Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
India Labelled As "State Sponsor Of Terrorism"  
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 7 months 15 hours ago) and read 1640 times:

India has been labelled as a "state sponsor of terrorism" by delegates at the international summit on terrorism held in New York yesterday.

The initial accusation was levelled by the Pakistani military dictator, General Parvez Musharraf who accused India of using state terrorism to "target people seeking freedom from foreign occupation in Kashmir". He went on to admonish the international community for failing to take action against India, stating that "there can be no selective application of international norms and standards against terrorism".

In a stunning about face from his previous public promises to shut down terrorist camps in Pakistan that trained militants to conduct terrorist activities in India, Gen. Musharraf justified their existence and implicitly admitted Pakistani complicity with the camps. "So long as India persists in violent suppression of the Kashmiri people, they have a legitimate right to resist Indian occupation through any means possible". He added that "equating the Kashmir freedom struggle with terrorism is a travesty".

Musharraf's remarks were echoed by Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath who condemned both India and Israel for their use of "state terrorism" against the Kashmiris and Palestinians. India has been a longstanding ally of the Palestinian Authority, but relations have broken down recently following closer ties between India and Israel that culminated in the state visit of Ariel Sharon to India earlier this month.

India was not invited to the summit despite the fact that the Indian prime minister is currently on an official visit to the United States, a snub that did not go unnoticed in political circles. The snub was compounded as US President George W. Bush conspicuously omitted India from a list of "victims of terrorism" during his address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.

India responded to Gen. Musharraf's comments with a statement by Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal that maintained that "General Musharraf's statements fly in the face of actual facts". He went on to add that, "It's that time of year again. Musharraf is experiencing his annual Kashmir itch. It might be useful if he does some fasting in the future before making his UN pilgrimage". Sibal also laughed about India's exclusion from the terrorism conference saying that "we need to watch the company we keep anyway".

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030922-090027-3137r.htm

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 15 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

This is ridiculous. If anything, India is on the front lines AGAINST terrorism.

LOL




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2175 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 15 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

Musharraf's remarks were echoed by Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath who condemned both India and Israel for their use of "state terrorism" against the Kashmiris and Palestinians.

... and we actually invited and hosted this Shaath dude days before Sharon's visit earlier this month, to assure the Palestiniams that we still cared about them. Hell, we ought to just show 'em two middle fingers now. The same goes for Bush when he comes asking again for our troops in Iraq.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 1603 times:

India and the US should consider themselves allies in the war against terrorism.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 1602 times:

Our favorite dictator is caught between a rock and a hard place. I suspect that his latest speech was given the green signal by the US State Department for strategic reasons we will never know. Intelligence reports that an assasination attempt against him was in the works? Who knows? In any case, Mongoose Mushy is now estopped from ever stating that his beloved ISI isn't behind the deaths of tens of thousands of Kashmiris.

Needless to say, the dufus who composed Bush' speech could have mitigated this disaster by including India in a list of countries affected by Islamo-fascist terrorism. For one, its the truth. And as diplomatic currency it goes a long way - especially in the very touchy Indian intelligentsia.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 1565 times:

Remember that this was not a UN meeting, but "...was organized by the International Peace Academy, a New York-based think tank, and the government of Norway. "

But I find Musharif's accusations ironic, to say the least. Disputed Kashmir is within Indian borders, and it is within India because they themselves decided to become a part of India. It is Pakistan that is interfering with India, not the reverse.

Charles


User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 1532 times:

But I find Musharif's accusations ironic, to say the least. Disputed Kashmir is within Indian borders, and it is within India because they themselves decided to become a part of India. It is Pakistan that is interfering with India, not the reverse.

Hmm.

Surely... Kashmir found it itself torn during the partition era, but the Maharaja signed over some powers in return for military spport?

If Kashmir really wants to be a part of India, why does India still refuse to hold the referendum required by the the UN settlement 55 years ago? Also, why is the state assembly so keen to secure autonomy (denied by central government)?

Kashmir is currently stuck between two chauvinist forces; one of whom simply rolled better dice during the partition than the other. Both would be happy to incite religious bigotry if it furthered their political ends. Kashmir is mostly, but not exclusively, Muslim.

Therefore, actually holding a referendum tomorrow would probably lead to a second Bosnia (with India happy to play the role of the Serbs); but in the long term I think it's inevitable that Kashmir will get at least some control over its own fate, and the first action would be to distance itself from India.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2175 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 1511 times:

The terms of the 1946 India Independence Act gave all pricely states of undivided British India two options - accesion to India or accession to Pakistan. The decision in each case was vested in the hands of the ruler of the princely state, not the 'wishes of the people' or whatnot.

Kashmir happened to be a unique case, of a Hindu ruling a Muslim-majority kingdom. The Maharaja vaccilated in his decision to join either India or Pakistan, preferring to remain independent (which was not a choice available to him). When India and Pakistan became independent on the night of August 14th-15th 1947, Kashmir remained independent.

On Oct.24th 1947 Pakistan invaded Kashmir to wrest it, and the Maharaja panicked and acceeded to India, which was the only way India was authorized to use force to support him. By the time India took control, 1/3rd of Kashmir was in Pakistani hands, and remains so to this day.

The Indian PM, Nehru, took the case to the UN, who advised that two things needed to be done:
a) Pakistan retreats and returns Kashmir to status quo.
b) India holds a referendum in the entire region to decide where they prefer India or Pakistan.
India refuses to do its part of the bargain unless Pakistan first returns all of Kashmir to Indian control. Simple as that.

You could argue that the current status was induced by unnatural causes (an externally engineered invasion), but it was NOT India who was responsible for instigating the situation in the first place. Had the Maharaja merely acceeded to Pakistan, there would never ever have been a Kashmir dispute at all. We merely refuse to let go of something we gained by perfectly lawful means, according to the terms of independence. Further, there'll be no further redrawing of India's borders. We're a far stronger country, both economically and militarily, and will hold on to whats ours. Any move to the contrary is a regressive step towards rewriting history.

India isn't a perfect democracy, but I'm not going to apologize for our faults. On the contrary, I think we've done extremely well building a cohesive nation state out of a land of such extraordinary diversity, which is today one of the two fastest growing economies in the world, and I think I speak for a lot of Indians when I say I'll be damned if I'm going to entertained the ethnically divisive suggestions of an economic basketcase next door thats been a military dictatorship for 2/3rds of its existence, headed by a pathological liar who rules by fiat after overthrowing the elected leader of his country in a coup.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineSayem55 From Pakistan, joined Jul 2001, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 9 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

BarfBag
"On Oct.24th 1947 Pakistan invaded Kashmir to wrest it, and the Maharaja panicked and acceeded to India, which was the only way India was authorized to use force to support him.”
Pakistan did not invade Kashmir... Freedom-Fighters decided to fight against the Indian military rule.
"India refuses to do its part of the bargain unless Pakistan first returns all of Kashmir to Indian control. Simple as that."
Why can't you hold referendum in Indian-Held Kashmir???? And if you really can't afford to... why Indians forces are killing innocent people in the occupied region???
Now don’t tell me that they are "militants". If a 2-year old wants freedom... you have done something seriously wrong.





StarFighter
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2175 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 9 hours ago) and read 1492 times:

Pakistan did not invade Kashmir... Freedom-Fighters decided to fight against the Indian military rule.

Eh ? "Indian military rule" ? What Indian military rule ? We were not even in Kashmir until the Maharaja acceeded to India, because it was NOT Indian territory until then. The invasion occured *before* the accession. You make no sense at all  Smile

Why can't you hold referendum in Indian-Held Kashmir???? And if you really can't afford to... why Indians forces are killing innocent people in the occupied region???

Why should we hold anything we're not obligated to ? We're not such generous people. Did you fellows hold a referendum in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Gilgit, Baltistan and Northern Areas. We don't have to 'hold' or 'occupy' what's already ours. If that were the case, the official name of my country ought to be Indian-occupied India  Big grin

Now don’t tell me that they are "militants". If a 2-year old wants freedom... you have done something seriously wrong.

More hyperbole. "What I grabbed is mine by right. What you're still holding on to is something you're hanging on to against the wishes of its people". Standard Pakistani argument. You guys would do yourself a lot of good by not wasting your breath speaking for others and do something about yourselves - you've got a country full of Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists swarming around. Do something about it.

The rest of the world doesn't like having to suffer because of the hell-spawn emanating from your madrassas, whether in New York, Bali, Kashmir or Afghanistan. Instead Musharaf whines about not being able to pursue al-Qaeda in the tribal areas because 'no army has gone there in 100 year'. How on earth do NWFP & FATA qualify to be part of Pakistan if you have no contorl over those areas in the first place ?



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 7 months 4 hours ago) and read 1449 times:

"Labelled by who?" was the first question that popped in my mind. The "who" matters. In this case, the answer is an inconsequential organization. Further, I don't think many serious minds will give credence to the idea that India is a state-sponsor of terrorism.



User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 7 months 4 hours ago) and read 1446 times:

"Labelled by who?"

B747-437B wrote in the thread-starter: "India has been labelled as a "state sponsor of terrorism" by delegates at the international summit on terrorism held in New York yesterday."

Maybe you just overlooked it.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 4 hours ago) and read 1444 times:

Thanks but I actually did read it. My point is that they are a bunch of nobodies making grand pronouncements. (Although I am surprised that the government of Norway was a sponsor)

User currently offlineMilemaster From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1054 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 1426 times:

I do know that India has terrorized the US tech industry.

User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (10 years 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 1424 times:

I do know that India has terrorized the US tech industry

What, with outsourcing?

Businesses outsource because they can get a better job done in India for less money. That's simple business sense.

If that's terrorism, then presumably cheap softwood imports from canada are terrorism, korea's super-efficient steel mills are terrorism, ...  Smile

I've been there. I've even seen it fail once - my former employer-by-proxy brought in the cheapest people they could source from India to work onsite; they earned a fraction of my salary, but they'd got their qualifications by saving up coupons from cornflake packets. At the end of the handover period I could only sit back and laugh as the business realised that they simply didn't understand anything, hence productivity was near zero.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineMilemaster From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1054 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1354 times:

Businesses outsource because they can get a better job done in India for less money. That's simple business sense.

If that's terrorism, then presumably cheap softwood imports from canada are terrorism, korea's super-efficient steel mills are terrorism, ...


Definately cheaper.. better job is another story.

I certainly don't think India is a sponsor of Terrorism.

I do however think they are a sponsor of really bad food.


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2175 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1319 times:

Definately cheaper.. better job is another story.

It really depends on whom you go to. 'Cheap labor' brings with it connotations of sweatshops where people work awful hours and do a passable job. But that's not necessarily the rule; if you pay peanuts, you do get monkeys, and that applies in India, Phillipines, China or Africa. I'm sure people have anecdotes about Indian offshorers who did a pathetic job of whatever they were contracted to do. Yes, not every Indian coder is John Carmack or Linus Torvalds, and not every company is Wipro or Infosys.

Rhetoric apart, here are some hard facts on the number of software companies with the highest software quality ratings - SEI/CMM level 4 and 5 from Carnegie Mellon University (my alma mater, coincidentally):
Country | # of Level 4 orgs | # of level 5 orgs
India 27 50
USA 39 20
China 0 2
Canada 0 1
Russia 0 1
Australia 2 0
France 1 0
Ireland 1 0
Israel 1 0
Singapore 1 0
source: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmm/high-maturity/HighMatOrgs.pdf

Yes, these are subjective, but the SEI capability maturity model is the best known indicator of software development process maturity, andthey're an indication of how many software companies in India have mastered extremely high levels of competence in the software development process. I count myself fortunate to have worked in one of the CMM Level 5 rated companies in Bangalore, and have had a firsthand view of how well organized it all is.

Subjective statistics apart, the IT/BPO sector is growing at ~30-40% per annum now, with the biotech/pharma sector growing at an even more hectic 65%. IT is a $15 billion industry now, and is slated to grow to $55-60billion in another 4 years. Companies would be foolish to offshore to India to such a massive extent if they didn't feel they'd get a proper job done to commensurate for lower costs. The numbers speak for themselves. TCS has $1 billion in sales, while Infosys and Wipro will both hit that level this year. All three of them will probably breach the $5-10 billion mark by the end of the decade.

Software isn't the only area - Intel is moving part of their Xeon microprocessor design work to Bangalore, as are IBM, Sun, nVidia, Synopsys, Cadence, Motorola, and a host of others. Take a peek in the economics sections of Indian dailies and hardly a week passes without a blurb about yet another company hiring a few thousand more. You'd be making a mistake to assume that India's only USP is low cost; there are more than enough examples to show you can get low cost+high quality - you just have to go to the right guys.

The bottomline, as Bobrayner pointed out, is that this is all just capitalism and free trade in operation.

I do however think they are a sponsor of really bad food.

Eh ? Well, you can stick to your artery-clogging burgers and fries then  Big grin



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently onlineCanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3387 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1292 times:

hmm... this mean that India is next to be blowed up by the US?... wonder who it will be next month.......


CanadianNorth



What could possibly go wrong?
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1265 times:

India's official response came from Prime Minister Vajpayee's speech to the UN General Assembly. Some snippets :

The global coalition against terrorism has registered successes in Afghanistan, but has not been able to extend this elsewhere. Some of its members are themselves part of the problem.

Yesterday, the President of Pakistan chose this august assembly to make a public admission for the first time that Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir.

We totally refuse to let terrorism become a tool of blackmail. Just as the world did not negotiate with Al-Qaida or the Taliban, we shall not negotiate with terrorism.

When the cross-border terrorism stops - or when we eradicate it - we can have a dialogue with Pakistan on the other issues between us.




User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1212 times:


We totally refuse to let terrorism become a tool of blackmail. Just as the world did not negotiate with Al-Qaida or the Taliban, we shall not negotiate with terrorism.

When the cross-border terrorism stops - or when we eradicate it - we can have a dialogue with Pakistan on the other issues between us.


More nonsense from an incompetent, impotent Prime Minister. He mobilised troops once before for an "Aar Paar Ki Ladaai". After loud talk and similiar rhetorical nonsense about "choodiyan", he came back from the borde with his tail between his legs.

Once again this man has allowed the UN forum to degenerate into a tu-tu main Maiin. Once again the wily musharraf has outdone our incompetent PM who has become a national shame.

Why does the PM have to respond to EVERYTHING that Musharraf says or does. He shoudl have concentrated on economic issues instead.

The War on terror cant be won with rhetoric. No one except a republican in america can believe that. However our Vajpayee seems to believe in that.

-Roy


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 Labels Pakistan As "Epicentre Of Terrorism" posted Sun Feb 23 2003 10:31:34 by B747-437B
India Accuses US Of "Unjust Discrimination" posted Sun May 11 2003 17:34:24 by B747-437B
Harris: "State Minus Church = Lie" posted Fri Aug 25 2006 19:43:04 by Maury
Have You Ever Heard Of "Rozelle"? posted Wed Apr 12 2006 00:35:42 by Iamcanadian
The Concept Of "Security" posted Wed Mar 29 2006 08:00:56 by Tbar220
Anyone Heard Of "Euro-English?" posted Sun Feb 12 2006 22:55:30 by AA777
Police Warning: Dangers Of "Beer" posted Thu Jan 26 2006 23:51:44 by BCAInfoSys
Father Of "American Taliban" Asks Bush 4 Clemency posted Fri Jan 20 2006 01:56:13 by Airlinelover
Definition Of "detained" posted Sat Jan 14 2006 23:06:32 by BigOrange
Lions' CB Blames QB For The Firing Of "Mooch" posted Tue Nov 29 2005 20:49:58 by Falcon84