from the village eld
31 Yyz717 : Illiteracy does not equate to an inability to form one's opinions on their own. Yes, it does. when someone is illiterate, they are cut off from readin
32 Donder10 : Indian growth would be a lot higher if they lowered their tariff barriers-estimates for UK trade (currently 5BN pounds per annum)say it could double i
33 BarfBag : Yes, it does. when someone is illiterate, they are cut off from reading. They are also likely poor which also limits their access to radios & TV. Not
34 BarfBag : Indian growth would be a lot higher if they lowered their tariff barriers-estimates for UK trade (currently 5BN pounds per annum)say it could double i
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
India Labelled As "State Sponsor Of Terrorism" posted Tue Sep 23 2003 19:22:22 by B747-437B
"Flaqs Of Our Fathers" posted Mon Nov 6 2006 17:22:00 by PJFlysFast
"Grey's Anatomy" Star Comes Out Of Closet posted Fri Oct 20 2006 18:59:53 by 727LOVER
No Longer "Freedom Of Speech" In France :( posted Fri Oct 13 2006 23:53:48 by Wing
"Soft Rock" As "professional" Atmosphere posted Mon Aug 28 2006 15:43:29 by LHMARK
"SS Norway" Time Of Death, August 10th posted Mon Aug 7 2006 06:55:19 by Thom@s
RIP Carl Brashear..man Behind Movie "Men Of Honor" posted Wed Jul 26 2006 16:32:05 by Slider
Homosexuality Classified As "mental Disorder" posted Tue Jun 20 2006 09:11:13 by FXramper
A Reason Few "Good Stories" Come Out Of Iraq? posted Wed May 24 2006 23:45:50 by AeroWesty
English Is The "National Language" Of The US posted Fri May 19 2006 18:25:43 by ANCFlyer