IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 7:37 pm


I was watching the coverage of the Kashmir elections on Western channels like the BBC and the CNN (I don’t watch that sick channel FOX; I will be surprised if anybody does!).

Both the BBC and the CNN didn’t bother about reporting that the polls and the counting process was free and fair (which it was, according to EU observers). Instead they were more concerned with reporting that the “pro-India” party National Conference lost the elections. The Kashmiri’s had resorted to “tactical voting” according to one of these characters; they had sent a “message” to India (it seems!).

What they omitted to mention (or mentioned in passing) was that the Congress party had emerged as one of the victors and is sure to form the next Govt. in the state. Now the Congress is the party which fought the British and won India its freedom! So what is the BBC/CNN trying to say: That the Congress is anti-Indian? Jeeez!

I hope the BBC and CNN realize that what they are losing with this kind of biased reporting is their Credibility.


-Roy

 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 7:40 pm

Of course CNN is losing it's credibility, that is why the rest of us are watching FOX News.


And lets face it too, The intricacies of Indian/Kasmiri politics are just not interesting or relevent to the daily lives of the Americans who would watch CNN.

As for the British, don't be too hard on them.

You beat them in that war Big grin
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 7:46 pm

This just in. The media has biased reporting all of the time. Whether the BBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Al-Jezzera (sp), and on, and on, and on.....
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:07 pm

KROC is right. The media is extremely biassed. Here they are so red you could rub a white sheet on them and you'd get a Soviet flag.
I wish I were flying
 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:22 pm

FOX is MOST biased of all.
I have sources other than the media as I know some people from Kashmir and they are telling TOTALLY the oposite to what the media reported. ABout the turnover especially. At a lot of places NOT A SINGLE VOTE was casted. I repeat I am quoting the residents of those sides.
 
advancedkid
Posts: 740
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2000 1:27 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:42 pm

I fully agree.
It's called "presstitution" by the way!
However, don't be so much disturbed.
This is not actually a new thing. In any case
as you would find out, the truth is always out
there for the intelligent amongst us like you.
You just have to read it between the lines
and by comparing the reporting differences
of these corporate media and looking up some
independent news sites. By the way, I am surprised
at what Pravda has turned out to be in the
post soviet era. Not too bad at all, I would say.
Regards,
Advanced
 
Super Em
Posts: 424
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 7:55 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:50 pm

I agree with everyone here. Fox claims to be "fair and balanced" but they couldn't be farther away from that. I just read the paper go online do further the research and of course come here to discuss it  Smile
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 9:28 pm

There's no such thing as an unbiased news channel. People will report what suits their agenda, whether that appears in the form of "Yeah, lets attack Iraq!" war dances or that annoying use of the prefix "Hindu-nationalist" whenever the BJP party in India is mentioned.

The Kashmir elections are a watershed in the history of that region. For the first time the locals had the power to kick out those whom they felt did NOT satisfy their aspirations, and they did precisely that. India went out of its way to ensure that polls are as transparent as possible.

There WILL be reports of coercion, rigging and whatnot, all of which were unsubstantiated, with no proof on camera. Proof to the contrary comes from the terrorists' own threats to kill anyone who dared to participate in the polling process - candidates or voters. Why would they do that, unless they had something to be worried about ?

The shrillest screeches of the vote being rigged emanate from Pakistan, with no one to substantiate them, and that is to be expected - its what they'd like to see happening. They have their own elections happening now, with a combination of widely-reported rigging, and huge gains for hardline anti-American Islamic parties making it not just a laughable exercise but a dangerous political situation. Pakistan's opinion on Indian election process is irrelevant - they are a army-controlled dictatorship, India is the world's largest democracy.

I find this 'coerced voting' bogey in Kashmir laughable. Voting is by secret ballot. What's stopping people from heading into the closed booth and say, pissing into the ballot box if they felt coerced ? A turnout of almost 50% in a war-ravaged area where terrorists specifically stated that anyone who dared to vote was as good as dead (they killed 700 during the 4-phase polling period, including about a dozen candidates) is a tribute to the bravery of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and their unwillingness to put up with the uncivilized thugs who spread terror while pretending to be working for their 'freedom'.

India gave the people a chance to exercise their democratic rights, backed up with our own guarantee of security from the terrorist threat. They rose to the occasion and stood up to the danger, voted out a corrupt bunch of politicians who viewed the state as their fiefdom, and elected in those whom they feel will rightly represent their aspirations. Kashmir, for all the trouble it faces, is far more democratic and free than Pakistan has ever been.
 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 10:25 pm

There's no such thing as an unbiased news channel. People will report what suits their agenda
So someone reporting what suits their agenda is unbiased. GREAT ONE PAL!!!!

Hindu-nationalist" whenever the BJP party in India is mentioned.
So the people responsible for the distruction of the historical and religious place like the Babri Mosque are NOT Hindu Nationalists. Whats your point here?? Ofcourse even the Nazis claimed to be normal people.

And:
Hahahahahahahahahaha on the rest of your post.  Big thumbs up really funny things there.
BTW now that you have started the Pakistan-India war here as compared to my opinion based on the witnesses of the elections and its victime, you are talking the Indian media. BTW being the world's "largest democracy" is of NO honor what so ever. Furthermore its one of the MOST currorpt and extremist government in power there. The government responsible for the atomic bomb race in the region. Gatherning weapons at a mass rate and lot of countries are "racing" to be the largest arms provided to India.

This government is also responsible for one of the largest and one of the MOST horrific massacres since the second world war which is STILL not over yet,, resulting in the killing of thousands of Muslims in the MOST HORRIFIC manner. Women to small girls raped, people burned OPENLY in the streets of Gujrat. NOT EVEN the ELECTED political members were spared. And you "unbaised media" reported almost NOTHING of it. The doordarshan reported better than BBC, CNN or FOX etc. The killers were seen with PRINTED papers of the addresses and list of property of Muslims that was targetted. Recently an Indian investigation report revealed that the train that was buned that these barbarians used as an excuse, was reported to have been burned from the inside where only thr Hindus were present. This errupted one of the MOST ORGANISED "RIOTS".
In the end, EVEN the compensation was give on RELIGIOUS basis, with the Muslims recieving HALF of what was given to the Hindus. Not even a SINGLE person caught for the killings. Even the government remains the same. Another anti terrorist law was passed soon afterwards that was so fair that the police could keep someone is jail for years without trial and ALL the people caught as a reult were Muslims.
Call this fair??? Or am I speaking lies?????? Lies accepted by EVEN the Indian Media.(Rather mostly reported by them.)


India took the Kashmir problem to the UN itself. The UN resolutions called for a right of self-determination to be given to the Kashmiri people which they were not given att he time of partition of the subcontinent. To day India is on the verge of saying that there are NO UN resolutions on Kashmir. Tell me one thing! CAN a country conduct elections on the territory that doesn't EVEN BELONGS to it??????
The your "unbiased" media, the CNN, BBC etc, during the cold war used to display the map of the world (because Pakistan was an ally) during its weather reporting, showing Kashmir as a disputed territory. Soon after that Pakistan was needed no more and India was so Kashmir bacame a part of India. Then on perhaps september 12th it became disputed again, and now a days its a part of India. I do wonder when will it became disputed yet again.

And Kashmir elections!! As I said on many areas NOT EVEN A SINGLE VOTE WAS CASTED. These are the words of Kashmiri people that I know. Out of fear???? huh!!! The fear was of Indian army which at a number of previous occasions have forced people to vote.(No word on what happened this time)
50% tunover!! What a JOKE. Nice one. Some agencies repoted less than 4%(unbaised media haan?)
There are thousands of Kashmiri civilians missing after arrest by the Indian army.
Kashmiris want to be with India??? So why not India prove it by giving them the right of self-determination???????? A very logical solution only IF India is saying the true that Kashmiris want to be with them.



 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 10:32 pm

This all goes out to BarfBag and his post.
As far as IndianGuy is concerned, we have had a great constructive conversation in the past where I was relieved to meet some reasonable Indian though some points were left undecided.

As far as Pakistani elections are concerned, every one knows that the Islamic parties CANNOT win on rigging they are not powerful enough to do so. Riggin would ONLY be done by pro Indian elements to stop them from comming. Also the win of Nawaz league is the proof that the allegations were not true. Surely Musharaf would not have let him win if there was any rigging.
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 10:41 pm

When determining 'biasness' you should differentiate between the news broadcasts from the hourly opinion columns. Don't judge the channels by Hardball, Crossfire or Hannity & Colmes. Those are opinion shows that are supposed to be biased. Judge by the news coverage. That's the part that should be completely unbiased. If you can't handle that, watch the Jim Lehrer(sp) Report on PBS.
"Shaddap you!"
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 10:49 pm



People will report what suits their agenda, whether that appears in the form of "Yeah, lets attack Iraq!" war dances or that annoying use of the prefix "Hindu-nationalist" whenever the BJP party in India is mentioned.

This makes me wonder what the BBC’s agenda is in continuing with this kind of India-bashing. What is their agenda is trying to prove that the kashmiri’s want to opt out of the Indian-Union when they have clearly shown through these elections that they don’t? PTV is owned by that rogue army across the border. But what’s the BBC’s excuse in furthering this kind of mischief?

As for their description of the BJP as “hindu-nationalist”, that makes me laugh everytime as the BJP is neither Hindu nor Nationalist! The BJP is the one Indian party which believes in kissing American ass bigtime, and they are called nationalists! Puhleeze!

I agree with barfBag that the Kashmiris deserve a pat on their back for expressing their choice through the ballot box and throwing the corrupt National Conference/BJP alliance out despite the threats by the Pakistani Terrorists and their scumbag generals.

-Roy

 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 10:56 pm

You ever see an American get snooty with a Japanese, Italian or German person and huffilly say, "We won the war!!!"

That may be what is in the British craw, You all can walk up to them and say, "We won the war!!!"
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Guest

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:21 pm

There is no such thing as absolutely unbiased reporting. Yes, professionals are expected to suppress their biases. But every so often, a bit of bias will leak through, even if it's in the form of a subconscious choice of words or someone's body language.

There are also external factors leading to bias. The media is dependent on advertisers and sources, and is often owned by companies that have interests in other parts of the economy. Is that going to bring some pressure to not spurn the people who pay the bills or to not embarrass the parent company? Of course it will.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:23 pm

L-188, I know you like Fox, and that's cool, but that's because they are so overtly conservative in their reporting. This thing they say "We report, you decide", is a load of bull.  Smile They make no pretense which side of the fence they sit on-99% of the time, you think you were watching "GOP Live"!

AS for the election, Indianguy, why should Americans be overtly interested in the details? All we really want to know, in any election, is who won.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:28 pm

So the people responsible for the distruction of the historical and religious place like the Babri Mosque are NOT Hindu Nationalists. Whats your point here??

1. The VHP/RSS/BD is not the same as the BJP, anymore than George Bush and Jerry Falwell are the same person.
2. The compulsive desire to use "Hindu-nationalist" every time BJP is mentioned betrays bias. No one calls the Republican Party the "war-mongering Saddam-chasing tax-cutting Republican Party", or some such kinky description  Smile
2. The Babri mosque was not a religious place but a disputed structure, according to law. No namaz has been offered there since the early 1940s, pending a decision on the dispute, and by Muslim law that takes away its claim to being a Muslim religious place. Considering the religious background of the matter, and the fact that every 'solution' based on the presence of a temple and a mosque side-by-side was rejected by the Muslim Wakf board in the 1980s, I don't see what else would have happened, especially when people want to see temples in Hindu holy places like Ayodhya, Mathura and Somnath being rebuilt, after they were destroyed by Mughal thugs.

As for Gujarat, I agree entirely. But that does not make India any less a democracy; it just means we have communal problems. Democracy is the rule of the people, by the people, for the people, and the last time I read, Gujarat wasn't an army dictatorship. Too bad your efforts to stoke another riot by killing Hindus in a temple failed.

As for UN resolutions, as in Jerry Maguire, "Show me the money!" You obviously revel in quoting the UN resolutions, without realizing that no plebiscite is equired to take place until status quo is restored, i.e., all of 'Azad JK' comes under Indian administration in order to perform the plebiscite. Try again.

Some agencies repoted less than 4%(unbaised media haan?)

Again, as you said, your word against mine. Let those 'some agencies' quote the 4% figure, and all those stories of Kashmiris being tortured by those wicked Indians  Laugh out loud

The government responsible for the atomic bomb race in the region. Gatherning weapons at a mass rate and lot of countries are "racing" to be the largest arms provided to India.

Absolutely. If we have the money, and we want the power, we'll get it. Don't like it ? Too bad. What would you prefer ? Kissing and exchanging mithai at Wagah ?
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:34 pm

Hey Alpha1.

Like somebody said earlier if you strip away all of the opinion shows, it isn't that bad.

Besides, I don't even have cable, so I can't watch either.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:40 pm

AS for the election, Indianguy, why should Americans be overtly interested in the details? All we really want to know, in any election, is who won.

Alpha1, Indianguy's post was all about the kind of spin that was used to portray why those who won did so. Reporting on the results ranged from extremely well-analyzed in some cases to downright incomprehensible gibberish in a number of others. As in the case of Fox, its not as much news as an attempt to paint a picture with the news.
 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 12:01 am

The Babri Mosque has been there sor hundreds of years and other than just being a mosque it was a hostorical place as well just like the Buddah statues in Afghanistan. The only difference is that noone spoke out for that and on the other hand the entire world was so concerned in the case of the Buddah statues.
You can claim that the place was disputed, but this is NO justificationthat some thugs would get up and bring it down, and the government did NOTHING to stop them. Even now these extremists hindus are OPENLY saying that no matter what the Supreme Court decides we will built the temple.
VHP etc may not be the same as BJP but they are allies and this is becasue their agenda is the same.

The Gujrat incidents don't make India any lesser democracy but it does reveals that democracy has provided NO security for the large number of Muslim population in India. I would rather like to live safely in a Military controlled country than to be burned alive in some large democracy.

.......all of 'Azad JK' comes under Indian administration in order to perform the plebiscite. Try again.
THE ENTIRE JAMMU AND KASHMIR WILL COME UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE UN PEACE KEEPING FORCE, unders whose supervision then poll will take place just like the recent East Timor case. Something Pakistan is ready to do but India knows the results, have delayed it for over a half century so far.

Again, as you said, your word against mine. Let those 'some agencies' quote the 4% figure, and all those stories of Kashmiris being tortured by those wicked Indians
I was saying that as a reference, what I am saying is from the eyes of the people who live in Kashmir. OKAY??

Absolutely. If we have the money, and we want the power, we'll get it. Don't like it ? Too bad. What would you prefer ? Kissing and exchanging mithai at Wagah ?
If one of the world's most poorer countries wanna spend soo muuch just to fill some extremists desires to be "powerful", Pakistan is right behind. As forces face each other at the borders, if Indian thinks its more powerful than Pakistan, it will have to prove it. And despite the fact that India's defence buget is more than Pakistan's entire buget, India's hesitaton to attack is a proof of what will happen.  Smile
BTW This was what I was trying to prove, India's thirst of agression and will to destroy peace.


 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 12:50 am

You can claim that the place was disputed, but this is NO justificationthat some thu
gs would get up and bring it down,


Absolutely. Religion inflames sentiment. You see it in the demolition, and in riots. If two sides had 5 decades to try to agree to build two religious places side by side and could not agree, you can expect the zealots to run wild.

and the government did NOTHING to stop them.

And risk losing votes ? Or worse, their limbs ? Politics is always about expediency, no matter where you are  Smile

Even now these extremists hindus are OPENLY saying that no matter what the Supreme C
ourt decides we will built the temple.


The Babri mosque stood for 500 years where a Hindu temple once stood, yet no one had a problem worshipping there. No shame, nothing. If people try to defy the Supreme Court, they deserve to be prosecuted, but IMHO there should be no mosque or temple at that particular site. Neither side deserves it.

I would rather like to live safely in a Military controlled country than to be burned alive in some large democracy.

You wouldn't be particularly safe in Pakistan if you were:
a) Hindu
b) Christian
c) minority Muslim, i.e. Shia, Ahmediya etc.

THE ENTIRE JAMMU AND KASHMIR WILL COME UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE UN PEACE KEEPING FOR
CE.


Nope. Status quo means situation before. The UN wasn't there before.

Something Pakistan is ready to do but India knows the results, have delayed it for o
ver a half century so far.


If so, why did the Hurriyat (who are pro-secession) not participate in the recent elections ? Why did the terrorists threaten those who wished to vote ? If they hate us, they would have stayed away on their own will - why would a terrorist threat be required ?

People voted out the supposedly 'pro-Indian' party in power. If they (the Hurriyat) claim such a mandate, why did they not participate ? 'Sham' elections ? The Abdullahs got voted out fair and square. The Hurriyat may well have won, giving Pakistan a *great* deal of leverage. You guys blew it by staying out, and missed an opportunity to strengthen your own argument. To call an elections unfair because the party favorable to you *willingly* stayed out (despite the Indian Govt trying its best to get them to participate) is ridiculous.

India did its best to hold an elections in which it didn't try to influence the result, and gave a guarantee to those voting that they would be protected from terrorists. We accepted the fact that the ruling party was kicked out and that the BJP got just 1 seat
. Hell we're happy about it! We conducted an election well, gave people freedom to choose, happily noted the Hurriyat whine afterwards  Smile Now we can and will claim that those whom we deal with in Kashmir are mandated representatives.

As forces face each other at the borders, if Indian thinks its more powerful than Pakistan, it will have to prove it.

Classic logic. So why should our arms purchases worry you ? As long as we're just having chai-biscuit at the border, it should make no difference, na ? You shouldn't whine about our arms buildup unless we beat you in a war. And that's not going to happen, since as you say, we don't have the guts to do so. So why complain ? Be happy. See Zee TV  Laugh out loud

BTW This was what I was trying to prove, India's thirst of agression and will to des
troy peace.


Absolutely, if it suits our interests. 'Peace' is overrated. I'd rather see meddlesome terrorists being killed by the dozen.
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 1:36 am

As forces face each other at the borders, if Indian thinks its more powerful than Pakistan, it will have to prove it.

Like they did in 1947, 1965 and 1971. One would think that was proof enough.

And despite the fact that India's defence buget is more than Pakistan's entire buget, India's hesitaton to attack is a proof of what will happen

India's hesitation is because a civilized democracy doesn't usually attack other sovereign countries just because they disagree with their policies and actions. Unfortunately, Pakistanis have been so deprived of democracy for so long that they can't even realize this.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 1:43 am

The Babri mosque stood for 500 years where a Hindu temple once stood....
Islam doesnot permit a mosque to be build at such a place. But is it so in this case???? No person can get up from his bed and say that I know that its wrong and pick up an axe and bring it down. ITS THE COURT TO DECIDE OKAY????
And the fact that they suddenly remember it was wrong 50 years after independence and 500 years after it was built gives something to think about. Let alone its status of mosque, it was also historically important. Explains the savageness of these people and those supporting them.
It should have been the court to decide after proving to it that its wrong and then be brought down by the government.
Risking votes!!!! Speaks of the nature of the majority Hindus living there and the threat tot he minority Muslims among them.

You wouldn't be particularly safe in Pakistan if you were:...
What if I say that I myself am a Shiya Muslim. BTW there is NO Muslim minority, Islam is NOTHING like Hindu caste system dividing people, I believe in Islam and Islam alone so does the governmental status. In order to enter Madina and Makkah, you need to be a Muslim ALONE.
What if I say that I have a christian living happily next door and I have some Hindu friends all satisfied here? Thats true and I am a witness myself. Proof to you?? The destruction of Babri Mosque enraged the ENTIRE country and NOT A SINGLE TEMPLE was attacked, no church threathened etc.

To be continued.... (gotta go)
 
ly772
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 9:33 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 2:32 am

I only watch FOX...I hate CNN because they are so anti Israeli. All the time showing the troops in Gaza, never the families ruined in buses and in restaurants.
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 3:00 am


Hey Jawad, just wanted to ask if you are even aware of what the topic is? You have ONCE AGAIN turned this thread into a forum for India-bashing. Much as I hate to divert from the topic, I will take time off to respond to each of your rants.


So the people responsible for the distruction of the historical and religious place like the Babri Mosque are NOT Hindu Nationalists.


I agree. People who do these sort of things cannot be human, let alone Hindu. I doubt these people have even understood the basic fundamentals of Hinudtva! So I agree with you fully on that one.

But don’t for a moment start believing that all Indians are like these. These characters are a small minority. Very Small Minority.


BTW being the world's "largest democracy" is of NO honor what so ever.

Perhaps its just me, but I do have this irrational preference for democracy! I would choose a corrupt policeman over a corrupt General anyday!



The government responsible for the atomic bomb race in the region. Gatherning weapons at a mass rate and lot of countries are "racing" to be the largest arms provided to India.

In percentage terms, India spends one-third of what Pakistan does on the military. Your Generals spend 60 paise out of every rupee earned on buying guns for themselves. Last year we spent 17 paise out of every rupee on the military, Far Far less than most countries do! Wrong again Jawad!


This government is also responsible for one of the largest and one of the MOST horrific massacres since the second world war which is STILL not over yet,, resulting in the killing of thousands of Muslims in the MOST HORRIFIC manner.

Blah.. Blah… Blah…

Well correction Jawad, this Govt. hasn’t done this. But then was it guilty of not acting in time? Yes. But ultimately, the Indian system won out. And THAT matters!


The UN resolutions called for a right of self-determination to be given to the Kashmiri people which they were not given att he time of partition of the subcontinent.

Well, yes. The UN did call for that right to be given. But your generals interpret “self-determination” as grabbing Kashmir for yourself. Second, India has never said that there are No UN resolutions! What we are saying is that whatever UN resolutions were passed have become obsolete with the Simla Agreement where-in both India and Pakistan agreed to resolve all issues including Kashmir bilaterally. This agreement overrides the Simla Agreement.

EVEN if you take the UN resolutions, let see what the resolution adopted in 1948 that you are so much in love with actually says:
1. Pakistan should vacate 34775 sq. kms. of area that it has forcibly occupied including PoK as well as the adjoining areas of Gilgit and Baltistan which should be transferred to Indian control.
2.India undertakes to conduct free and fair elections in these areas to allow the people of this region to determine their future.

So you see, Pakistan must vacate those areas that it has occupied. What you are suggesting is that India should keep its part of the bargain, without Pakistan fulfilling its obligation! Surely that isn’t fair!

Far from keeping those obligations to the intl. Community, Pakistan has launched unprovoked aggression aimed at grabbing this area not once but 3 times since. And when that didn’t work, let loose a bunch of armed terrorists to terrorise India. Even that hasn’t worked!


The your "unbiased" media, the CNN, BBC etc, during the cold war used to display the map of the world (because Pakistan was an ally) during its weather reporting, showing Kashmir as a disputed territory. Soon after that Pakistan was needed no more and India was so Kashmir bacame a part of India. Then on perhaps september 12th it became disputed again, and now a days its a part of India. I do wonder when will it became disputed yet again.

He he. Jawad dear. Nobody said that the CNN/BBC was unbiased. Quite the contrary! The topic was that these news channels were BIASED! I suggest you read the topic fully from the beginning. SLOWLY this time!


As I said on many areas NOT EVEN A SINGLE VOTE WAS CASTED. These are the words of Kashmiri people that I know.

There were a total of 4 polling stations were NOT EVEN A SINGLE VOTE WAS CASTED as you put it! The rest had polling figures ranging from a low of 4% in interior areas to a high of 80% in the border areas which see daily shelling from the Pakistani side. The average tally was between 44-46%.


Kashmiris want to be with India??? So why not India prove it by giving them the right of self-determination????????

They DO have a right to self-determination. They have voted to choose who should represent them and rule over them.

While you are ranting here about self-determination for kashmiri’s you seem to forget that YOU, yourself don’t have that right. That right was taken away from you 3 years ago remember when those rogue army generals took over.

Looking at you Jawad, it becomes painfully clear why democracy has not taken root in Pakistan; how those generals manage to rape Pakistan every now and then. Its because you guys are too hypnotized by your mindless hatred for India.

Get over it man!

-Roy





 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 3:23 am

LY772! You only like to see the exaggerated side of the scene you wanna see. Troops are in Gaza and you don't wanna know that its true. Israelis are killing Palestinian childres you don't wanna accept and FOX provides a heaven for people like you. CNN on the other hand likes to show a "part" of Palestinian claiming to be providing the correct view and gives its verdict in the favour or Israel. Both are biased, FOX winning the race by far.

Comming back to what I was saying.......

If so, why did the Hurriyat (who are pro-secession) not participate in the recent elections ?
This is because (you should have known) the elections are ILLEGAL. India is trying to eat away the real right of the Kashmries.

Why did the terrorists threaten those who wished to vote ?
While the Mujahideen (which happen to be Kashmiries) take responsibility of ALL of their attacks on the Indian Military which they aim to throw out of their land. They along with the Hurriat party, ONLY gave a call to boycott the elections and this was the voice of the Kashmiries so they didn't pool. India used the situation claiming that they have threathened the voters, they deny the alligation.

The Hurriyat may well have won, giving Pakistan a *great* deal of leverage.
The Hurriyat states that the fight of independence is to be won OUT of Indian parliaments because Kashmir has NEVER been a part of India, Indian military has tried their best occupying their land, not their hearts.

You guys blew it by staying out, and missed an opportunity to strengthen your own argument.
The argument is that Kashimir is NOT a part of India and has NEVER been. Going into Indian Parliament would be accepting that Kashmir is a part of India. Their claim is "let the self determination decide the fate of Kashmiri people" which I fully support.

Hell we're happy about it! We conducted an election well, gave people freedom to choose,...
They choice they want is GET THE INDIANS OUT!!!! You can be happy to have a grip illegally, not the Kashmiries.

BTW a great number of Hurriyat leaders are ALWAYS in jail for NO stated reason, arrested whiole makeing huge demonstrations, and a LOT of them have been killed while in detention by the Indian Army, let alone an ordinary Kashmiri.

Now we can and will claim that those whom we deal with in Kashmir are mandated representatives.
Hahahahahahahahahaha
thats what India has been always doing in the past as well, nothing new.
An important piece of information, Farooq Abdullah (I saw a Zee TV clip) was called in a program accepted that the ONLY votes that made him the victor were:
1-Himself.
2-Wife.
3-1, 2 or three childres.
4- And a servant.
Same case this time.

So why should our arms purchases worry you ?
Its not worrying Pakistan, its worrying peace. And you guys seems to be so happy to destroy peace time and again.

As long as we're just having chai-biscuit at the border, it should make no difference, na ?
No differnece, except that the Pakistanis are present on their side to knock the hell out of them of they decide to pick those dangerous guns that children shouldn't be playing with.  Big grin

Well the Indians were looking to mass up the forces before Pakistan could take its defensive positions on the borders, the entire plan was top secret and the attack was planned in a way so as to catch Pakistanis by surprise.
And so suddenly they started the process while according tot hem, Pakistanis were "unprepared", althought what followed next was more than enough to make them whine as they saw Pakistanis bringing their forces in position in RECORD time so as to make them SURE that they will not get through. Then the poor Indian soilders, told to wait, had to bear the hottest of summers, as the Indian side was much heated up as compared to the Pakistanis. On the Siachen as well Indians bleeding being on more height. SO no problems here, just that atleast accpet that India is the war lover, peace hater, and all the stuff that a third person reading this conversation among us would feel.

Absolutely, if it suits our interests. 'Peace' is overrated. I'd rather see meddlesome terrorists being killed by the dozen.
There ya go!!!!
Destry everything that doesn't suits interest. Interests, Hindu dominace everywhere, cast system observed all over. Women to be burned alive with the bodies of their husbands as thay have no right to live. And whenever and where ever this is not possible, destroy peace.
Hence proved!
 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 3:26 am

Indianguy!
Your post states that the Kashmir elections are not being reported correctly, this calls for the knowing of what is actually going on there.
 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 3:35 am

But don’t for a moment start believing that all Indians are like these. These characters are a small minority. Very Small Minority.
You have made me convinced that not all are like this, they might also be a very small minority, even if this is true, this minority is needs to be eliminated just as the 19 hijackers are sooo much to be concerned with.

Gotta go again guys, maybe I'll be back tomorrow now.
Have a great one everyone.
Jawad Usman.
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 3:36 am

Good grief Jawad, I read your rhetoric laced tirades and almost feel sorry for your ignorance. Your view of India is a highly sensationalized and dated one. I invite you to come visit and see for yourself what a true free country is like, where your elected leaders may be corrupt, but they are then thrown out in the next election by the will of the people, not by the will of the military in a "guided democracy".
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
Rai
Posts: 1697
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:12 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 3:44 am

Sadly, I am not too familar with the situation in India and Pakistan. To my knowledge, Pakistan used to be a democracy under Bhutto. I always thought that she was an elected leader. Am I wrong about this? O know that Musharrif got in through a coup. If anyone can shed some light on the situation, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to learn more.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 3:47 am

Admittedly the massacres in Gujarat were anti-Muslim pogroms encouraged by Narendra Modi who is a butcher by any standards. But the Indian News - all branches of it, including the government run Doordarshan TV network, as well as the printed press - covered the carnage sparing nothing and incurring the wrath of the usual right wing Hindu fanatics. Except for Maleeha Lodi's tenure at the Dawn, I really dont' know if a free press ever existed or has existed in Pakistan. And therein lies the difference. Whats more, as far as right wing Hindu fanatics are concerned in India, they're currently not doing too well. Most voters dumped the BJP in the state legislatures.

As far as elections in Kashmir are concerned, a 50% turnout is pretty darn good, especially in the face of the usual Islamo-fascists gunning down people. In the US, we barely have a 45% turnout for elections. Does that make every US election a farce? No, it doesn't. As far as Pakistan is concerned every election in Kashmir will be deemed a farce except for the ones that they hope to never impose on the region once the Islamo-generals hope to take power in their wet dreams.

CNN got it completely wrong, I think. The Kashmiri voters were sick and tired of Farookh Abdullah and his dynastic reign and his inability to deliver basic services or peace to the region. They were sick and tired of his government, and sick and tired of its reliance on the brutish, beleagured army to maintain peace. So, its good to see Abdullah and his little "laddoo" of a son get their butts kicked. However, lets see what the Congress does, or if this will just be the displacement of one bunch of dynastic thugs with another bunch of bums. The eyes of the world will be on Sonia Gandhi and she and her party better deliver on Kashmir. If nothing else, at least clean up Dal Lake !

As far as the details of these elections being aired on CNN and BBC... why? They're news shows, not detailed political white papers.


Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 5:13 am

The Hurriyat states that the fight of independence is to be won OUT of Indian parliaments because Kashmir has NEVER been a part of India, Indian military has tried their best occupying their land, not their hearts.

The Hurriyat, unless I am mistaken, is officially known as All-Party Hurriyat Conference. They're a political party, one without a mandate but just an assertion that they represent the Kashmiris. They're not part of the current J&K legislature. So then are they part of Pakistani legislature ? Which constituency did they get elected from ? How do they claim a mandate to represent Kashmiris without being voted in by them ?

Specifically, how can they claim to represent the people of Indian Kashmir if they're not elected to some official legislature from constituencies situated in J&K ? How does a Pakistani have a mandate to decide the needs of those in J&K without being voted in by them ?

How can you claim to be a guardian of the rights of 'self-determination' of Kashmiris without a legal representative from among them ? At best you can claim to dispute the state's accession to India, but not talk about what Kashmiri's want. That's their job, not yours.

Its not worrying Pakistan, its worrying peace. And you guys seems to be so happy to destroy peace time and again.

Huh ? Its worrying peace but not Pakistan (and Pakistanis) ? So you're not worried ? Who or what is this 'peace' ? Why doesn't stand up and say its worried about an arms race ? Why are Pakistanis doing so instead ?

Destry everything that doesn't suits interest.

There there... we're not all that bad. We let you beat us in cricket, hockey and other sports, remember ?
 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 7:39 am

They're not part of the current J&K legislature.
These elections were held to (as India claims) chose a party that will sit in a house with Indian flag under the Indian constitution. The All Party Hurriyat Conference denies that J&K are part of India in the first place.
Let there be elections to be held to decide which party do they support, they will choose APHC. Thats what they say. What they also say is that, APHC demands the freedom of J&K, so don't give us independence on the basis of elections to ask people if they support APHC's views. Give the right og self determination to the PEOPLE of J&K to decide IF they wanna join:
1-India.
2-Pakistan. or
3-Want to be an independent state.

....Why are Pakistanis doing so instead ? ...
Pakistan is telling the world just all that I have stated. It claims it wanst peace, and is telling the world that India doesn't. No double standards here as India claims that it wants peace, but Pakistan wants to reveal the truth that it doesn't thats all. I AM NOT AT ALL WORRIED ABOUT A WAR HERE. I live within 4-5 NM radius from lahore Intl Airport which is close enough to the border. I would pick up my chair to sit on the roof of my house to see IAF comming down in flames should there be a war.  Smile

There there... we're not all that bad. We let you beat us in cricket, hockey and other sports, remember ?
Hahahahaha yeah you do. Right on with this one. Big thumbs up
But it seems that you have lost enough cricket to shut those doors.(Pakistan have won more One day Internationals and more Test matches with India and now a days Indians have declared they will not play any more cricket with Pakistan)

As far as elections in Kashmir are concerned, a 50% turnout is pretty darn good,
Thats what I am saying, that I know some people from Kashmir and they say that the turnout was NOT 50%.
 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 8:10 am

In percentage terms, India spends one-third of what Pakistan does on the military.
Dear Roy!
Pakistan has said on many occasions that it would like to see both counties cutting the defence buget (Both countries are poor, Indian economy is better where as Pakistan is richer in terms of percapita income per year). The amount that these countires spend on defence if spen on construction would end all the problem is this part of the world. I ABSOLUTELY donot mind Pakistan increasing its defence buget following India. BTW Indian defence buget is now more than entire Pakistani buget as stated so Pakistan has to ensure to take most efficient steps to ensure the best use of defence money and to be competitive still.

Well, yes. The UN did call for that right to be given. But your generals interpret “self-determination” as grabbing Kashmir for yourself. Second, India has never said that there are No UN resolutions! What we are saying is that whatever UN resolutions were passed have become obsolete with the Simla Agreement where-in both India and Pakistan agreed to resolve all issues including Kashmir bilaterally. This agreement overrides the Simla Agreement.
Pakistan (and NOT generals) ask for the right of self determination of Kashmiri people. Its that bit ingredient of Indian Media that gives rise to the idea of Pakistn trying to grab entire Kashmir. I support the right of self determination and will accept and respect the results.
Secondly I said that India is on the VERGE of saying that. I ment to say that India is doin all to keep that right to be delivered.
Even if you take Shimla agreement, it states that the matter will be solved by Bilateral negotiations. Today India says "no negotiations". The dispute has to be solved. Either by the Shimla agreement or UN resolutions. India when offered talks to the APHC, they asked India to let Pakistan be a party in the negotiations as well, which India refused. So this gives an impression that India is not serious in this regard.

So you see, Pakistan must vacate those areas that it has occupied. What you are suggesting is that India should keep its part of the bargain, without Pakistan fulfilling its obligation! Surely that isn’t fair!
I am not aware of the exact scropt of the UN resolution. What I know is that Pakistan (to my knowledge) has NEVER said that it will not abide by the UN resolutions. Its just that if India agrees to go this way which it doesn't. BTW it didn't makes sense that the UN resolutions states that the polls will be conducted ENTIRELY under Indian control. I would feel better with the UN International peace keeping force and I think that its the way the UN solves these problem (like the East Timor where Internation force conducted the polls)
Even if this is right, certainly there would be a check on that and in this case Pakistan will not have ANY problem if it can be assured that the polls will be fair.

He he. Jawad dear. Nobody said that the CNN/BBC was unbiased.
I was speaking ironically that was why the word "unbiased" was in these "".

There were a total of 4 polling stations were.....
You are speaking from what the media told you. I am speaking the words of a Kashmiri. Certainly I would believe in that because every one knows that media is biased (even proved in this thread) secondly, your source (the media) may get its words from its sources, my source is a Kashmiri himself.

They DO have a right to self-determination. They have voted to choose who should represent them and rule over them.
I am speaking of their right to chose if they wanna be Indians in the first place.

Its because you guys are too hypnotized by your mindless hatred for India.
My hatred is NOT for India but its actions. As you said they are minority, I don't see anything being done to keep it down or catch the responsible people. This makes me concerned, I hate that minority and the people that are backing them up and democracy in Pakistan has nothing to do with this.
It has to do with the same problem as you stated is in Indian government, American ass kissing competition.
 
DPrush
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 8:11 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 8:13 am

Relax boys...Will straighten out this whole Kashmir thing when we're done with Iraq...Be good now, you don't want a provisional government consisting of American generals, do ya?
 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 8:34 am

Dear Rai!
Pakistans democracy has suffered from the direct effects of the cold war, right after its independence in 1947. As Pakistan supported America and democracy, becomming its ally, India chose to stand by Russia. Russia in need for warm shores, saw Afghanistan as a soft target, lauched an invasion making this area a war zone. The Afghans have an interesting history. They have never been open to the outside world always ruling among them selves. On the height of its power, Britain also tried to invade Afghanistan which resulted in an interesting result, ONLY ONE British soilder survived the war which was left alive intentionally to go back and tell the British what happenend. The Afghans were laggin behind in technology back then as well. Anyway the Russians faced only an opposition from the civilians as they were not organised as they decided to take up arms.
The Americans helped the Afghans (obviosuly) only when they had established them selves as a worthy opposition. So the Afghans fought through the most difficult part on their own. The American policies and actions in Afghanistan were controlled throught Pakistan and this called for a extremely pro American government in Islamabad to favor America. While ordinary Pakistani had NO sympathy with the Russians, they were concerned by American U2's flying from bases in Peshawar for spying in Soviet Union. Especially when it was revealed that the Soviets had blown the cover and brought down one U2 flying over Russia. This made Pakistan a nuclear target of Russia. Things were that extreme here. On the other borders, India has been a constant threat. In 1974(perhaps) it detonated its first nuclear device forcing Pakistan to indulge in its nuclear program. American had established its control here by then and wanted Pakistan not to make nuclear weapons, so there started a series of unstable governments and to date Pakistan has not seen many strong governments and strong democracy as ther were other strong priorities. The cold war also bring Osama Bin Laden into the picture. And what happened in this area from the time of Taliban and then the september 11th is well known.
So having that much turbulant times Pakistan has not just survived, but progressed and is today a nuclear power. Threats on its borders remain and Pakistan feels strong enough to cope with them as well.
This was a very short history for you to have an idea of what went here.
Hope this helps.
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 9:59 am

Jawadbhai - again you contradict yourself. If self-determination of the Kashmiri people was all that Pakistan wanted, how about withdrawing forces from your "Azaad Kashmir" (sic) as a prerequisite for a plebiscite? Somehow I don't see that happening.

There can be no arguing that Pakistan supports cross-border terrorism, both directly and indirectly. ISI was the mastermind behind the March 1993 Bombay Bombings, an even that I believe to this day overshadows September 11 in terms of sheer magnitude. Miltants in Kashmir have constantly crossed the border from Pakistan with both direct and indirect support from the Pakistan government. Those are not the actons of a country who supports peace. Those are the actions of successive regimes who need Kashmir as a domestic issue to maintain their power base in Pakistan.

You have the gall to call Indian democracy crooked while Pakistan not only has a farce for a democratic process, but every elected leader in the last 3 decades has either been sent packing into Exile with Swiss bank accounts greater than the entire nation's budget or been imprisoned/executed by their brutal military successors. For Pakistan to demand the "will of the people" in Kashmir is highly ironic, considering that the will of the people has never worked for the rest of their country.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 11:20 am

The All Party Hurriyat Conference denies that J&K are part of India in the first place.

Why do they call themselves a political party, if they refuse to participate in political process administered by the Indian Government ? They don't participate in polls in your country, nor do they do so in J&K. So what legal basis do they have ?

In a democratic system, the ONLY way you have a voice, even against an administration you are opposed to, is by proving your mandate based on their political process. Whether or not the Hurriyat believes the elections are legal is moot; if they want New Delhi to take them seriously, they should have participated. Which is precisely what I said - if they had participated, won by a landslide, as you claimed they would, and then demanded the 'right to self-determination', India would have few alternatives but to listen.

You have only to see how we accepted our own puppets being kicked out, to see that we're serious about finding a solution within our political framework. But you obviously don't see that do you ? 'Moral and diplomatic' support for terrorists, and shrill screeches for 'self-determination' will get Pakistan nowhere, as it has been for 55 years. Pakistan has no maturity as a democracy to even begin to comprehend the process of a democratic system, much less use it to its advantage.

Political process is not something we in India take lightly. You want 'azadi' and claim the people back you ? Prove it in an election which we go to great lengths to ensure is free and fair. Then, with your mandate, make your demand. That how democracy works. This is not a situation akin to a kid begging his mom for candy, thinking he can browbeat her into giving it to him.

Give the right og self determination to the PEOPLE of J&K to decide IF they wanna join:
1-India.
2-Pakistan. or
3-Want to be an independent state.


Nope. The British India Act of 1946 gave the ruler of each of the 625 princely states two choices:
1. Accession to India.
2. Accession to Pakistan.
Can the Pakistani Government show a legal accession document ?

Even if you take Shimla agreement, it states that the matter will be solved by Bilateral negotiations. Today India says "no negotiations".

The Indian Government's consistent stand is that violence must first end. Only then can talks happen. We argue you arm terrorists and send them to J&K. You claim they are freedom fighters to whom you give moral/diplomatic support. In either case, doesn't it strike you that you want to hold bilateral decisions on a matter that you are ACTIVELY working to influence ? Sorry, we can't negotiate in such a situation. You can have either talking or fighting, not both.
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 3:56 pm



THE ENTIRE JAMMU AND KASHMIR WILL COME UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE UN PEACE KEEPING FORCE, unders whose supervision then poll will take place just like the recent East Timor case.


I am sure that’s what you would like to see. But I am afraid that isn’t what the UN resolutions of 1948 say. You can’t selectively implement UN resolutions you know. Implement them fully or accept the status quo.

But lets be clear, if your generals think that hijacking our airliners, bombing our parliaments and assemblies is a legitimate way to overturn this status quo then they are clearly dreaming!


BTW there is NO Muslim minority, Islam is NOTHING like Hindu caste system dividing people, I believe in Islam and Islam alone so does the governmental status. In order to enter Madina and Makkah, you need to be a Muslim ALONE.

Puhleeeze! I am not Muslim or Hindu, but I reserve the right to visit either AksharDham or Ajmer-sharif. The mullahs/Brahmins can kiss my butt! But if am going to carry guns/bombs to those places, THEY have the right to KICK my butt!


While the Mujahideen (which happen to be Kashmiries) take responsibility of ALL of their attacks on the Indian Military which they aim to throw out of their land.

Most of the militants were Kashmiri’s but this was before 1996. After that the situation has totally changed. Rajesh Pilot, a junior minister should get the credit for taking radical steps to win back the disgruntled kashmiri youth. When the rebellion lost steam around 1996, Pakistan, through the ISI started recruiting hardline terrorists on hire and sending them to the valley.

According to a report released to the US Congress by their intelligence, over 90% of the so-called Mujahideen fighting in Kashmir are from outside the region. Most of them, an overwhelming majority, are either Afghans or Pashtu’s recruited from madrassa’s in the NWFP of Pakistan. There are a sprinkling of “mehman-mujahideen” or guest-fighters from Sudan, Chechnya and even Bosnia at one time! 3 Bosnian’s were among the terrorists were killed by Indian forces in Akhnur!

All the 4 hijackers of the Indian Airlines Airbus to Kandahar were Pakistani nationals. 3 of them infact served in the Pakistan Army and today stay in Lahore! The British Govt. is fully aware of this. But the BBC continues to say that IC814 was hijacked by Kashmiri militants.

As to attacking the Indian Army, they have been over the past 3 years, concentrating on killing politicians opposed to integration with Pakistan, as well as soft targets like Civilians through fidayeen attacks.


They along with the Hurriat party, ONLY gave a call to boycott the elections and this was the voice of the Kashmiries so they didn't pool. India used the situation claiming that they have threathened the voters, they deny the alligation.

Voters were threatened. According to one EU observer, terrorists were checking villagers to see if they had the indelible ink mark on their finger which would prove they had voted. If this wasn’t intimidation then what was?

As for the Hurriyat, it was clear from day one, that the APHC was deeply divided. Sections of the APHC wanted to participate, but it was pro-Pak sections like the one led by Abdul Ghani Bhat which pulled the plug. So a typically Indian formula was worked out. While the APHC officially stayed out, sections of the APHC (like Sajjad Lone among others) contested as independents.


BTW a great number of Hurriyat leaders are ALWAYS in jail for NO stated reason, arrested whiole makeing huge demonstrations, and a LOT of them have been killed while in detention by the Indian Army, let alone an ordinary Kashmiri.

All the Hurriyat leaders, afaik, have been OUT of jail since the election process began. Sajjad Lone (a pro-India Hurriyat leader) WAS arrested briefly for smuggling foreign currency.

A lot of them having been killed by the Indian Army? Most of those killed are terrorists armed with guns, and that’s the only way that they have to be dealt with. The terrorists have killed far more civilians.


An important piece of information, Farooq Abdullah (I saw a Zee TV clip) was called in a program accepted that the ONLY votes that made him the victor were:
1-Himself.
2-Wife.
3-1, 2 or three childres.
4- And a servant.
Same case this time.

His son won just 2000 votes in his “stronghold”! Is it any wonder that that arrogant bastard was booted out by the Kashmiri’s? As I said, the Indian system won out as it always will.


Well the Indians were looking to mass up the forces before Pakistan could take its defensive positions on the borders, the entire plan was top secret and the attack was planned in a way so as to catch Pakistanis by surprise.
And so suddenly they started the process while according tot hem, Pakistanis were "unprepared", althought what followed next was more than enough to make them whine as they saw Pakistanis bringing their forces in position in RECORD time so as to make them SURE that they will not get through. Then the poor Indian soilders, told to wait, had to bear the hottest of summers, as the Indian side was much heated up as compared to the Pakistanis. On the Siachen as well Indians bleeding being on more height. SO no problems here, just that atleast accpet that India is the war lover, peace hater, and all the stuff that a third person reading this conversation among us would feel.

The plan was secret? Hey I didn’t know that! I still remember the day my mother had to leave for her duty, and I posted the details of it here on ANET! Heck, I didn’t know it was supposed to be secret!

Pakistani forces were NOT rushed to the border in record time. They were there before the Indians, attending a joint military exercise with the mujahideen, a replay of “Operation Gibraltar” which triggered the 1965 war.

India actually made as much noise as possible, because the idea was to get the international community to turn the screws on Pakistan for using Terrorism as an instrument of state policy. We succeeded, but only to a limited extent; Because crooked officials like Colin “Uncle Tom” Powell bailed the Pakistani generals out (Remember that hilarious statement about “Democratic Dictatorship”! Ha! Ha!).

Pakistan was prepared for war? Come of it man! It was the shenanigans of Colin Powell and the incompetence of the Indian politicians, which saved you guys from certain defeat and dismemberment. Pakistan was in no position whatsoever to fight a war.

If push had come to shove, Pakistan had weapon stores sufficient only for 72 hours of continuous battle. The PAF was the worst off and had committed to battle knowing that half its fleet would have to remain on the ground because of lack of spares and the other half didn’t have sufficient air-cover. Only a dozen F16’s were in flying condition, and that too without a lot of their electronic gizmos. This while the IAF was preparing to break its own previously held world-record of 800 combat sorties a day for 17 days(1971)! Paks food reserves were at an all time low, barely enough for a month, and a naval blockade of Pakistan like the one enforced in 1971 would have starved Pakistan; literally. This, while India had 72 million tonnes of surplus food-stock in her godowns, enough for 2 years!

Unfortunately, the incompetent Indian leadership of Atal Behari Vajpayee was so busy kissing American ass, that this golden opportunity to sort out the rogue Pakistan army was also frittered away.


I live within 4-5 NM radius from lahore Intl Airport which is close enough to the border. I would pick up my chair to sit on the roof of my house to see IAF comming down in flames should there be a war.

Nice to hear that Jawad! I also stay 5 NM from Lohegaon AFB (Pune) which has historically been tasked with targets south of Bahawalpur. But I do know someone who operates Mig-27’s out of Ambala AFB, so I will let him know about your desire!  Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud



Pakistan has said on many occasions that it would like to see both counties cutting the defence buget (Both countries are poor, Indian economy is better where as Pakistan is richer in terms of percapita income per year). The amount that these countires spend on defence if spen on construction would end all the problem is this part of the world. I ABSOLUTELY donot mind Pakistan increasing its defence buget following India. BTW Indian defence buget is now more than entire Pakistani buget as stated so Pakistan has to ensure to take most efficient steps to ensure the best use of defence money and to be competitive still.

Pakistan is 10 times smaller in terms of area, and 5 times smaller in terms of Population. Your economy is what 1/4th, 1/5th?

Kabhi suna hai: insaan ko apni aukat nahin bhoolni chahiye!

Yet you want to get into this madcap arms race with us that only benefits the generals and American Arms companies, since they are the only ones supplying your rogue army these days.


Pakistan (and NOT generals) ask for the right of self determination of Kashmiri people.?

Seriously, with those generals around, do the Pakistani people really matter? If your opinion really mattered, then you would have had a civilian PM elected by you. Pervez Musharraf has repeatedly stated (the last time was in New York just last week), that the 3rd option (of independent Kashmir) was “not viable”.



Dprush says:

Relax boys...Will straighten out this whole Kashmir thing when we're done with Iraq...Be good now, you don't want a provisional government consisting of American generals, do ya?

Thanx for that valuable contribution. You must be tired from attending so many Republican conventions!  Laugh out loud

-Roy

 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 4:30 pm

You know to be honest, maybe it is a good thing that Kashmir is a Def Leopard song to most people.

It would scare the %&$ out of most people if they realized the intense dislike in that part of the world.

You know Indian and Pakistan making each other glow is probably a more real threat then Iraq. You can't discount the latter but the former is a more dangerous combination.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sat Oct 12, 2002 5:09 pm

I've seen some BBC reports from the region, they DO concentrate on the election carnage, because in the West such things are shocking and unfamiliar.

Reporters have a right to interview people involved, so if they film Indian troops stopping a group of locals then the troops scurry off when they see they are being filmed, and the said locals claim they were told by the troops to vote-and who to vote for, the BBC has a right to run it.
But the other view should be expressed, and in this report two Indian government officials were interviewed to put the government case, that's proper reporting.

BJP are called 'Hindu Nationalist' to A) Tell them from Congress and B) Is a reflection of the BJP's rise since the temple incident and the part some BJP members played in it.

The BBC's reputation for impartiality is well known, but with Indianguy it's just the usual British rule was wrong (very true), and everything that's happened since 1947 is their fault line we always see on here.
I would suspect the BBC has more resources in India then any other foreign news service, with many long term specialists in country, like the veteran but now retired Mark Tully who still makes films for the BBC.
The UK's large Indian immigrant community is an important part of the BBC's domestic market, and many Indian descended Brits work at the BBC.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sun Oct 13, 2002 12:57 am

GDB: Indianguy says nothing about BBC trying to paint a picture of coerced voting or any exaggerated picture of malpractice. Hardly anyone one did. But BBC was among those whose reporting of the election results was hardly any good. This is not a question of impartiality as one of downright poorly-researched, naive reporting. No matter how complex the India-Pakistan dynamics maybe reporters are paid to figure it out before writing about it.

BJP are called 'Hindu Nationalist' to A) Tell them from Congress and B) Is a reflection of the BJP's rise since the temple incident and the part some BJP members played in it.

That is simply ridiculous. Name another country for which the BBC consistently uses such terminology. The appendage betrays nothing more than an attempt to portray a party's entire ideology on the basis of what "some BJP members played in a past incident", while chossing to completely ignore any other achievements or the lack of them. Is India so rarely in the news in Britain that every political news item must choose to use some event from a decade past to even ring any bells in the viewer's mind ?

Or does the BBC choose to completely ignore the fact that other than the at least 3 of the most powerful political figures in India(Abdul Kalam - President, George Fernandes - Defence, Jaswant Singh - Finance), are not Hindu, and that no one could even begin to claim they were chosen for reasons other than being the most competent ? Talk about poor reporting. The BBC does a great disservice by choosing to use narrow stereotypes to report its news, and then having to report along those very stereotypes to paint a meaningful picture with their news.

That fact that BBC can boast of Mark Tully and a large network in India is no excuse for shoddy reporting. I greatly admire Mark, and most people in India know who the BBC is, thanks to their long presence since the initial days of radio. If anything that gives them even less an excuse to misreport. Completely setting aside whatever could be attributed as my own bias against a British news agency, Indianguy's post clearly showed how the BBC reporters, of all foreign correspondents, could not even begin to put together the post-election occurences as a coherent newspiece, much less spin it with what could be attrbuted as bias. Some of the news betrayed plain incompetence. That's not something one expects from the BBC.

 
Lortab 7.5mg
Posts: 771
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:13 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sun Oct 13, 2002 1:08 am

You know to be honest, maybe it is a good thing that Kashmir is a Def Leopard song to most people.


L-188,

Kashmir is a Led Zeppelin song.


 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sun Oct 13, 2002 6:14 am

You know Indian and Pakistan making each other glow is probably a more real threat then Iraq.

Iraq is hardly an immediate threat to anyone. Even George Bush can't make the case of immediate need for action with a straight face. Yes, we know that Saddam WANTS to have WMD and we know that once he gets them he may WANT to use them, but its hardly like he has missile silos with open covers pointed at all the world capitals. India and Pakistan do. QED.

"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:32 am

I am sure that’s what you would like to see. But I am afraid that isn’t what the UN resolutions of 1948 say
While thats what I would like to see, if the UN resolutions say this,I and definately Pakistan will have to accept them and I think they do. Only its India that doesn't.It has NEVER spoke of the people of Kashmir to be gievn their right of self determination, all that I hear is that Kashmir is "atoot ang" (permanent part) of India. That makes you think if India is ANYWAY willing to give this right to the people in the first place, let alone the assurances of the polls to be held fairly.

But lets be clear, if your generals think that hijacking our airliners, bombing our parliaments and assemblies is a legitimate way to overturn this status quo then they are clearly dreaming!
Lets be clear, in the last hijacking, the plane landed and took off from India, a thing that shouldn't have had happened, Pakistan clearly stayed out of it by not permitting any negotiations with the hijacker.
While I speak of this, it also reminds me of another Indian hijacking when Indian meddia went as far as reporting that the hijackers are of Arabic accent (that was soon after sept11) and an hour later it turned out to be that there was NO hijacking AT ALL. Something that gives you something to think about BTW by then the blame had been placed on Pakistan by India AS USUAL.

Puhleeeze! I am not Muslim or Hindu...
Didn't got your point there.

Pakistan, through the ISI started recruiting hardline terrorists on hire and sending them to the valley.
Blah blah blah..... everything bad is done by ISI, I know that(like the hijackings). Truth, Kashmiries are fed up of brutal indian army and its killings and its state terrorism and have decided to take up arms. As for the presence of non-Kashmiries I don't have time at the moment to explaing the long detail, busy in the wedding of a first cousin (all the best to them). I'll do so soon.

Voters were threatened. According to one EU observer, terrorists were checking villagers to see if they had the indelible ink mark on their finger which would prove they had voted. If this wasn’t intimidation then what was?
My Kashmiri friend tell me that Indian army use to threathen the people to vote or lose their fingers should they be unmarked. Lot of difference here, you source, media, mine, a witness and victim. Thats why I believe in all this so strongly.

His son won just 2000 votes in his “stronghold”! Is it any wonder that that arrogant bastard was booted out by the Kashmiri’s? As I said, the Indian system won out as it always will.
I am speaking of the turnout of people in the elections here. 5-6 votes to decide the winner!!!!!

The plan was secret? Hey....
Comon man!!! the D-DAY of Normansy was top secret, everyone knows its exact details today.

Pakistani forces were NOT rushed to the border in record time. They were there before the Indians,
I have got friends in the army. They tell of stories that their units were dropped by helicopters on the west borders with Afghanistan, and even before they could get thir camps established, they were told to move within no time thousand of miles away in new positions near the India- Pakistan border. If you are familiar with the procedure of the movement of a unit, it takes days if not weeks as places are selected for the camp by the high ranking officers, where as in this case, the ooperation was completed by individual units in hours. A record!!!! Again your source is media, iI am taling about the experiences of my own friends and their brothers.

Pakistan was prepared for war? Come of it man! It was the shenanigans of Colin Powell and the incompetence of the Indian politicians, which saved you guys from certain defeat and dismemberment. Pakistan was in no position whatsoever to fight a war.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Well that was the same that India estimated in 65 before crossing the international borders and got the answer, I am more sure that it would have been a more humiliating one this time. Don't make me laugh THAT much. If Pakistan was not prepared, India would have attacked , Indians like to win without a fight, here that was not possible, so they decided to save their lives and stay where they were.

If push had come to shove, Pakistan had weapon...
The situation was even poorer in 65 but the government held, in 71 the dumb ass polititians (all dead now) were responsible. PAF's 1 squadron (maybe 26 planes) all planes that were outdated even in the 65 war were used, as compared to 12 IAF squadrons. 1 PAF airbase, as comapared to 12 Indian airbases. Even the asshole leaders had taken away the early warining radar from the airfield making it completely blind. PAF killed more than dozens of IAF planes as compared to it total loss of 4 in East Pakistan.
In 65, more than 110 IAF kills as compared to 16 PAF downs all witht the F-86 facing the then latest fighters in the world the Mig 21's. An entire squadron of which was destroyed on ground at Pathankot.
M.M Alam took 6 or 7 kills in one engagement (a record) and destroyed 4 IAF hunters in less than 40 seconds (a record).
Flying more sorties is not a thing to be proud of, its the way you handle the enemy. PAF knows how to do it. BTW PAF is in its full operational condition.
The Pakistani Army didn't even needed the PAF (which was on alert if needed) during the Kargil conflict, where as IAF was fully operating there and EVEN THEN IAF was hot down by Pakistani Army. Though in the end the American ass kissers saved India by calling to the army to pull back. The Indian army was no match for Pakistan to force it out on its force that it has gathered.

Pakistan is 10 times smaller in terms of area, and 5 times smaller in terms of Population. Your economy is what 1/4th, 1/5th?

Kabhi suna hai: insaan ko apni aukat nahin bhoolni chahiye!

So you are saying that a larger vountry survives, what a ridiculous thought!! Acording to this idea the Soviet Union would be ruling the world, India should lay it arms in fron of the Chinese, the US should have won in Vietman etc.
Kabhi suna hai: Pehlay tolo phir bolo warnay apna moon hee na kholo.


Wanted to say a lot, but had to confine it what I said becuse I am busy in taking my mom for shopping for the clothes etc and going for the small gatherings of all counsins and having fun.
But here I would like to tell you the FIRST EVER engagement of PAF and IAF from my memory ( I would tell you the more datails, date etc late)
Its was the year 1948, don't know which month.A PAF Dakota (freighter) was returing after suppling the aid to the northern areas (may be the during the Indian operatyion to take Kashmir). It was intercepted by two IAF fighters (1 tempest and 1 spitfire or both spitfires). They ordered the Dakota to acompany them to the nearest Indian airfield. The Dakota refused to surrender, and pulled out of their ring trying to escape. The fighters opened fire and the maneuvers continued. Now WHAT a Dakota would have been able to do, the engage,ment lasted for 35-45 minutes and the poor IAF fighter RAN OUT OF AMMO, MAN THEY SHOULD HAVE DIED AT THEIR GREAT AIRMANSHIP AS COMPARED TO THE PAF PILOT!!!!!!
The Dakota landed safely on the Pakistani airfield, though it took some bullets near the rear door which hit a Naik who later died of bleeding.
So gotta go as they say:Sleep tight! PAF is awake.
Sweet dreams!!



 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:47 am

Jawadbhai - Your entire post is filled with so much misinformation that it truly makes me value truth and freedom of the press so much more. Is accurate information really that hard to come by in Pakistan?
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sun Oct 13, 2002 12:28 pm

Kashmir is a Led Zeppelin song

ARRGGHHH!!!

How could I possibly screw that one up.....

 Pissed  Pissed  Pissed
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Sun Oct 13, 2002 10:02 pm

Sean Bhai!, brother, I have written the entire post just by my memory, do don't bash me if the figures are not exactly correct, the real will be within a less considerable difference than what I said. As far as misinformation is concerned, I have told already that more than media I like to rely on witnesses and as I live in Pakistan, I have option to find people that have "been there" and based on their observations I make my opinion. I am open to arguments and I like to clear things up.
As far as exact sources and figures and details are concerned, as I have told ya guys that I am busy in the wedding of a very close first cousin and we are getting together everyday now, so it makes it hard for me to get all that time and serene environment to type all this.
Best regards,
Jawad Usman.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:04 am

If my memory serves me well, the IAF won the 1971 war flying a bunch of rusty, rickety Gnats while the PAF had the best of Uncle Sam's mighty air arsenal, i.e, the F-14 Tom Cats. So, I don't know what Bravo45's endless qawali about the "ifs, buts, and howevers" of the 1971 war is trying to prove.

I also read these mindless comments coming out of Pakistan where they try and distance themselves culturally, socially and racially from India and attempt to identify on all fronts with the Gulf and the middle east. Well, what a bunch of hogwash. Indians and Pakistanis are much more similar than our respective governments have led us to believe - we by and large eat the same food, we have the same music, the same clothes, cultural baggage, history. There is this drilled assumption in Pakistan that India has never recognized its existence (a notion nurtured by those Global Dons of perversity, Nixon and Kissinger) and that India wants to annihilate Pakistan. I dont' think Indians really care one way or another about Pakistan or are obsessed over partition. If nothing else, Indians certainly made Nazia Hassan, Nur Jehan and Imran Khan into big stars. See, we love your food (because its our food too), your poetry, your language, and we wish that any fights are restricted to cricket matches. We just don't like your thuggish generals. Purge Zia ul Haq's aura in the same way that Russia purged Lenin.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Mon Oct 14, 2002 5:19 am

had the best of Uncle Sam's mighty air arsenal, i.e, the F-14 Tom Cats.
WHAT THE HELL!!!!
PAF HAVE NEVER!!! OKAY!, NEVER EVER HAD F-14
ALL THEY HAD WERE THE F-86S AND THAT TOO ONLY ONE SQUADRON.
So its like I DON"Tknow what the HELL are you talking about.
Has Indian media been reporting THIS SHIT!!!!!
 
bravo45
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 5:34 pm

RE: Biased Media Reporting

Mon Oct 14, 2002 5:21 am

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I have only replied the other guy in his tone. I don't like to fight any peaceful person, but its like "I am up to him" when he says something like, "We make peace ONLY when it suits our interests."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Francoflier, Hillis, NH203 and 20 guests