Sri Lanka's cricketers shot and wounded as bus attacked in Lahore, Pakistan

[Violet_Crumble]

Source: news.com.au

MASKED gunmen have fired on the Sri Lanka cricket team's bus in Lahore in an attack that wounded several of the players as well as killing six policemen and two civilians, a police official said.

Sri Lankan Sports Minister Gamini Lokuge said six members of the cricket team were wounded in the attack.

Two were in hospital and all others were safe, he said.

Pakistan Cricket Board security official Nadeem Iqbal said the team members were attacked near the Lahore stadium where they were being driven to play.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25133386-2,00.html

[moundsview]

1. Three football players are still missing in the gulf of Mexico

What is the significance of this story? Would it be "news" if they weren't cricketers?

[sledgehammer]

2. There's a lot to this story actually...

Pakistan, unsurprisingly, has been the scene of lots of violence in the last few years. A lot of it targeted at foreigners.

Because of security issues, foreign cricket teams have generally refused to tour Pakistan. This has been a financial disaster for Pakistan, and has hurt the large number of followers of the sport.

Sri Lanka defied the odds and agreed to tour. It was noble of them. They were given head of state security. Still, they were attacked. Thankfully the injuries seem to be minor and were sustained in the aftermath, rather than by bullets.

It's definitely hard for people in non-cricketing countries to grasp the gravity of this. But a terrorist attack directly on top-level athletes of any sport is a significant event.

It also adds to Pakistan's woes (as if it needed anymore) - if head of state level security is not enough, then is anyone safe?

[karynnj]

13. Good points - I wonder if that poster would have thought the same of theMunich attacks

on the Israeli wrestling team.

Your comment on head of state security is beyond terrifying when you consider the risk that means for our diplomats and Congressmen doing the oversight that is part of their job.

[Kalyan]

5. this is MAJOR news

The equivalent of it: Let's say NE Patriots team bus was attacked by terrorists when going to a game. This ranks just a level below the 1972 Munich Olympics terrorism incident.

If anyone needed anymore proof that Pakistan is a de-stabilized nation, this is it. A few more thoughts:

1. The only reason that the Sri Lankans were playing the match is because India refused to send it's cricket team post 26/11. Imagine what would have happened if Indian cricket team came under terror attack in pakistan. In the worst case, it could kickstart a regional war between these 2 nations where Cricketers are treated like demi-gods.

2. Post-26/11 Mumbai attacks and the surrender of Swat valley to Taliban, this incident is likely to move Pakistan a step closer to the abyss.

3. While i am happy that the lankan cricketers emerged with just minor injuries, i pray for the 4 policemen who lost their lives. Completely needless.

4. It isn't even amusing that former ISI chief comes out with an interview blaming India for this. To the ex-ISI chief - Did you take your morning medication?

5. One cannot rule a LTTE/LeT nexus here. Sri Lanka is finishing-off LTTE in the Eastern jungles. Could they have made a payment to bring global attention to their plight?

[sledgehammer]

7. Yes...

As hard as it is for many to admit, the fact is that Pakistan is in really bad shape. Not sure if destabilized is the most appropriate word since the government is pretty much in charge and in place(save very recent shenanigans). But your point is valid.

Also, in response to your thoughts...

1) If India were attacked, that would have been insane. However, the security level given to India is a lot more than other teams. Especially Sri Lanka, who would not be considered a target by any means. Still, nothing can prevent an attempted attack.

2) Sadly, yes. Normal life has been ruined. I really blame the general Pakistani population for slowly accepting and/or tolerating hardline Islam over the course of three decades. They never challenged the mullah at the mosque and thought that by ignoring him the problem it would go away. The mullah's influence (propagated by Zia) gradually crept in to all spheres - rural/urban, rich/poor, educated/illiterate. And today we suffer.

3) Very, very tragic for all those who lost their lives. They paid the ultimate price in the line of duty.

4) That's standard MO for such attacks. Pak blames RAW/India, India blames ISI/Pak. It's been this way for decades. It often means nothing, just a quick way to deflect questions.

5) LTTE? Really? I did think of that for a second as the news rolled in. But then thought that if LTTE wanted to attack the team, they would have done it a long time ago in Sri Lanka. They have never attacked, nor threatened to attack, cricket, as far as I know. I could be wrong.

[cosmicone]

18. This just goes to show that the devilish idea of partitioning India

was wrong and one could even stay stupid.

The brits sowed the seeds of this by creating an illegitimate state like Pakistan which doesn't have any economy except for providing a transport route for heroin and carrying bags for the US and China.

Pakistan, under Zia ul Haq, promoted, founded, financed and trained terrorist groups, albeit with CIA's wink and nod. Now the whole world is paying the price for these misadventures.

It would be best to balkanize Pakistan into more manageable and less fanatic countries with smaller armies and no intelligence apparatus.

[redqueen]

19. Hadn't it been successful till then though?

Divide and conquer I mean.

[sledgehammer]

22. A short history of a complicated country...

Pakistan was relatively stable into the 1960s. In fact, it was considered to be economically and socially more progressive than India. This is partly because India looked inwards, encouraged self-reliance, and imported little or no foreign goods. Pakistan was the opposite - foreign goods, aligned itself openly with the US, etc.

The 1970s changed a lot in Pakistan, almost entirely for the worse. East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) won independence through its own struggle, and with the military intervention of India who handed the Pakistan Army a crushing defeat.

Amidst all this, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (Benazir's father) became the most popular leader in Pakistan. He came with lots of promises (hope, change, the whole nine yards), but then made two disastrous moves from which Pakistan has never recovered. He nationalized most major industries (in order to take power away from certain industrial families), and he started to give in to the Mullahs by banning alcohol in Pakistan, and officially declaring the minority Ahmadi community as non-Muslims.

Bhutto was removed by the Army chief, Zia-ul-Haq, in 1977. And Zia had Bhutto executed. Zia was a follower of Wahabi (puritanical) Islam, which is funded and propagated by the Saudis. Zia implemented a number of religious laws in Pakistan through his dictatorial rule, and began the establishment of madrassas and state-controlled mosques throughout the country.

At the same time, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and the US used an eager Zia to convince the Afghans that this was a religious battle. US supplied Zia and the Mujahideen with arms and money for a decade. Zia was killed in an air crash under mysterious circumstances in 1988.

Once the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989, the US dropped Pakistan completely and withdrew all support. This led to huge resentment against the US and the West, and became fodder for the Mullahs. Sanctions on Pakistan for its nuclear program (which the US was completely aware about for all those years it was arming Pakistan, destroyed the economy. The Mujahideen (including a certain Osama Bin Laden), fresh off their "victory" in Afghanistan, turned their attention to other hotspots like like Kashmir, Chechnya, etc. thus spreading/creating militant outfits like Al-Q, LeT, etc.

From 1988 to 1999, Pakistan had successive corrupt democracies led by Benazir and Nawaz Sharif (though it could be argued that Sharif's first term was a bit successful, before it turned to disaster). But little was done in the way of economic progress.

In 1999, Musharraf took over in a coup and ruled as a dictator for 8 years. He gave the US free rein over what to do in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and asked for nothing in return (except perhaps kickbacks for him and his generals). He gave the Army more powers than ever before, and for the first time in Pakistan's history, public opinion started turning against the Army because of what people saw as unnecessary interference and zero accountability.

At some point, domestic unrest and international influence forced Musharraf to allow Benazir and Nawaz Sharif to return. Benazir was killed, and Pakistan ended up with her husband Zardari - the most corrupt man in the history of Pakistan (and that's quite a feat given the competition) - as the President. And he has ruled just like his reputation suggests.

Still, all this probably doesn't explain why Pakistan is so badly messed up right now (and will be for the foreseeable future), considering that lots of countries have failed leadership. I'll give you two reasons. First, the general public did not resist or protest the creeping religious influence of the 80s. They didn't challenge what the Mullah said in the mosque around the corner. Nor did they react when their friends, colleagues, and family started thinking in a more fundamentalist manner (e.g. believing the world was conspiring against Muslims, becoming very strict on what is right and wrong, getting offended by western culture and influences, etc).

The second issue is Afghanistan. Pakistan took in 3 million Afghans in the late 70s/early 80s. The younger generation of Afghans were educated in a fundamentalist religious manner while in their refugee camps. This religious brood became the Taliban and (sadly under the approval of Pakistan's government and Army, who were not happy with the unstable Afghani governments since the Soviets left) they stormed their way into power in Afghanistan. Their success was seen as a model by many in Pakistan in search for a more religious society. This turned violent quickly. First against religious minorities like Shias (which continues till today), and then against Western targets. The US invasion of Afghanistan exacerbated the situation since lots of Pakistanis saw it as the removal of an established Islamic regime by the US - easy fodder.

So, Pakistan began off quite well for the first 20-odd years. And even after it lost half of itself in 1971, it had a good chance to continue its original path. But the increasing influence of religion, the unaccountability of politicians, and the meddling of the Army in politics have all contributed to a country in a very, very difficult situation.

(Wow, that turned out to be much longer than I thought it would be!)

[cosmicone]

29. Don't forget that Pakistan lives on hatred of India

and dreams of somehow dismembering India like India dismembered it.

Thus the support of so-called Kashmiri terrorists and the now defunct Khalistan movement.

Pakistan consistently breaks treaties and international law, like for example in Musharraf's ill conceived Kargil misadventure. Pakistan is treaty bound to handle Kashmir as a bilateral issue but consistently tries to internationalize it with no success.

Pakistan's embrace of terrorism as official state policy and exporting terrorism to Bosnia, Dagestan, Chechnya, Xin Jiang, Mindanao and obviously Afghanistan and Kashmir has made it an international pariah.

India, on the other hand, is on its way to becoming a superpower with stable democratic institutions, a pluralistic and multi-ethnic society and a burgeoning technology driven economy.

Pakistan needs to get rid of its hatred of India and give up the dreams of Islamic rule over India a la 12th century. Those days are gone. Pakistan should also give up the non existent Kashmir "struggle" - it only exists in the minds of Pakistani military and ISI. Getting over Kashmir, learning to live as a small, insignificant country and developing true democratic institutions will go a long way. Otherwise, there will be a civil war which will lead to balkanization yet again, which suits India just fine.

Banning Nawaz Sharif (the anti-military and pro peace candidate)in a kangaroo court was a stupid idea.

[sledgehammer]

32. Seriously...

...at some point I wonder whether you will be capable of a serious discussion. But it's obvious from your obsessive internal hatred that you can't.

There's so much I can say, but I've already said it in previous discussions with you. So I won't bother again. But I am happy that you are starting to use facts that you learned from me (e.g. the bilateral solution decided at Simla)

And just to make you happy, ISI is responsible for all of India's problems. And RAW deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. Now get back to your action figures and keep playing India destroys Pakistan, and then takes over the world.

[cosmicone]

49. You are seeing words that I never typed

I never said ISI is responsible for all of India's problems but it certainly is responsible for most of Pakistan's. I harbor no hatred of Pakistan or muslims. I just find it sad that in the punjabi Pakistani obsession of conquering India to the glory days of the mughal empire where Indians were subjugated to a muslim dominance, the pakistani military (which is >80% punjabi) destroyed their own country.

If you are a Pakistani, there is a 96% chance that you had hindu ancestors who were forcibly converted to Islam ... either through rape of women or at knifepoint. Rape is a common weapon used by Pakistanis. Ask Bangladeshis -- some 800,000 women were raped during Yahyakhan's military rule and even that figure may be underreported.

I find it amusing to read Pakistani apologists on the board.

btw, you didn't teach me about the Shimla accords. I was present when the accords were signed by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Indira Gandhi -- one of her major foreign policy triumphs which negated all UN resolutions hahahaha.

[Kalyan]

50. shimla accord ...

if you were there during the signing of Shimla accord, i have a query for you.

WHY DID INDIRA GANDHI SIGN IT? Pakistan Army was defeated. India had a huge no. of PoW and enormous leverage. Why did she not settle Kashmir issue rather than stating that Kashmir can only be settled by bilateral talks. Do you understand that in the future, India can be forced to sign an agreement which states that Kashmir will be solved by UN mandate and thus losing control over the issue?

Also, because of her popularity post-1971, if concessions needed to be made, she had the goodwill to convince the nation of the same. no other Indian PM will ever had the same kind of mandate & goodwill that she possessed in 1972? Did she not waste it away? I think the opposite of your view. Indira Gandhi enabled her military to win the 1971 war but Shimla wasn't a foreign affairs triumph for her. It was for Bhutto who walked away with the PoWs as well as Kashmir.

It would be really interested to see your response.

[sledgehammer]

53. Here's an interesting article I read recently...

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=160665

The way he makes it sound is pretty funny:

"Bhutto invited Ms Gandhi to dinner that night. After receiving the guests, Shah said, Bhutto took Gandhi towards his room. He accompanied her like “when you take a partner for a dance,” Shah said. Their one-on-one negotiations lasted around two to three hours, and when they came out Indira Gandhi told her ministers she was going to sign the agreement. They asked her to check the draft, but she said “no”. Bhutto’s draft was then signed. Nobody knew what had happened inside that room during the meeting, Shah said."

It sounds like ZAB sure used his charisma to full effect that night!

Seriously though, I do wonder myself about Indira's plan. But I think that her biggest goals were to ensure that no other country or organization would be involved in settling the dispute, and that LOC would be accepted as the de facto border. And ZAB agreed to that.

Perhaps Indira could have forced more out of ZAB (their "one-on-one negotiations" notwithstanding ;), but ZAB may have pulled out (poor choice of word) entirely. He was not one to care much about POWs, and Bangladesh had already been lost. And he was pretty sure that India wanted to avoid another armed conflict right after 1971.

Also, don't forget the China factor too - they may have reacted to a permanent solution to Kashmir, and were very friendly with Pak as well.

Simla should have been the beginning of a new phase in Pak-India relations. And it sort of did its job, until the Kashmir issue flared up again in the mid to late 1980s.

[cosmicone]

63. You're reading too much fiction

you need to learn facts.

ZAB couldn't have given away Kashmir for political reasons and India knew it. By making Kashmir a bilateral issue, ZAB effectively neutralized all the prior UN resolutions and let India have control.

Now, when Pakistan tries to internationalize the dispute, India says "It is a bilateral issue and Pakistan is treaty-bound to make it so."

Whenever there are bilateral talks, India says, "There is no issue here to discuss. Kashmir is an integral part of India."

This frustrates Pakistan to no end and it is hilarious.

Now, only if Pakistanis accepted that theirs is a small, second rate country to India and lived with that fact, it will be all better.

Does Mexico try to be better than the US? Then why should Pakistan try?

The sooner Pakistan realizes that India is the regional superpower and it has to learn to live withing that sphere of influence, Pakistan will be a happy place indeed.

[cosmicone]

62. Because

at that time, erasing the UN resolutions was a big deal. By signing the Shimla treaty, Pakistan is boxed-in to solve it as a bilateral issue and no outside influence can be brought in.

When Pakistanis meet with India on a bilateral level, Indian diplomats say there is NO issue to discuss. This frustrates Pakistan to mo end and drives them nuts.

It was a great triumph and it was as good as Pakistan conceding Kashmir. Now, once Pakistan is balkanized into Baluchistan, Sindh, Khalistan (with a capital of Lahore) and Pakhtoonistan, Kashmir issue disappears forever because there will be no Pakistan left hahahaha.

That day is near my friend and Pakistanis are accelerating their own pace of balkanization.

[peace_to_world]

82. Pakistan stands united and will remain united

  Every nation has its problems but it doesn't mean that it
should be balkanized.
  
let me tell to you that when Bangladesh came into being
Pakistan was in the worst crisis of time but it regained its
strength and became a nuclear power.Today's situation is not
that worse and we will surely overcome this crisis too as we
did in the past and those who set evil designs against us we
will see their plans getting ruined.

You statements about Pakistan's future are very much harsh and
reflect your hatred against the people across the borders.

[sledgehammer]

51. To say that you harbor no hatred of Pakistanis or Muslims...

...and then to say: "If you are a Pakistani, there is a 96% chance that you had hindu ancestors who were forcibly converted to Islam ... either through rape of women or at knifepoint. Rape is a common weapon used by Pakistanis. Ask Bangladeshis -- some 800,000 women were raped during Yahyakhan's military rule and even that figure may be underreported."

You have serious issues. Reasonable people are trying to have a discussion, but you have an obsession to bring in hate. And your fact about conversion is absolutely wrong, but feel free to create more of your own facts. Fox News might be a good place to apply for a job.

I personally have an enormous amount of respect for India, as do most Pakistanis. It is a very successful country. But don't act as if India has none of its own problems (social, demographic, military, foreign intervention, etc). I won't bring them up here are they are not relevant to the discussion, but the way you act makes you seem as if you come from a flawless country.

And if you think the Indian Army and/or Indian citizens have never used rape or other violent tools as a weapon, then you obviously live in a different universe. India, like any other country, unfortunately uses whatever weapons at its disposal to achieve its goals. Of course, you will deny this since India can do no wrong. But you are a closed minded person with no ability to have a reasonable discussion.

Honestly, I don't know any single Pakistani who is as obsessed with India as you are with Pakistan. It is possible that you have suffered personal tragedy, and maybe that is the cause of your intense hatred. My grandmother's brother was murdered on a train by Indians during partition, and our family suffered in other ways as well. But my family never used that to create hate. I feel sorry for you, I really do.

I do not disagree with your views of balkanizing Pakistan, or the influence of the ISI, etc. Everyone has their opinions, and some of these opinions do have merit. I have tried to discuss these reasonably. But your opinions and comments are based entirely on hatred, and you assume your views are absolutely perfect. Hard for anyone to take you seriously.

It's disappointing, because I enjoy reasonable discussions even if they are completely against my views.

[Kalyan]

54. a pleasure ...

It is a pleasure to see people across the border who are not fundamentalists and tow extreme positions. As in the few conversations above, i don't agree 100% with all your positions but i don't find them too wide a gap that can't be bridged with a nice cup of tea or coffee. I wish more Pakistanis were like you.

Let me also state this - In my view, i think Balkanization of Pakistan is inevitable. That stems from the fact that there is a massive ideology difference between Punjab (also the economic heart of Pakistan) and the fundamentalists. This MIGHT (let me stress MIGHT here) lead to the balkanization of the area. That brings forth numerous other issues to India. What happens if Punjab gives a few nuclear weapons to the ceding fundamentalists? India will have to forever live in the threat of nuclear holocaust. There is no easy way out - for Pakistanis, Indians and the world at large.

[peace_to_world]

57. I conclude

    The only problem other countries have is that Pakistan is
the only Muslim nuclear power.

[Kalyan]

72. don't understand

Why link Muslim & Nuclear? A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. It behaves the same in the hands of a hindu, christian, muslim, buddhist etc.

it is ridiculous that fundamentalists (and i have seen this with hindu & christian conservatives as well) incur the name of God for every single action they do. God - irrespective of religion, doesn't like people being killed in his name - and this is something fundamentalists fail to understand. They fail to understand the message of love proposed by their religion, instead, they cling to rhetorics & needless superstitions.

PS: Made minor edits

[sledgehammer]

58. Thanks...

...I appreciate that. However, most Pakistanis I know are not fundamentalists and do not tow extreme positions. Naturally they will hold their own views, but they value that cup of chai more than the disagreements!

No one will ever agree 100%. People can even disagree 100%. But when people let jingoism get into the way, it makes things difficult. I have seen that with a number of Indians as well. e.g. an Indian person here in the US stopped going to a weekly work lunch organized by a Pakistani friend of mine simply because of the Kargil War. In college, I proposed a joint flag-hoisting to celebrate Pak-India 50 years freedom at midnight. India Club refused. I, and a few other Pakistanis, even attended the Indian flag-hoisting. Not a single Indian attended the Pakistani flag-hoisting despite being repeatedly invited. It's the minority of people who act like this, but it happens on all sides (I'm sure people have similar examples of Pakistanis acting this way, I've seen some myself).

Over the last decade, Pakistanis have dropped most of their reservations about India. In fact, Pakistanis enjoy traveling there, appreciate the democratic process and economic success, follow and adopt Bollywood culture, and love nothing more than a cricket match between the two countries.

Yes, the loudmouths in Pakistan are the fundos, just like they are everywhere. In India, you have people like Bal Thackeray (banning Pakistani books, disrupting Valentine's Day, fanning religious flames, etc). In the US you have Rush, Coulter, Hannity, etc. It is true that in Pakistan the influence is perhaps greater and, sadly, violent. But most of their attention is now on the West, rather than India. Even the Nov 26th attacks were directed to get Western attention, rather than to deal a blow to India.

But talk to the average Pakistani and he/she will be more than welcoming and couldn't care less about world issues at the personal level. In fact, most will be highly critical of Pakistan and will praise India for its democracy and openness. But, like anyone else, they will defend their views when attacked.

However, it's unfortunate that the same Pakistani will not challenge and argue with the local Mullah, and that's a huge problem. The Mullah is the root cause of most of the problems in Pakistan, and is also becoming a problem in India as well (think SIMI, etc). Until Muslims in general start to ignore and rebel against the Mullah, things will not change for the better. In fact, people all around the world should be extremely cautious about anyone who uses religion and/or jingoism to rally followers. It's never a good sign!

[sledgehammer]

68. I also...

...think that eventually there may be Balaknization. Obviously no one wants to see their country to break up. But practically, what is the future?

However, the Army will do its best to keep Pakistan intact in order to maintain its power. And the division is not clear-cut. With East Pakistan, it was easy to figure out. But right now there are no united independence movements - no real causes or commonality that are driving groups to seriously ponder independence. Even all these religious groups are not united - they have their own tribal issues which makes unity impossible. Plus, the Shia minorities will resist big time - it won't be pretty.

And, besides Punjab, none of the regions would be viable countries. Well, we thought the same for the Soviet breakup but most of the countries are somehow trudging along. So maybe that's not all that true.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the nuclear factor. There was the same fear for the Soviet breakup, but it never materialized. The weapons aren't made in such a way that they will go off easily. There are codes, layers and what not. The Army, or whatever remnants of it, will keep control of the weapons. And they will use it only to their negotiating advantage, not as a weapon; they won't need to since a divided Pakistan will harbor little ill-will against others (think Bangladesh and Pakistan - their relationship is pretty much fine). You may end up with at most two nuclear countries rather than one, but the danger of using the weapons will be much less.

However, if there is a breakup of the country and it is caused directly by Indian intervention (don't see why they would get involved, but let's assume), then I wouldn't be surprised if the Army used nuclear weapons as its last gasp attempt. That's the biggest danger for India, IMO.

[cosmicone]

69. Actually,

the Baluchis want a separate country and so do the Sindhis.

http://quqnoos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=764&Itemid=49

http://www.sindhudesh.com/sindhudesh/fs.html

All these groups need is a little financing and direction and then they'll be able to be masters of their own destiny.

The nukes? Israel, India and the US will defang them once the civil war is over. They are mostly chinese made anyway, with Chinese lock codes. Remember in 1998 when Nawaz Sharif went to Beijing and begged for them so that he could keep his population from panicking after India's test? The transcripts of the phone call were on the web.

No one is really afraid of Pakistani nukes in India .. some may be a bit concerned but no fear.

[sledgehammer]

75. Yawn...

None of these are serious movements. Oddly enough, the ones in India are serious and have been waging campaigns for the better part of the last couple of decades. And there are quite a lot of them. Oh wait, they are all ISI conspiracies, right? I think the latest Akshay Kumar movie flop is also an ISI conspiracy. You really are the greatest cheerleader for the ISI - you give them way more credit than they deserve!

In any case, it's become clear what type of a person you are. At first I thought you were an Indian nationalist. But it is clear from your posts and tone that you are a Hindu fundamentalist. From our discussions in the past it's clear that you have no regard for anyone besides Hindus. Curiously you suggest the breakup of India by advocating an independent Khalistan with its capital in Lahore. Why, are Sikhs not good enough for India? You mentioned in a previous post how Sikhs killed thousands of Hindus, but no comment or concern for the number of non-Hindus killed by them. Why, are the non-Hindus not important enough for India? You seem to reflect the best of Bal Thackery and Shiv Sena, and I wouldn't be surprised one bit if you are an active member of their party.

Like most fundos of all religions, you are filled with hate and want destruction on others, and believe everyone else is conspiring against you. It's the same with Muslim, Christian, and Jewish fundamentalists. Nothing too wrong with people who practice religion (even though I have my reservations about religion in general), but when you go fundo, you enter another world altogether. And that's where you are. Nationalism and patriotism is one thing, fundomania is another ballgame altogether.

You are also incapable of a proper discussion. You display nothing but extremist views. You are obsessed with Pakistan and ISI. Perhaps you had a traumatized childhood - neglected by your parents, unfortunate encounters with your guru, bullied in school, etc. As a result, you have to take out your anger on someone or something. You are a troubled person. I feel bad for you, and anyone around you. :( Honestly I do. I would suggest getting help. And I would also suggest reading other posts to see how a proper discussion can be had.

I actually found your posts quite entertaining because of how laughable they are with made-up facts and hatred. But most fun things come to an end. So, welcome to my ignore list! Honestly, if there was even 10% of sanity in your posts, I would continue reading them. But there's just no substance besides closed-minded hatred and extreme fundamentalist positions.

Enjoy continuing to spread hate. I admit I will miss the entertainment slightly, but the stupidity was just getting too much!

Perhaps you can become the Rush Limbaugh of India. You make up facts, hate those unlike you, and can't have a proper discussion - you're all set for the job! :rofl:

[cosmicone]

83. You flunk on EVERY wild assessment that you made.

Absolutely and 100%.

You don't refute any of the facts set forth but delve into personal attacks. A sure sign of surrender.

By the way, Lahore is where Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh of the sikh religion had their capital. Therefore Lahore should be the capital of Khalistan!!

It was a hilarious rant/tirade from you though .... happy typing.

[cosmicone]

60. hahahaha finally you reveal yourself as a Pakistani

Mission accomplished.

I hold no hatred brother, just as long as you accept the reality that Pakistan is a small, tinpot military-controlled pseudo democracy with no economy other that acting as a coolie to the US and China (or whichever master has the money).

:rofl:

[sledgehammer]

64. Huh? "Reveal"? WTF are you talking about?

Not sure what a Palistani is, but I assume you meant Pakistani.

Uhhh...a 5-year old kid could have done one of two things:

- read my posts and determined I was Pakistani
- asked a question: Are you Pakistani?

I am quite amazed that you feel like you figured something out, especially since we have had discussions before. I always assumed you knew I was Pakistani (actually, I am American, but of Pakistani origin, or Pakistani-American, or whatever you want to call it).

But congrats to you on your mission accomplished. Between making up facts and using George W Bush slogans, it seems like you're in the wrong place.

And your hatred is plainly obvious for all to see in your posts. Feel free to delude yourself.

[cosmicone]

66. I harbor no hatred my friend

I associate with real-life (and intelligent; unlike you) Pakistanis on a daily basis who agree with me about most things albeit not all.

Check your genetic lineage and you'll find a helpless hindu woman who was raped by some fanatic muslim to make you a muslim. You won't have to look too far -- just 5-6 generations.

You may deny the outcome of your study but most of my Pakistani friends have found hindu ancestors who were coerced into becoming muslim.

Same is true for over 95% of Indian muslims.

The sooner we realize this fact, the faster the peace process can begin.

[sledgehammer]

67. You are the perfect example...

...of why problems exist in Pakistan and India. The more people like you, the less of a chance of people getting along. Thankfully each and every one of my Indian friends are nothing like you, so I am hopeful.

And thankfully there are reasonable Indians on this forum who can carry on a sane conversation.

Even though I feel like saying a lot, I am above personal attacks like the ones you made.

And just to let you know, my ancestral lineage is from the Middle East, not from the subcontinent.

[peace_to_world]

56. Pakistan has best wishes for Indians

India has made great progress and is now considered one of the
fastest growing economies of the world.Its for their good.We
have best wishes for them.

But the struggle for Kashmir is a matter of life and death to
every Pakistani and is a nationwide struggle.The problem do
exist and India must realize the sentiments of the  people of
Kashmir. 

[sledgehammer]

59. Exclude me from "each and every Pakistani"

It is not a life and death matter to me, and really not to nearly all Pakistanis I know. Kashmir is used (and abused) by Mullahs and the Pak Army to get support for their causes.

Pakistan has rightly put Kashmir on the backburner for now. There is no doubt that Pakistanis feel the pain of the Kashmiris who suffer. But the Kashmiris are suffering because of poor decisions by both Pakistan and India govts. It is so sad that their lives have been wrecked by fighting between the two govts.

[cosmicone]

61. Pakistan just get over Kashmir.

It is a lost cause for Pakistan .. PERIOD. Pakistan can neither get it back with military force, diplomacy nor with terrorism. It is over. Accept it and move on.

[peace_to_world]

78. Why forget

The dispute is still unresolved.So there is no chance of forgetting it.

[Kalyan]

73. let me ask a few qns ...

Why does every Pakistani feel that Kashmir is a matter of life & death? Can you explain? Are you implying that all Pakistanis will commit suicide if Kashmir becomes part of India? What is so significant about Kashmir?

which part of Kashmir sentiment do you not understand? In the recent assembly polls, the turnout in J&K was over 60% and i saw a lot of Pakistani officials red faced for lack of response to this event. Care to comment on that ....

Third - Do you even know that Kashmir is a tiny part of the state of Jammu & Kashmir. The "disputed area" consists of 3 regions - the Hindu region of Jammu, the Muslim region of Kashmir & the Buddhist region of Ladakh. When Pakistan invaded the kingdom of the maharaja of Kashmir - his territory included all 3 regions. Pakistan captured areas include parts of Kashmir valley and a good chunk of Ladakh region that is currently termed as Northern Area. Historically this area were dominated by tribals & Buddhists. Only after Pakistan occupation did the territory gain a significant Muslim population. What about those regions? Will you return them to India because they are not part of the Kashmir valley?

[peace_to_world]

80. A brief history of Kashmir

Kashmir which is having 5000 year old history was an
independent country till it lost it’s sovereignty at the hands
of Mughals on 1585 A.D. There after Mughals came Afghans then
Sikhs then Dogras and now worlds so called largest democracy
has occupied it through its military might. About the year
1015 Mohammad Gazane took possession of valley for some
time,it reverted again to Hindu kings who ruled it till 1294
A.D. After this Ranchen a Tibetan ruler, ruled it from
1325-1327.

Afterwards the Chakoons ruled it till Mughals invaded and
captured it. Later the successor of Nadir shah, Ahmad shah
Durrani added Kashmir into their empire from 1753-1819.In 1819
A.D forces of Ranjit singh defeated Afghans and Kashmir became
part of Sikh dominion. In 1820 Ranjit singh granted
principality of Jammu to Ghulab Singh, the areas of Baltistan
and Ladakh originally part of Tibet were conquered by Ghulab
singh. Due to death of Ranjit singh trouble arouse between
Sikh and British for possession of Punjab . Ghulab Singh gave
favorable terms to British and betrayed his fellow Sikhs,
British awarded him with territory between Ravi and Indus.
Through a treaty on March 9 1846 he got Jammu , Poonch, Ladakh
and Baltistan and through infamous treat called Amritsar
treaty on March 16 1846 British sold Kashmir to Ghulab Singh.
He ruled Kashmir through iron fist and imposed heavy taxes, he
also imposed strict laws such as slaughtering of cow was
capital offence till 1947 and if a Muslim converted to Hindu
he retained all rights of his property but if vice versa he
was liable to loose all interests in joint family and property
under the state law. Kashmiri peoples struggle for
emancipation of their rights became full fledged and organized
rights movement after the massacre of 23 Kashmiris by the
brutal Dogra Army.
 
The real trouble began when on June 4, 1947 Lord Mountbatten
brought plan for partition of India called Indian Partition
act 1947. According to this act area comprising of Muslim
majority will constitute a new country Pakistan and rest areas
having non-Muslim majority will remain as India . But this act
was applicable only for British India not for princely states
which were near about 564 and were under indirect control of
British. These 564 states were given choice either to choose
to remain Independent or join any one of the two dominions in
keeping two things under consideration first, majority of
subjects whether Muslim or non-Muslim and second continuity of
their states borders. As for as Kashmir is concerned it was a
princely state and was having 85% Muslims and its border has
continuity more with Pakistan than with India so there were
only two options before Maharaja of Kashmir either he should
have declared Independence or announced to accession with
Pakistan.

But Maharaja under pressure from Congress hatched a well
knotted conspiracy, he removed R.C.Kak (then prime minister of
Kashmir) and appointed Mehr chend for this slot who was a
Hindu from Punjab and also a nominee of congress, bcoz the
former one held meetings with the Pakistani leadership as well
regarding the future of Kashmir and was known as man of
integrity. Later maharaja also removed Muslim servicemen from
his police and army removing any iota of doubts what he was
planning to do. Maharaja was facing revolt in Poonch against
imposing high taxes and this became a popular uprising against
his ill motivated plan and he almost lost writ on Kashmir .
Later on 4th October Khawaja Ghulam Nabi Gilkar formed first
free Government of Kashmir and on 24th Sardar Ibrahim formed
government. The laws relating to partition were never honored
sincerely. India used its force and captured Hyderabad and
later invaded Junagarh on pretext of being Hindu majority area
and violated same by invading Kashmir.

The state of Kapurthala had Muslim majority but non-Muslim
ruler which through help of RSS succeeded in eliminating his
Muslim subjects and same was repeated in Alwar and Bharat Pur.
These tactics were also used in Jammu province were 5 lakh
Muslims were butchered and lakhs were forced to flee mostly
during November 4th, 5th, and 6th to turn it in to Muslim
minority area. There after this dispute went to UN which
passed resolutions declaring it a disputed territory.
 
  Moreover India and Pakistani leaders have time and again
made commitments to Kashmiris regarding their Independence .
On July 11 1947 Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah said “The
second question that is engaging the attention of the Muslims
of Kashmir is whether Kashmir is going to join the Constituent
Assembly of Pakistan. I have already made it clear more than
once that the Indian States are free to join either the
Pakistan Constituent Assembly or the Hindustan Constituent
Assembly or remain independent”. On July 9 1951 Nehru Said
“Kashmir has been wrongly looked as a price for India or
Pakistan . People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a
commodity for sale to be bartered. It has an individual
existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their
future”. On July 14 1972 Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Said “History has
shown us that no right of self determination can be achieved
by proxy. If the people of Jammu Kashmir want their
independence, if they want to be liberated .., if they want to
be free people in fraternity and friendship and comradeship
with Pakistan , they will have to give the lead and we will be
with them...no matter what the consequences”. On Feb. 18 1992
Nawaz Sharif said “I made it very clear that, of course, the
right of self-determination means that let the Kashmiris
decide as what they want. This right of self-determination if
exercised by the Kashmiris, of course, they have every right
to decide whether they want to join Pakistan, they want to be
independent or they want to join India”.
      
source:www.punjabnewsline.com
 

 

[peace_to_world]

81. Elections the same fraud repeated

The most prominent newspapers of world have published how
Kashmiris were dragged out to vote.

'Indian guns forced Kashmiri voters to the ballot box' (The
Times, London, 24 May 1996)

'Indian soldier force Kashmiris to polls'. (The Guardian,
London, 24 May 1996)

'Kashmiris vote at the point of Indian gun'. (The Independent,
London 24 May 1996)

'People cried foul, authorities said fair polls, the army
beaten and forced Kashmiris out of their homes'. (Times of
India, 25 May, 1996)

source:www.kashmirwatch.com

The same is the case of recent elections.

[varun]

84. We're not talking about 1996

Elections were held in December 2008. Turnout was 60% (compared to less than 20% in previous years).

I was in Srinagar (Capital of Kashmir) when the results were declared.

This was a turning point in the history of Kashmir.

[Kalyan]

90. Pak needs to grow up ...

All your references are based on the 1996 elections. Where's evidence of any misconduct in the last 2 assembly elections.

I am man enough to admit force & fraud used in the J&K election between 1988 & 1996. Does Pakistan has the courage to admit that Kashmiris came to vote on their accord in the last 10 years?

[Kalyan]

33. well said ...

captured history quite accurately. there are a couple of points that might be slightly contentious but that's like focusing on the trees & missing the woods.

the point that you don't address is KASHMIR. As someone who watches Pakistan from outside, i feel that there is too much focus on Kashmir within Pak. If Pak used the same focus to address national issues, it would have been a developed economy today. Did i get it right?

[sledgehammer]

45. Yes, true...

That is a good point. Kashmir formed the bulk of Pakistan's domestic and foreign policy for several decades. But I don't think that the attention diverted to Kashmir took away from Pakistan's economic/social progress (or lack thereof).

In the period before the mid-80s, Kashmir was considered a territorial issue. From mid-80s onwards, thanks to the Afghanistan effect, it became more of an Islamic struggle. After Kargil, Pakistan's ambitions toward Kashmir became more realistic. When Clinton met Nawaz Sharif in Washington over the July 4th weekend in 1999, it was basically to tell him that India will attack Lahore if Pakistan doesn't bring back the militants. Needless to say he ordered the pullback the next day!

Popular support for the Kashmir cause has really died down in most of Pakistan. The government has also put Kashmir on the backburner since the Agra talks about 7-8 years back went nowhere. It would almost be a non-issue in Pakistan. But, the Army needs Kashmir to remain an issue to justify its huge budget, political influence, and swanky facilities. And then we also have the religious fundos who keep pushing it as a religious obligation for all Pakistanis. The latter has lost traction, the former can never be changed since the Army is so powerful.

I don't think that Pakistan would have been a much different country had it been more realistic about and less obsessed with Kashmir over the years. However, I think Pakistan-India relations would have been very different. And both countries would have benefited a lot from a better relationship, especially Pakistan.

[Kalyan]

47. well said ...

i disagree with the impact on Pakistan society for focusing on Kashmir issue but still applaud you for taking a unbiased view. That's pretty rare when it comes to India-Pak-Kashmir issue.

[sledgehammer]

52. Definitely...

...it would have been better for Pakistan to be less obsessed with Kashmir for those 15 years.

But I think that it was the arming of militant groups (by Pak Army, CIA, etc) in general that has had a negative impact on Pakistan, rather than just the focus on Kashmir.

IMO, Pakistan should never have been that obsessed with Kashmir. But when you mix religion into a territorial struggle, it's easy to rile up the masses and end up in disaster.

[Lost in CT]

26. It was even more divided and violent when the Brits showed up. nt

[cosmicone]

27. Are you justifying colonialism? n/t

[Lost in CT]

28. Just stating a fact... not a justification of anything... nt

[smitra]

30. Really...More violent than England at the time?

A FACT is that during the reign of Mary I (reigned 1553-58), the number of people burned at the stake for their religious belief was so large that she came to be called 'Bloody Mary'. Around the same time, in India, the Mughal Emperor Akbar (reigned 1556 - 1605) was experimenting with an idea called 'Din-e-Ilahi' (Divine Faith) in the course of which he conducted a series of religious debates where Muslim scholars would debate religious teachings with Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Christians (Jesuit priests from Portugal living in Goa, Portugal's Indian possession).

The first Englishman showed up in India around 1609.

True, when England 'acquired' its first Indian possession in 1757, the country was in a chaotic state. But probably no more violent than Europe at the time.

[Lost in CT]

31. No... India was more violent before the English showed up than after...

Oh Yeah about Akbar.... in one of his many massacres... well I let the pedia pick it up from here...

At first the Emperor said: “Why he has just been appointed one of the Court-Imáms, how can he go?” Naqíb Khán represented that I had a very strong desire to take part in a holy war. So the Emperor sent for me, and asked me: “Are you in earnest?” I answered: “Yes.” Then he said, “For what reason?” I humbly replied: “I have the presumption to desire to dye these black mustachios and beard in infidel blood through loyalty to your Majesty's person:— .....And when I put out my hand towards the couch in order to kiss his foot, he withdrew it; but, just as I was going out of the audience chamber, he called me back, and filling both his hands he presented me with a sum of 56 ashrafí, and bid me farewell.

During the siege of Chittor, 8000 rajputs had remained inside the fort to defend various temples after the cavalry sallied out to meet Akbar's army in the plain below. These 8000 died fighting to the last man in defense of Hindu temples when Akbar's army stormed the fort and attacked the temples. In addition there were 30,000 plus Hindu peasants inside the fort who were unarmed and massacred in cold blood by Akbar's forces<38> by Akbar's order on February 24, 1568 CE. Carthaginian on gaining the Battle of Cannae measured his success by bushels of rings taken from the fingers of equestrian roman soldiers and similarly Akbar measured his by the quantity of cordons of distinction collected from the fallen rajput soldiers and other civilians of Chittor, which amounted to seventy four and half man by weight. To eternise the memory of this deed the number 74.5 is accursed and marked on a banker's letter in Rajasthan it is the strongest of seals, for "the sin of the sack of Chittor" is invoked on him who violates a letter under the safeguard of this mysterious number.


So you were saying....

[Kalyan]

36. I was saying .... English Civil War

Your response for English Civil War fought between 1642 to 1651.

From Wikipedia itself:

BRITAIN: Figures for casualties during this period are unreliable, but some attempt has been made to provide rough estimates.<10><11> In England, a conservative estimate is that roughly 100,000 people died from war-related disease during the three civil wars. Historic records count 84,830 casualties of the wars themselves. Counting in accidents and the two Bishops' wars, an estimate of 190,000 people is achieved.<12>

SCOTLAND: Scottish figures, a not unreasonable estimate of 60,000 people is achieved.<14>

IRELAND: Petty estimates that 112,000 Protestants were killed through plague, war, and famine, and that 504,000 Catholics were killed, giving an estimated total of 618,000.<15>

OVERALL: 868,000

So you were saying ....

[smitra]

37. Wikipedia is NOT an authoritative source...

And there is a lot of other scholarship that talks about Akbar's tolerance.

Not to say that Akbar was a 'saint' in any way, or a ruthless general. But it is a fact that he DID try to set up a dialogue among religions, advocated tolerance, have Hindu nobles at his court (yes, the Wikipedia page claims he 'treated them badly' - but he need not have had any in the first place, like his great-grandson Aurangzeb), etc. It was after Akbar - and largely due to his policies - that the Mughal Empire gained a strong foothold, and was able to rule over a population that was, and REMAINED, majority non-Muslim. After Aurangzeb (reigned mid 17th century - 1707) practiced a highly discriminatory policy towards non-Muslims, the empire basically collapsed, enabling the British to start acquiring territory.

Looking at Wikipedia, for what it is worth, particularly this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Hundred_Years%27_War, tells you that Europe itself was caught up in considerable violence at the time, which did not end till 1815 or so.

To say that India was more divided and violent, and one has to 'thank' the British for 'uniting' and 'reducing' the violence sounds an advocacy for colonialism. Sure, the British needed 'peace' for effective colonial exploitation -- a safe rail route from the fields and mines to the ports where ships waited to carry the raw materials to Britain, for example. They made sure to set up and maintain this 'peace' through effective repression.

As for India itself, in its long and varied history, it has gone through periods of peace and great prosperity long before Great Britain even existed as an entity. And yes, it has gone through periods of great chaos, war, famine, etc. In this regard, its experience is no different from that of any other great nation on this planet - China, Russia, and even tiny Britain (battles between the English and Scottish thrones, and the depredations of bandits like Dick Turpin -- well into the 18th century).

So yes, I am saying...

[Lost in CT]

38. I agree to many points.. but Akbar was as much of a colonialist as the British.

It seems strange to praise one colonial empire and then use the exact same standards to attack another colonial empire.

Akbar was tolerant when it suited him.. of this I have no doubt. But lets not give out the sainthood awards just yet.

He brutality conquered another people and held them in virtual bondage.

Not that there isw anything wrong with that... pretty par for the course behavior for back then.

[smitra]

43. I did not say Akbar deserved any 'sainthood' award...

Yes, he was a ruler, and had to practice the politics of the time, ensure that his 'base' (the Muslim clergy, and military) were satisfied, etc. But he was better - if only in a relative sense - that others of the time.

It is debatable whether the Mughal empire was a 'colonial' one or not. The Timurid dynasty came from Central Asia, and there is evidence that the Mughal emperors continued to view themselves as Turkic. But there is one major difference between the Mughals and the British who followed them ... the Mughals did not ship the resources of the country back to Ferghana and Samarkand. The British, on the other hand, did so.

[Kalyan]

46. wrong ...

Akbar isn't the colonialist that Britishers are. Reason - Babar, Akbar's grand father established the mughal empire by settling in India whereas Britishers tried ruling India from their London base.

Babar accepted India as his home (reluctantly though) and created his empire and thus the Mughal empire isn't a colonial empire.

Apples & Oranges., my friend ...

wrt to Akbar and for that matter, any other kings ... they all were brutal conquerors ....

[Kalyan]

35. wrong!

When the Brits showed up .... we had the mughal empire that covered 60% of the sub-continent. The remaining 40% were ruled by other empires that still identified with BHARAT/INDIA as a concept.

Even under the british rule, there were Kingdoms & princes. Remember, there were 500+ Kingdoms within India in 1947.

Violent - Nothing more violent that what was seen in those days Europe. Care to disagree?

[smitra]

39. Well said...

Please see my post #37.

Seeing posts that appear to be advocates of colonial exploitation on a liberal board amazes me at times. And many of these arguments will be couched in statements like 'I am only stating a fact... and that fact is the British improved law and order, they suppressed the brutal 'thuggee'', etc.

[Lost in CT]

42. I am not advocating British colonialism

anymore than I am advocating Mughal colonialism which seems to be getting a free pass around here.

[Lost in CT]

44. DUPE

[Lost in CT]

41. No once again I am saying INDIA was more violent pre-british than after

This has nothing to do European wars.

[Kalyan]

48. India violence ...

I don't agree with you on this. India was pretty violent during british rule. The path from 1750s to 1850s had a lot of battles. Then we had the first war of independence in 1857 where the nos are estimated to be anywhere from 1 million (conservative) to 10 million (includes civilian casualty thru non-war means)

from 1857 to 1947, independence movement accounted for about 20 to 40 million lives. This figure doesn't include the 75k death in WWI and 1.587 million in WWII.

Either way, you look at it, India suffered quite a bit under British rule. India would have been better off without British rule, even without counting the enormous wealth erosion over the 200 year rule.

[peace_to_world]

14. Pakistan is not a destabilized country

Pakistan is not a destabilized country whatever proof you may give it's not enough to prove a nation standing on world's map for past 61 years destabilized.We are fighting the war against terrorism at the front line.Everyday our soldiers are killed so that world could live in peace.we are the people striving for peace in territory.World should acknowledge the sacrifices of Pakistani people and soldiers rather than calling them destabilized.In the past few weeks the situation of terrorist attacks was under control and peace was established in the northern areas of country but this incident is simply a preplanned attack on Pakistan's international image.
As for your comment on the ISI former chief i want to remind you that when Mumbai was attacked India's politicians starting blaming Pakistan from the very day one while that attack was simply their own security lapse and they even don't had proof.ISI former chief is a responsible man who will never put blame without a solid reason.

[truebrit71]

17. I think the people in the Swat valley would disagree with that sentiment...

I wouldn't trust the ISI former chief if he told me water was wet..

Last time I checked the Mumbai attacks WERE linked to a group/groups in Pakistan..WITH proof...

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. The provincial governor thinks it's the same group as Mumbai

It was an audacious commando-style attack and, like the tragedy in Mumbai, planned to cause bloody mayhem and grab headlines. Not since the Munich Olympics have athletes and sportspeople been specifically targeted.

"I want to say it's the same pattern, the same terrorists who attacked Mumbai," Salman Taseer, the governor of central Punjab province, told reporters at the site of the attack, ruling out Indian involvement.

"They are trained criminals. They were not common people. The kind of weaponry they had, the kind of arms they had, the way they attacked ... they were not common citizens, they were obviously trained."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/03/sri-lanka-cricket-pakistan-mumbai

[ohio2007]

24. al Jazeera video commentator says Pakistan is destabilized. Former Pakistani cricket chief concurs

two minute al Jazeera vid.has "the bearded Pak police chief" hinting that the 12 attackers were dressed as women (arrived in a rick shaw , properly masked )



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5Q0eleGnVY&eurl=

Het chief,
you (sporting that beard)look like you will blend in well when the Taliban lay down the law ;)


and I bet the former Pakistani cricket cheif would again concur with that observation.
jmo

[Kalyan]

40. tell me you were joking ...

As much as you will disagree with me, the fact is: India is a responsible nation; Pakistan isn't. Simple check. How many years did India spend under military/dictator regime? How many years did Pakistan spend under military/dictator regime? How many military dictators did India have? How many military dictators did Pakistan have?

Pakistan is fighting the same forces that it encouraged & built in the 1990s. Don't tell me that Pak had nothing to do with Taliban. Don't tell me that Pakistan was one of ONLY THREE COUNTRIES (Saudi & UAE were the others) that recognized Taliban regime between 1996 to 2001?

Pakistan's ISI created the monster called Taliban with US money. Now to get more US money, you are 'fighting' them. By the way, peace can never be established by paying terrorists $6 mn & agreeing to ceasefire. Isn't it cowardly that the Pak govt agrees not to take action against terrorists less than 200 kms from the nation's capital?

Mumbai Attack: Tell me something. Are you one of those people who refuse to acknowledge that these militants came from Pakistan? I am not denying a security lapse but let me state this - why would i think that Hotels & Railway Stations will be attacked by militants?

And your statement that ISI chief is a responsible man should be nominated for joke of the year.

[peace_to_world]

55. negotiating for peace is not a cowardly act

   Terrorists of Bombay attacks are not known.The proof they
have doesn't guarantee that they are Pakistani's and why on
Earth any Pakistani would target India's railway stations and
hotels.India have many extremists organizations and the anger
in their country after manslaughter in Gujarat could be a
possible reason of Bombay attacks and Pakistan is in no way
involved. 
   To negotiate for peace in territory is not a cowardly
act.Today people have become so blood thirsty that human
miseries are ignored.
   Taliban were indeed created by US through Pakistan but then
they were called freedom fighters as their war was against
Russia in interests of US but now they are fighting against
them so they have become terrorists.I am not supporting
Taliban but want to make clear that we have created our
terrorists ourselves by using military force.America has lost
war in Iraq and same is the case of Afghanistan so we must
thing beyond bloodshed and negotiate.
    ISI chief is a responsible man and i will stand by my
opinion.
    How many dictators Pakistan had does not prove that its
irresponsible and destabilized.India being the biggest
democracy still denies rights of Muslims.

[cosmicone]

65. I think you need to check

the latest news reports. Pakistani government (under international pressure) has ADMITTED that the attacks were planned in Pakistan.

Pakistant is a terrorist nation. ACCEPT it. ISI and Pakistani military fund, train, support, coordinate and direct the Pakistani terrorist groups like Jaish e Muhammad and Laskhar e Tayyaba.

You have to be really really really really off the beaten path to deny this hahahahaha.

[peace_to_world]

76. We are not terrorist

 Pakistan is not a terrorist nation but is fighting against
terrorism.this brings us to a higher position than yours
because we fight it while you just comment.

[varun]

77. Pakistan has been exporting terrorism to the world

and now terrorism has come back to haunt Pakistan.

And Pakistan cannot deal with it alone.

Something's gotta give - intervention by external powers is coming.

[Kalyan]

74. there are so many issues with your statements

sigh ... you need to be de-brainwashed from all the mullah talks:

1. Gujarat: The incident happened 7 years ago. Even including it for discussions, there is enough proof to indicate that the burning of sabarmathi express was completely pre-planned. Let me also tell you something. Unlike the past, Hindus have had enough with the abuse from other communities. The situation in the Hindu community is more like a pressure cooker. and that is a fact - whether we like it or not. Once the news spread that Muslims attacked and killed 60 Hindus returning from Ayodhya, the state erupted and the state machinery failed abysmally to protect the minorities. If Pakistan militant can use Godhra as an excuse, they should be prepared for the other side of it as well. The other side is: Indian hindu fundamentalists can train a 100 misguided & uneducated youth and unleash them in Karachi. Want to see it happen?

The second aspect of the Godhra violence is the kind of stigma that it created for Indians. Media has a lot of fun bashing Gujarat CM for the incident and he has been universally condemned for the incident. Modi's legacy is forever linked with Godhra riots. Can you say the same about violence against minority in Pakistan?

2. If you are such a peace loving person, why not negotiate with India and give away Kashmir to India to bring peace to the region.

3. I stand by what i said earlier - No sovereign country should negotiate with terrorists to secure Peace. See what happened in Sri Lanka/LTTE. That is the future for Pakistan as well. You have bought temporary peace. Lasting peace will not be achieved.

4. I don't know about ISI Chief and hence cannot comment on him being responsible or not. But have you ever wondered why the ex-RAW Chiefs don't go and demand publicity the way ex-ISI chiefs appear on televisions. Ex-RAW heads don't make bone-headed statements.

5. India denying rights of Muslims. Seriously? What are you smoking? Can you prove it? India is one of the few countries that pamper it's minorities. Muslims get reservation in colleges & govt employment. Muslims can start schools & colleges and ensure that majority of seats are allocated to their own sect (these are called Minority owned institution). I can state at least 10 prominent muslim people from each field - politics, sports, business. We have had multiple muslim presidents, CMs, CJs etc. India's No. 1 Bollywood star is a Muslim - Shah Rukh and so are some of his competitors - Aamir Khan, Salman Khan.

Can you say the same about Hindus in Pakistan?

I recommend that you look at your country more critically than what is said in the press. Have a nice day.

[sledgehammer]

79. I agree with some of what you say...

...but some comments:

1) I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. Are you hinting at Pakistan involvement in the fire/riots? Or a domestic Muslim conspiracy? Regardless, the findings of that commission are somewhat contentious anyway, and one commission determined it to be an accident (it's hard to ever know the truth).

Also, India needs to realize that there is indigenous creeping Islamic fundoism in India as well. It's easy to keep pointing across the border. But Islamic fundoism is prevalent throughout the world. Spread by Wahabi mosques for the last few decades, it's present in Europe, the US, Middle East, Africa, Asia - everywhere. The militant side is just one side (and parts of Pakistan are definitely places that breed militant activity). But the fundo thought process is as dangerous - it appears to be harmless, but it lays the groundwork for violent activities. India needs to stop it before it becomes worse. Pak suffered big time for doing nothing. And also keep an eye on all other religions as well to avoid them from spreading their own fundoism.

And re: Modi, it is true that he has been taken to task in the press and in intellectual/political circles. But he's been re-elected twice since. Anyone would admit he failed miserably to protect the population, especially Muslims. Yet he's still running the state. On the one hand, that does speak to the will of the people. But on the other hand, he has never been punished for his massive failure. CM Desmukh resigned immediately after the Nov 26 attacks, even though he holds much less responsibility for those attacks than Modi did for allowing violence to continue unabated in Gujarat.

Whether it was Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, whoever - Modi failed, and he should have paid rather than be rewarded.

3) Agreed. Pakistan has a choice. All-out civil war, or gradual acceptance of militant/fundo groups taking over pockets, and eventually a large portion of the country. They are taking the latter approach in order to avoid a Sri Lanka-style civil war. The problem is that the support for fundo groups is spread all across the country. Not in the sense that they have footsoliders in every nook and cranny. But it's hard for the common man to say that Islamic law is a bad thing. Even if they feel that way, they can't take that action. One religious guy in a group of 10 moderate thinkers always ends up winning the others over. All he has to say is "Are you arguing with the Word of God? Are you becoming a non-believer?" As mentioned before, this slow acceptance of Mullah thought is a huge cause of the problems in Pakistan.

4) Pakistani generals love to be on TV and/or make statements. Because the Army top brass is royalty in Pakistan. They feel that their word is the most important word in Pakistan (sadly, it may be true because they are rarely questioned or argued with). Ignore them. I do!

5) I think India's social problems are related more to caste/class divisions, rather than religious divisions. So I don't disagree with you. And I totally agree about the successes of Muslims in India.

But to compare Muslim success in India to the lack of minority success in Pakistan is not apples to apples. The minority population in Pakistan is very, very small, and they have historically belonged to some of the lower socioeconomic classes (you know how hard it is in South Asia to move out of lower classes - it's not right, but it's reality). Pakistan has absolutely no record on minority treatment to stand on (in fact, it's a very poor example), but the comparison to India is not completely valid.

Sidenote: One of the more disappointing things to have happened in the recent past was for the Pakistan cricketer Yousuf Youhana to convert to Islam. Whenever he reached a milestone, he would motion the cross on his chest and the crowd cheered him on. It was good to see that. It was also good to see that at the same time Danish Kaneria (a Hindu) was a part of the team (and still is the main spinner). This was a good message for Pakistan and provided hope for minorities and encouraged the majority to be more accepting. I don't want to blame Yousuf for his personal choices (he could become a satan-worshipper, that's his business), and good for him if conversion is what he wanted, but a missed opportunity for Pakistan. And because he became an even better batsman after converting, you can imagine what the common man thinks!

[Kalyan]

86. balanced ...

1. I never hinted Pak conspiracy in Godhra violence. There might have been but that is immaterial. Pak ISI or any other non-govt agency can try and brainwash any Indian into attacking his homeland & i would blame only the Indian. he made his choice and harmed his nation. so there is no point in blaming someone on the outside for it entirely. Back to Godhra, the whole action happened in India and the local religious fundamentalists are the only ones to be blamed. I am clear that fundamentalism knows no nation. I harbor no ill-conceived notion that fundamentalism is limited to Pak. There are fundamentalists in India - muslims and more worryingly Hindus as well.

1b. Modi: Indians across the nation knew that at the very least Modi's role in Godhra Violence was to take no action when the riots began and thus knowingly harmed the minorities. It might be possible that Modi actively encouraged the riots but that is a long shot as he knows that his political career would be over if he did anything like that.

The post-Godhra backlash hurt the Gujurati pride a lot. Yes, there was rioting and major loss of life. But they failed to understand why the media never spoke of the 60 railway attack victicms. Tons of paper was expended in criticizing hindu fundamentalism but none of the media analyst spoke a word against muslim fundamentalism that started the attacks. Modi encashed this in the first election. In the second election, his platform of development swept away opposition. Gujarat had a prosperous 5 years under him and the voters gave (& in my view, rightly so) importance to that than the Godhra incident which was then 6 years old. A point to note here - Gujarat has historically seen communal violence. Post-Godhra, no major communal violence of note has occurred.

As i said earlier, I will forever hold Modi's record tarnished by Godhra violence.

3. Understand your point. It is a hard place to be. The only response is - religion and state are separate and needs to be kept that way. the local mullah knows nothing of economy, state rule and international taxation for example to dictate how state should conduct their business.

And thanks for the sidenote. never noticed Yousuf's response to milestones. will try and watch out from any of the highlight packages later.

[sledgehammer]

87. Interesting points...

...about Modi and Gujarat. I definitely don't think he was actively involved inciting/encouraging the violence, but he made the conscious decision not to provide adequate protection.

Fundamentalism is pretty scary wherever it happens. If it weren't for such a strong system of laws and government in the US, the evangelical nuts hanging around here would restart the crusades! Well, they did, sort of, with their man Dubya in power, who believed a "higher power" was guiding him into war in Iraq!

[ohio2007]

85. tell that to the Pakistani "Department of peace". taliban slit their throats as a gesture of anger

for the stand the pak govt took

Pakistani Taliban Say They Killed 28 Men From Peace Group

June 26, 2008


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/world/asia/26pstan.html?_r=1

old news I agree but


look how much headway they have made.............

[peace_to_world]

88. More violence won't bring peace

You know what we are the people facing the troubles from this never ending battle going on in the northern areas.We need peace!We don't want to listen it anymore on our T.V that how many soldiers or Taliban killed?How many children suffering from diseases like polio and anemia are not being treated in hospitals because there are no doctors?People leaving their houses and living in tents while others sleeping under open sky.We don't want to see the dying suffering people.

We negotiate for peace.And after the swat peace deal we are more hopeful that peace will be soon be established in other areas as well.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

Peace cannot be achieved through violence; it can only be attained through understanding.

[ohio2007]

89. Pakistani Taliban militants kill pro-gov't mayor in northwest ( they keep killing and killing and )

Islamabad, Mar 6,IRNA -- Pakistani Taliban Friday blew up vehicle of a pro-government local mayor in country’s Northwest, police said.

In another incident, the Taliban kept on attacking schools and destroyed a boy school in Bajaur tribal region, according to officials.
The car of Khairullah Khan, a mayor in Bannu district, was blown up using a remote control device, police officer Iqbal Marwat said.

snip
http://www5.irna.ir/En/View/FullStory/?NewsId=385164&IdLanguage=3

the sheeple must be herded into submission

[karynnj]

12. Yes - it is an act of terrorism - the football players' story though tragic has less political

importance. Simply convert the story to a bus of foreign tourists students or officials. The FL story is the one that is national news because of the celebrity of the men involved.

[Bhaisahab]

15. This is huge dude

For the billion and a half people who fanatically follow cricket. As I was telling the wife - this is like a major American baseball team getting bombed during a trip to Japan.

[truebrit71]

16. What is the "significance"? Good grief!

This isn't some "attractive young white woman is missing" bullshit story, in a terrorist attack members of the Sri Lankan cricket team were injured, and Pakistani soldiers were killed on the way to a match. It is a HUGE story...think Munich Olympics and you might have a better understanding...

[ConsAreLiars]

3. Al Jazeera English interviewed a Sri Lankan spokesman

and a correspondent who said that the Tamil Tigers had a presence and contacts in Pakistan that had been developed through their role in smuggling Afghan Opium to Europe, and were suspected to have organized the attack. Still a lot of conflicting speculation.

It definitely needs a 3D chess player to begin to tamp down a few of these fires, while any idiot, even one as stupid as the Chimp, can fan the flames.

[depakid]

4. Looks like Cricket Australia was right to postpone it's tour of Pakistan

[sledgehammer]

6. Not only CA

But all other teams who decided not to tour, and en masse decided not to go ahead with the Champions Trophy tournament last year which was to be held in Pakistan.

[nyy1998]

8. Yeah I saw this, thank god India is in new zealand right now

Pakistan gets to see one test series in two years and they ******* it up.

That said as an Indian, I feel terrible for the security guys who died for this.

[brettdale]

9. Yep

Both the India and New Zealand teams wore black arm bands during tonight's match.

The New Zealand team is due to tour Pakistan in nine months time, I hope they call the tour off.

[wysi]

10. NZ Cricket...

Justin Vaughan was being pretty cagey about it on 3 News tonight... but I can't imagine they'll tour Pakistan later this year if the gov't was prepared to call off the Zimbabwe tour.

[brettdale]

21. There is no way they should go

Its nuts if they don't call it off.

[sledgehammer]

11. Nobody will tour Pakistan...

...for at least the next 2-3 years. Pakistan should do the honorable thing and voluntarily withdraw as a co-host of the 2011 World Cup.

Pakistan needs to "adopt" Dubai/Abu Dhabi as home grounds and play there.

[Matilda]

25. New Zealand won't be touring Pakistan this year.

The tour has been called off.

I hope it serves as a wake-up call for the leaders of Pakistan - Musharraf was happy to take US dollars while doing
nothing to impede the Taliban's activities, and Bushco gave him an easy ride. Zadari has to get serious about
combatting terrorist activities, no matter who is carrying them out, or Pakistant will be finished.


Trouble is, I'm not sure whether Zadari is capable. He came to power on a wave of sympathy when his wife was
assassinated, but is he really a leader? I have no idea.


Edit: typo

[sledgehammer]

34. Zardari is no leader

It was by an unimaginable series of events that he assumed power. He is the most corrupt individual in Pakistan's history.

See my post about Pakistan's history upthread for more info on Pakistan. Pakistan needs to do something. It's just not that easy because the violence is intermixed with religion. Pakistan is itself suffering the most from terrorism, but so are other countries because of Pakistan's inaction.

NZ made the right decision not to tour. No country should tour Pakistan for now. Pakistan needs to adopt Dubai and Abu Dhabi and play all their "home" games there.

[ohio2007]

23. Pakistan has become a pariah under the Taliban regime

They don't want anything "non back wards" in their land.

Afghan Taliban even condoned soccer while in the privacy of their hideout strongholds,along with Osama, watched world cup with keen interest.
What two faced dirt bags. Bet they drink Johnny Walker while demanding the peasantry abstain from decadent abominations of foreigner.

alla is pleased

[Matilda]

70. Umpires accuse Pakistan over attack.

From British umpire Chris Broad:

"ICC match referee Chris Broad has suggested that someone had advance knowledge of the attack on Sri Lanka's cricket team in Lahore and held back the Pakistan players' bus to keep them out of danger.

The Briton says he has no evidence of a conspiracy but pointed out that the bus carrying the Pakistan team in Lahore departed on its journey to the Gaddafi Stadium five minutes after the Sri Lanka bus."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/05/1235842535147.html


Australian umpires Simon Taufel and Steve Davis have accused the Pakistani security guards for deserting them when
the attack occurred.

"Mr Taufel says he had checked that security arrangements would be provided for the officials, but on the day it was not adequate.

He says his security entourage abandoned their van when it was attacked

"You tell me why no-one was caught. You tell me why. Supposedly 25 armed commandos were in our convoy, and when the team bus got going again, we were left on our own," he said.

"I'm angry that we were isolated. I'm angry that we didn't get the same level of security that the players got. I'm angry that in our hour of need we were left on our own. I'm angry that the team got to the ground and no-one came back for us."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/05/2508022.htm


I've seen the footage of the attackers getting away on bicycles, no less, and not a sign of any police or security
guards giving chase. It was pathetic.

Not only is cricket dead in Pakistan, I'd venture to say that all international sport is dead in Pakistan.

[sledgehammer]

71. International sport has been dead in Pakistan for a long time

Cricket was the only sport that still attracted foreign interest.

Something went very wrong with the security. The only thing I can think is whether the commandos went to the team bus instead of protecting the officials van. Either way, it's unacceptable. But I didn't see any commandos in the video footage.

This could have been a much, much greater disaster than it was.