Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chapetmarunga

Today I Learned : Homi Bhabha & Lal Bahadur Shastri were assassinated by the CIA

Recommended Posts

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homi_J._Bhabha

 

Many possible theories have been advanced for the air crash, including a conspiracy theory in which the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is involved in order to paralyze India's nuclear program.[15] When an Indian diplomatic bag containing newspapers, calendars and a personal letter was recovered near the crash site in 2012, it was a "Type C" diplomatic bag containing no important documents.[16][17]

 

Gregory Douglas, a journalist who taped his interviews with former CIA operative, Robert Crowley, over a period of 4 years, recorded their telephonic conversations and later published their transcribes in a book titled Conversations with the Crow. Crowley claimed that CIA was responsible for eliminating Dr. Homi Bhabha, Indian nuclear scientist whose plane crashed into Alps, when he was going to attend a Vienna conference and also eliminating Lal Bahadur Shastri, who died at Tashkent summit in 1966. Crowley said that a bomb in the cargo section of the plane went off in mid-air, bringing down the commercial Boeing 707 airliner in Alps with little evidence left to be retrieved. Crowley claimed that U.S. was "wary" of Indian nuclear progress and the defeat of their ally Pakistan, in 1965 war. U.S. was worried that India could well "dominate" the Indian Subcontinent along with Russian think-tanks, if India develops nuclear capabilities, thus bringing "instability" to the region, as seen by Western observers through a Cold War lens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Shastri went to the USSR for the Tashkent talks, he wanted a promise from Ayub Khan that Pakistan would never use force in the future. But the talks did not proceed and followed Shastri's death on the next day.[31] The Indian Government released no information about his death, and the media then was kept silent. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lal_Bahadur_Shastri#Death

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the CIA agent who gave the interview 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Crowley_(CIA)

 

Robert Trumbull Crowley (July 13, 1924 – October 8, 2000) was an officer in the Central Intelligence Agency since 1947, achieving the rank of assistant deputy director for operations, second in command of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, which was in charge of covert operations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy theories are plenty. Would not make sense to blow up a whole plane in Europe to kill a nuclear scientist 

 

And what was Shastri thinking if he expected Pak to keep its promise on not using force against Ind :facepalm: 

 

Anyways, whatever it is, it is water under the bridge .... Though good for time pass reading 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, zen said:

Conspiracy theories are plenty. Would not make sense to blow up a whole plane in Europe to kill a nuclear scientist 

 

And what was Shastri thinking if he expected Pak to keep its promise on not using force against Ind :facepalm: 

 

Anyways, whatever it is, it is water under the bridge .... Though good for time pass reading 

Bhabha wasnt an ordinary scientist his discoveries in nuclear physics were well known & was the father of Indian nuclear programme. They took steps to make it seem like an accident in his case or death by natural cause in case of Shastri.

 

In that period Lyndon johnson was the US president who basically lied to escalate Vietnam war which resulted in deaths of hundreds of people. So its not like they cared about people dying.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/02/vietnam-presidents-lie-to-wage-war-iraq

 

As far as CIA is concerned they left no stone unturned during the cold war. They dispatched leaders they thought unfavourable, started coups, armed rebels, etc numerous times.

 

How can it be forgotten when the CIA continues to follow the same tactics ? Most recent known example is when they tried to overthrow Assad by arming Al Queda affiliates. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, chapetmarunga said:

Bhabha wasnt an ordinary scientist his discoveries in nuclear physics were well known & was the father of Indian nuclear programme. They took steps to make it seem like an accident in his case or death by natural cause in case of Shastri.

 

In that period Lyndon johnson was the US president who basically lied to escalate Vietnam war which resulted in deaths of hundreds of people. So its not like they cared about people dying.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/02/vietnam-presidents-lie-to-wage-war-iraq

 

As far as CIA is concerned they left no stone unturned during the cold war. They dispatched leaders they thought unfavourable, started coups, armed rebels, etc numerous times.

 

How can it be forgotten when the CIA continues to follow the same tactics ? Most recent known example is when they tried to overthrow Assad by arming Al Queda affiliates. 

 

AI Flight 101 is said to have crashed due to pilot error iirc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chapetmarunga said:

Simple google search yielded this https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19660124-0

 

Btw, the things you are posting are phrased as “was CIA responsible .... question mark”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gollum said:

These conspiracy theories may be true or untrue (entertaining nonetheless) but I don't like our tilt towards US and away from Russia in recent years. Modi has taken his USA ass licking to another level, can't trust those Yanks.

the idea is to have a balanced approach while growing strong internally. easier said than done, but if you think Russians are saints, you couldn't be farther from the truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, chapetmarunga said:

and your link says probable hypothesis.... Of course they would try to potray it as an accident

Most likely scenario based on facts .... but you are free to believe what you prefer 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FischerTal said:

the idea is to have a balanced approach while growing strong internally. easier said than done, but if you think Russians are saints, you couldn't be farther from the truth. 

But Russia has always been good to us and they don't call themselves saints either. The West are hypocrites who do all the nonsense but act like saints. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gollum said:

But Russia has always been good to us and they don't call themselves saints either. The West are hypocrites who do all the nonsense but act like saints. 

Russia have milked India for a long time because of no other major defense partners for the latter. India has now started diversifying in that regard, much to the discontent of Russia. this was started back in UPA 1 and gained momentum further on. Now Russians realize they cannot take us for granted. The West are looking after their own interests, just as you would expect anybody to do. India is now acting as per its own interest, which is to act according to the situation. Even with the West, under this government, India again refused to send troops to Afghanistan and has so far rejected the F-16. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, FischerTal said:

Russia have milked India for a long time because of no other major defense partners for the latter. India has now started diversifying in that regard, much to the discontent of Russia. this was started back in UPA 1 and gained momentum further on. Now Russians realize they cannot take us for granted. The West are looking after their own interests, just as you would expect anybody to do. India is now acting as per its own interest, which is to act according to the situation. Even with the West, under this government, India again refused to send troops to Afghanistan and has so far rejected the F-16. 

I have a soft corner for Russia because of Brezhnev without whose support we were going to get destroyed by the U.S 7th fleet in 1971. Hate America more than any other country for the harm they have done to us till date. Nice username btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AmreekanDesi said:

americans for some reason have always had a soft corner for Pakistani.

 

dont understand why? perhaps theyre more compliant and serve their asses to the americans on a platter?

https://warontherocks.com/2015/06/how-pakistan-beguiles-the-americans-a-guide-for-foreign-officials/ 

 

 

16246572476_c5c1b6e898_k-1024x683.jpg

Over the years, I’ve had the occasion to meet various officials from the Indian Embassy in Washington. They have all at one point or another asked the same questions: “How do the Pakistanis keep beguiling you Americans? How does this rogue state continue to receive billions of dollars of aid and military assistance while supporting terrorism and being an irresponsible nuclear weapons state?” The short answer is that the Pakistanis can extract such resources from the Americans precisely because it is a nuclear-armed menace perpetrating terrorism through its varied proxies. But Pakistan also operates through “soft power” to cultivate American sympathies through “hospitality,” well-spoken lies, and military tourism. Notwithstanding these myriad charms, Pakistan can do so only because the various Americans on the Pakistan portfolio, especially at the operational level (in the field and even at the desks back home), are too often well-intended ingénues, serving their country under difficult circumstances, but nonetheless unfamiliar with the region and America’s vexing relations with Pakistan.

This is a “how to guide” that should enable India’s own Ministry of External Affairs to join the game heretofore mastered by Pakistan.

The Liability of Newbieness

Pakistanis would not get away with much of their rent-seeking shenanigans if their American counterparts knew more about Pakistan generally and the U.S.-Pakistan relationship in particular. Perhaps, the root problem is structural: the U.S. Department of State lacks a South Asia cadre. And since there is no language community within the U.S. Department of State — as there is with Mandarin, Japanese and Arabic — growing such a cadre is extremely difficult. (In contrast, the U.S. Army has a South Asia Foreign Area Officer (FAO) program that produces a small cadre of extremely knowledgeable people who must study a South Asian language. Unfortunately, a South Asia FAO is not promoted beyond the rank of colonel.)

 

Without such a corps of dedicated South Asia experts, Pakistan’s silver-tongued hustlers at the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), the Ministry of Information, and the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) find it easy to shape beliefs among U.S. diplomats about the Land of the Pure. Moreover, since Pakistan is a hazard post, personnel deploy without their families for one-year tours. Persons serving in hazard posts receive additional pay and there is a perception (with some resentment) that promotion within the Foreign Service requires a tour in “AIP,” or Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan. Although these tours can be renewed, many diplomats choose one and one. This is best captured in one foreign service officer’s blog: “Although I’m still over a month away from arriving in Pakistan, the time has come for bidding the follow-on post.”

In addition to the incentive issues and the lack of a South Asia community within the diplomatic corps, the security conditions in Pakistan make it difficult for FSOs to learn as much about Pakistan as they could or should during their time in country. Regional security officers at the posts, depending on their disposition, are often extremely risk averse and may not approve non-essential travel around the country. At one point, U.S. diplomatic personnel were not even allowed to visit popular local establishments (e.g. restaurants) in Islamabad. This is a significant constraint on personnel who wish to meet with Pakistani interlocutors openly. It should be noted that security is a serious issue: foreign service officers have been killed in the line of duty.

Alexander Evans, in his study for the Asia Society Policy Institute, interviewed various U.S. State Department personnel. One of his interlocutors identified another crucial impediment to developing and retaining a core of South Asia expertise:

The main problem was that senior positions — from DCM [Deputy Chief of Mission] to section chiefs — were often given to officers with very little experience in the area. Under such circumstances, it is very difficult to build a sturdy cadre of experts in South Asia — even if it is one of several specialties that an officer might have. Our officers are no fools; they see who is assigned to Delhi and Islamabad as Deputy Chief of Mission or political counselor or as chief of the economic section. They notice that, too often, the assignment is given to someone with European or East Asian or Middle East experience.

Although Evans speaks to South Asia generally, it has been my observation that the Pakistan post suffers more than its Indian counterpart. With the re-alignment of U.S.-Indian relations beginning in 2000, India has become a very desirable and competitive post in contrast to Pakistan. It is also a post where FSOs typically spend more than one year.

There is another incentive problem with the U.S. mission in Pakistan: There are many personnel in the mission whose performance is judged by how well they build the relationship or how much assistance they can execute, irrespective of whether this assistance or their relationship-building efforts produce positive, negative or no results for the United States. This makes it much harder for personnel in country to step back and assess whether or not the United States is being gamed by Pakistan.

What are the consequences of this endless parade of persons without specialized knowledge of Pakistan churning through the U.S. mission in Pakistan and the relevant desks back home? They are numerous and they range from advocating assiduously for Pakistan (often referred to “clientitis”), to underwhelming reportage, to a shallow understanding of the country that in turn feeds into a shambolic process through which policy towards Pakistan churns. Such novitiates are easily manipulated by Pakistani officials who — unlike their American counterparts — know their briefs.

A favored Pakistani lamentation is that the Americans have used and misused Pakistan when required and then tossed it away like a used tissue when the need passes. The American neophyte, touched by the feigned sincerity of these entreaties and the world-renowned hospitality of their official interlocutors, inevitably concede and vow that, this time, it will be different. This time, the money will continue to flow. So far, it has.

Selling Pakistan’s Version of History

The United States and Pakistan have been partners of convenience but the relationship has not always been at the behest of the Americans; rather Pakistan has been extremely solicitous, in an effort to monetize its various sources of relevance. In this way, Pakistan has always been anxious to render itself a rentier state.

 

In fact, the first “alliance” that began in 1954 — with the signing of the Mutual Defense Agreement and the inclusion of Pakistan in the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) and South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) — was the culmination of years of Pakistani pleading to be included in America’s security system. The United States, which deferred to the United Kingdom on South Asia, was uninterested until the Korean War, at which point the Americans decided to become more aggressive. The Americans were very clear that the various pacts that Pakistan insisted upon joining (CENTO and SEATO) were not meant to be used against India, but rather as a deterrent to an attack from a communist aggressor. When Pakistan started its war with India in 1965, the United States sanctioned both countries. Pakistan, which had become more dependent upon U.S. weapons systems, was hurt more. Pakistani officials carped that the United States did not help a treaty partner. The claim was outrageous because the treaties did not apply to Pakistan, the aggressor, who started a war with India, a non-communist state.

Pakistan similarly cried foul in 1971. After years of exploiting the ethnic Bengalis in what was then East Pakistan, the Bengalis began rising up against the state. At first, they wanted federalism. However, after vicious Pakistani repression, they demanded independence. As Pakistani brutality deepened, India began training rebels known as Mukti Bahini. India also provided artillery and other significant military support. The 1971 war technically began when Pakistan’s air force attacked Indian forward airbases and radar installations on Dec. 3, 1971. The war was short and swift and ended on Dec. 16 with Pakistan’s surrender and the birth of an independent Bangladesh from what was previously East Pakistan.

Again, the Pakistanis grumbled that the United States did not support its treaty ally. This complaint was misplaced for two reasons. First, Pakistan was still under sanctions from the 1965 war. Second, as Gary Bass has brilliantly detailed, the United States actually did provide Pakistan with military support in complete violation of U.S. law. President Richard Nixon and his national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, believed that it was necessary to help the military general-cum-president, Yahya Khan, because Khan was facilitating the famed opening to China. As Bass details, Khan was not the only option for this opening. However, Nixon and Kissinger had personal feelings for him and deep contempt for India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

While Pakistanis decry America’s “failure” to come to its aid when the United States had no obligation to do so, Pakistan courted communist China during the same period that it insisted upon being included in pacts that were explicitly designed to counter communism. Moreover, despite its treaty obligations to the United States through SEATO, Pakistan did not participate in the Korean or Vietnam Wars and demurred from citing China as the aggressors.

Pakistanis also point to the notorious F-16 fiasco. Pakistanis opine that they paid for but did not receive several F-16s due to the imposition of sanctions under the Pressler Amendment in 1990. Not only did the United States refuse to release the aircraft, it also refused to reimburse Pakistan the amount remitted to the manufacturer, and the United States even had the temerity to charge Pakistan the storage fees that accrued while the aircraft sat in a desert hangar.

As with all Pakistani narratives of U.S. perfidy, this one too is a kichiri of outright fictions, half-truths and a few masalas. First, the United States sanctioned Pakistan for nuclear proliferation in April 1979, which made it illegal for the United States to provide security assistance to Pakistan. After the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Washington chose to subordinate its nonproliferation policies to other regional interests. According to Steve Coll, National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told President Jimmy Carter that Washington needs to secure Pakistan’s support to oust the Soviets and that this will “require … more guarantees to [Pakistan], more arms aid, and, alas, a decision that our security policy cannot be dictated by our nonproliferation policy.” Despite full knowledge of Pakistan’s advancing nuclear program, Congress added Section 620E to the FAA, which endowed the U.S. president with the authority to waive sanctions for six years, allowing the United States to fund and equip Pakistan for the anti-Soviet jihad. Congress next appropriated annual funds for a six-year program of economic and military aid that totaled $3.2 billion. Despite continued warnings from the United States about its nuclear program, Pakistan continued developing a weapons capability. Pakistan’s military dictator, Zia ul Haq, assertedthat it was Pakistan’s right to do so.

Pakistanis routinely distort the intention of the Pressler Amendment as being designed to punish Pakistan. The 1985 Pressler Amendment permitted American assistance to Pakistan, conditional on an annual presidential assessment and certification that Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons. Prior to its passage, security assistance was possible only with a waiver of the 1979 sanctions. Thus, in effect, Pressler allowed the United States to continue providing assistance to Pakistan even though other parts of the U.S. government increasingly believed that Pakistan either had a nuclear weapon or was close to developing one. Most importantly, the amendment was passed with the active involvement of Pakistan’s foreign office, which was keen to resolve the emergent strategic impasse over competing U.S. nonproliferation and regional objectives on one hand and Pakistan’s resolute intentions to acquire nuclear weapons on the other.

In 1990, when the United States withdrew from the region after the Soviet Union left Afghanistan, President George H.W. Bush declined to certify that Pakistan did not have a bomb and the sanctions, which had been waived since 1982, came into force. This was not a bolt out of the blue, as the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Robert Oakley, repeatedly warned Pakistani leadership of the inevitable consequences of proliferation. Pakistan’s leadership made a calculated gamble. And they lost.

Most problematic is the simple fact that the entire issue had long ago been resolved under President Bill Clinton. However, Pakistan’s narrative on the F-16 drama ultimately prevailed as President George Bushannounced that he would at least make good and provide Pakistan with F-16s. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the decision in 2005, arguing that she was “struck by the conclusions of the Sept. 11 commission: ‘Basically invest in the relationship with Pakistan, because if you don’t, you’re going to create the same situation we created in the ’90s,’ when Pakistan forged close ties with the Taliban in Afghanistan.’” Needless to say, this logic is flawed. Pakistan has forged ties with Islamist militants in Afghanistan before, during and after the 1990s.

Yet another rent-seeking narrative propounded by Pakistan is that the United States sucked a naïve Pakistan into its jihad in the 1980s. And, when its interests were satisfied with the Soviet Union’s exeunt, the United States left Pakistan to contend with the morass that had become Afghanistan on its own and awash with small arms, narcotics and other criminal enterprises. As usual, this is not the entire story and this account ranks very low on the veracity scale. As Husain Haqqani, among others, has shown, Pakistan began its jihad policy between 1973 and 1974, after Mohammad Daoud Khan ousted the popular King Zahir Shah.   At that time, Pakistan’s civilian autocrat, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, established the ISI Afghanistan Cell to instrument Islamists who were fleeing Afghanistan following Mohammad Daoud Khan’s crackdown on Islamists who resisted his pro-Soviet reforms. By the time the Soviets crossed the Amu Darya on Christmas Day 1979, the main so-called mujahideen parties had already been formed. Pakistan did this all on its own dime because manipulating events in Afghanistan has been an enduring Pakistani strategic objective since 1947.

Logically, the United States could not have intended to “suck” Pakistan into an American-led jihad, as Pakistanis claim, because Washington had sanctioned Pakistan in April of 1979. Had the United States intended to coerce Pakistan to do America’s bidding in Afghanistan, why would it make working with Pakistan illegal even as events began to churn in Afghanistan? As is well known, the United States was not terribly interested in the events in Afghanistan until the summer of 1979. After all, Afghanistan’s neighbor, Iran, was mired in an Islamist revolution that began in early 1978. However, once President Ronald Reagan came into the White House, he worked to secure the waivers needed to begin working with Pakistan. It was not until 1982 that security assistance began flowing to Pakistan. It should be noted that Saudi Arabia matched the U.S. contribution. It should also be noted that it was Zia ul Haq who insisted upon fighting the Russians in Afghanistan in the lexicon of jihad, not that of the United States. Unfortunately, the Reagan administration enthusiastically embraced the concept with future deleterious consequences for the region.

While it is true that the American withdrawal left Pakistan to clean up the mess, this outcome was not entirely undesired by Pakistan. Pakistan continued manipulating the conflict in Afghanistan and supporting its preferred combatants in hopes of managing its interests there as it had been doing for decades. In fact, the United States more or less “outsourced” its Afghanistan policy to Pakistan, which is exactly what the United States is doing at present. Nothing could please Pakistan more.

The lesson is that with a bit of dedication to perfecting an ossified fiction to a conveyor belt of woefully inexperienced Americans, any number of things can be accomplished.

And that Hospitality

No doubt the secret to Pakistani success in taking the Americans for endless rides around the roundabout is that their American passengers cannot recognize the ever-replaying scenery. However, such ruses would not likely succeed for as long as it has if it were not for Pakistan’s legendary hospitality. Here is where India’s own Ministry of External Affairs can learn some lessons.

First, to hell with protocol. Whereas Indian protocol requires American officials to meet only their counterparts in India, Pakistanis open the doors. Even a junior analyst at a think tank (like me when I was at the RAND Corporation) can meet virtually anyone. (President Musharraf even autographed a portrait of my beloved, now deceased, canine associate Ms. Oppenheimer.) U.S. Congressional delegates are particularly delighted when they get to meet the army chief. They may have to suffer a meeting with the irrelevant prime minister, of course. But they all swoon at the army chief, who inevitably is seen as a straight shooter with whom the United States can do business. Pakistanis focus less upon what you are and more upon who you influence or may be able to influence in the future. Pakistanis invest in people as if they are assets in a portfolio of human capital.

In contrast to Indian officials who are often stiff, hectoring, disinterested, and seemingly mired in ennui, the (much higher ranked) Pakistani official is engaging, jocular, (seemingly) forthcoming, self-effacing, humorous and, always, charming. Whereas Indian ministry officials will serve you tea in a chipped mug embossed with a faded graphic of the ministry’s logo, Pakistani hosts will serve their hosts coffee or tea in a mug … and they will even gift you with that mug. The Pakistanis have studied what Americans like and how best to cater to these preferences. Right down to the mug. This gives rise to the chattering among diplomats, journalists, scholars and think tank analysts who visit both countries and aver enthusiastically that “The Pakistanis may lie like rugs and kill our troops while robbing us blind, but they sure are friendly!”

Second, India should consider embracing “war tourism.” The Pakistanis cultivate American sympathies for the difficulties they face in their neighborhood by taking scholars, think tank analysts, state department officials, congressional delegations, journalists and anyone else they want to groom on tours of its warzones and conflict fronts. During my decades visiting the country, I was regaled with a trip to the border with Afghanistan and an amazing excursion through the Khyber Pass. Our entourage was equipped with an enormous security detail, with loads of Toyota Hiluxes zooming about, festooned with armed young men, and sirens blaring. The Frontier Scouts delighted us with their dances and we ate piles of kebobs in their mess hall. We also received mugs with the Frontier Scout logo. We were given a scenic overview at a forward operating base where our Pakistani military briefer explained the dangers of this frontier. I had similar tours in North and South Waziristan and Swat. Who doesn’t feel important under such circumstances?

In previous years, they arranged for me to visit “Azad Kashmir.” Foreigners require a permit and thus free travel is not legal. Once I reached Muzaffarabad, my Pakistani official guests placed me in a chair in a dingy shack while numerous women lined up in front of me. I was told that they had been raped by Indian forces and the women, per force, began narrating their rehearsed tales of assault. I put a stop to this immediately and protested that this was hideous. My hosts moved onto the next destination. Despite Pakistan’s efforts to shape my views against Indian behavior in Kashmir and despite their assertions that there were no militants here, I saw loads of signs posted by militant groups. (This is one advantage of reading Urdu.)

India should consider taking a page out this highly successful Pakistani play book. When congressional delegates and the like file through India, why not take them to Kashmir and show them maps of Pakistani terror camps? Why not take them to Aksai Chin or Arunachal Pradesh and show them the problems India encounters with China? How about the problematic areas of the North East and the long, open borders with Bangladesh and Myanmar? Maybe demonstrate how Pakistani militants have long used the border with Nepal as a route of infiltration? India will have one enormous advantage over Pakistan’s industry of war tourism: India’s complaints are based on truth. That counts for something. It should also be noted that when foreigners arrive in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, they must register and they are often viewed with suspicion. This is unfortunate because India has much to show. Since my first visit to the valley in 1991, much of the area has resumed normal life. In some ways, Kashmir is a slow churning success. This does not mean that all is well. But it does mean that the situation is manageable.

Third, the brass and khaki counts. A lot. Americans love engaging military officials. The more pins and brass the better. Nothing flatters an American visiting Pakistan more than a visit to General Headquarters, the Peshawar or Quetta Corps Headquarters, the Strategic Plans Directorate, ISI headquarters, the majestic headquarters of the Frontier Scouts in Peshawar’s famed Bala Hisar fort, and the like. If one gets to meet the army chief or the ISI chief, a trip is made. She or he will have dinner party fodder for years. Americans find the feigned candor of Pakistani military personnel to be very refreshing, especially in contrast to Pakistani civilians who are viewed with disdain by Americans, and in contrast to Indian officials who seem pained to meet foreign visitors. Americans sympathize with the “threats” that the Pakistani military convincingly demonstrates it faces and they are persuaded by the seemingly genuine efforts that Pakistan’s men in green are making to stem the terrorist menaces threatening Pakistan. Too few Americans seem to know that Pakistan cultivates more terrorists than it kills. But why let facts get it the way of war tourism?

In contrast, it requires any number of approvals from India’s Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Defense to meet anyone in uniform. (This is not impossible. It is just difficult.) Persons in uniform who meet with foreigners without approval are subject to the wrath of the bureaucracy. Americans view this with suspicion and frustration. After all, if India really were under such threats from Pakistan and China, why are Indians not doing what Pakistanis do? India should consider providing more access to the military along the lines of “war tourism” noted above. Why not arrange for the 15th Corps commander in Kashmir to brief American visitors? That corps has witnessed much Pakistani perfidy. Similarly, access to the police and paramilitary outfits in Kashmir and other areas under threat would benefit India tremendously. After all, seeing is believing.

Why Should Pakistan have all of the Fun?

It is relatively easy to beguile the Americans, as Pakistan’s track record amply shows. Despite supporting any number of terrorist and insurgent groups, despite continued funding of the Afghan Taliban who have killed thousands of our troops and civilians as well as tens of thousands of our allies, and despite developing tactical nuclear weapons, the United States has given Pakistan over $30 billion since 9/11 and access to weapons systems best suited to fight India, a democratic partner, rather than the insurgents and terrorists Pakistan claims to be fighting.

As a U.S. citizen who believes that my country’s interests are best served by a better and more robust relationship with India, I make the humble request that India’s leadership learns from the best and adopts a more flexible way in dealing with the Americans. In the end, both India and the United States will benefit.

 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gollum said:

@Real McCoy @Jimmy Cliff thoughts?

 

Also guys help me get initiated into this conspiracy theories thing, any website, book or YT channel?  

The most believable conspiracy theory is that 9/11 is an inside job.

 

Watch this interview carefully and form your opinion. Especially 3:00 onwards.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk014XIsz7Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gollum said:

@Real McCoy @Jimmy Cliff thoughts?

 

Also guys help me get initiated into this conspiracy theories thing, any website, book or YT channel?  

Do you really want to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole? :p:  I mean I miss my blue pill days when Congress was the only evil and getting rid of them would solve most problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

This is my favorite 9/11 conspiracy debunking video.

 

 

That janitor was talking about basement explosions before planes hit the towers. That itself puts US integrity into question.

 

Here's another video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck3VBAKxznw&list=PLEpr4aa9rk9rx38NOWCSrVXXlsR6jYGmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 10:27 AM, AmreekanDesi said:

americans for some reason have always had a soft corner for Pakistani.

 

dont understand why? perhaps theyre more compliant and serve their asses to the americans on a platter?

 

They don't have a soft corner for pakistan, they simply don't trust india. i don't see this dynamic changing anytime soon.

 

india recently bought the s400 from russia, and continues to keep the americans at arms length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2017 at 12:54 PM, Gollum said:

These conspiracy theories may be true or untrue (entertaining nonetheless) but I don't like our tilt towards US and away from Russia in recent years. Modi has taken his USA ass licking to another level, can't trust those Yanks.

Russians and Chinese are worse than US. Modi is a moron who is only good at stirring up communal tensions and kissing Do-Lund’s auss. Every time he implements a policy, it turns out to be a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Audiophile said:

Russians and Chinese are worse than US. Modi is a moron who is only good at stirring up communal tensions and kissing Do-Lund’s auss. Every time he implements a policy, it turns out to be a disaster.

Modi is a great PM, nobody is flawless. People of India in general are happy with him, thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Modi is a great PM, nobody is flawless. People of India in general are happy with him, thank you. 

One thing about Modi, love him or hate him you know he is the frickin boss/patron/ don.

 

I have never seen any Indian leader With this much mass appeal ever.
 

People may not agree with the comparison but his mass appeal rivals to only guys like Mahatma Gandhi and Bose.

 

Gandhi Family always came Across  as a royal family that common man can never connect.

 

PVN,Mannu and Vajpayee came across as scholars who are a level above the common man with their wisdom.


so haters are gonna hate, Modi is here for a long haul

 

 

Edited by maniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2017 at 2:54 PM, Gollum said:

These conspiracy theories may be true or untrue (entertaining nonetheless) but I don't like our tilt towards US and away from Russia in recent years. Modi has taken his USA ass licking to another level, can't trust those Yanks.

Yennaarais and Wo-see-ai peepal in Amaerika giving laats of daalars to party and yekaanami.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gollum said:

Modi is a great PM, nobody is flawless. People of India in general are happy with him, thank you. 

You mean the poor people who were getting sprayed with disinfectant like animals and critters? :giggle:

 

Forget flaw, everyone has them. This guy is a phucking disaster. The only difference between him and Trump is that he has a more pleasing personality and probably a decent person in his personal life. Otherwise, they are two incompetent peas in a pod!

Edited by Audiophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Audiophile said:

You mean the poor people who were getting sprayed with disinfectant like animals and critters? :giggle:

 

Forget flaw, everyone has them. This guy is a phucking disaster. The only difference between him and Trump is that he has a more pleasing personality and probably a decent person in his personal life. Otherwise, they are two incompetent peas in a pod!

Yeah sure, we saw the magic of UPA for 10 years, never going back to that dark era. Modi the so called disaster has handled this crisis better than many developed countries' leaders....against much worse odds, if he is a disaster worry about the first world leaders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gollum said:

Yeah sure, we saw the magic of UPA for 10 years, never going back to that dark era. Modi the so called disaster has handled this crisis better than many developed countries' leaders....against much worse odds, if he is a disaster worry about the first world leaders. 

India has way more cases than reported because there is not enough testing. Plus this one has not even peaked yet both in USA and India. Don't get too comfy as shyt could hit the fan very easily. BTW, I would never say that it was handled well in the US at the beginning. Trump ignored it and bungled it up. Only now, he has come around and listening to the experts. We could have up to 250,000 dead!! India could easily top that. The only thing going for India is the weather. It is much warmer there. In US it will take another 45 days before it gets warm all over.

Edited by Audiophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Audiophile said:

India has way more cases than reported because there is not enough testing. Plus this one has not even peaked yet both in USA and India. Don't get too comfy as shyt could hit the fan very easily. BTW, I would never say that it was handled well in the US at the beginning. Trump ignored it and bungled it up. Only now, he has come around and listening to the experts. We could have up to 250,000 dead!! India could easily top that. The only thing going for India is the weather. It is much warmer there. In US it will take another 45 days before it gets warm all over.

I know we shouldn't get comfy, glad that Modi is in charge and not Sonia, Pawar, Lalu, Mayawati, Mulayam, Mamata, Stalin etc. Anyway I wasn't intending to talk about the virus, can be done elsewhere on this sub-forum. I am contesting your assertion that Modi is a disaster, that he is incompetent. India has made major strides the last 6 years, after the disastrous UPA reign we are relieved. Do we want Modi to improve? Of course yeah, but knowing the state of opposition he is our best bet till at least 2029.

Edited by Gollum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gollum said:

I am contesting your assertion that Modi is a disaster, that he is incompetent. India has made major strides the last 6 years,

Demonetization.

 

Built statue instead of SEZs

 

Plenty of Ribbon-cutting and "conferences" on "make in India" - where are the factories?

 

Charged Indians billions of extra taxes - "swacch bharat" cess, "GST" cess - meanwhile, what's the state of infrastructure in India, across sectors - roads, railways, power grid, education, healthcare.  Banjo, freight corridor is fully paid for by Japanese, was supposed to be completed 2 years ago.

 

Modi gormint is a unfiltered disaster.  Stop shouting Congress, Sonia, Lalu etc.  Modi has had 6 years, not 6 months.  Time to show accomplishments.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sandeep said:

Demonetization.

 

Built statue instead of SEZs

 

Plenty of Ribbon-cutting and "conferences" on "make in India" - where are the factories?

 

Charged Indians billions of extra taxes - "swacch bharat" cess, "GST" cess - meanwhile, what's the state of infrastructure in India, across sectors - roads, railways, power grid, education, healthcare.  Banjo, freight corridor is fully paid for by Japanese, was supposed to be completed 2 years ago.

 

Modi gormint is a unfiltered disaster.  Stop shouting Congress, Sonia, Lalu etc.  Modi has had 6 years, not 6 months.  Time to show accomplishments.  

Bingo!

 

Demontization was a colossal failure. I get that I am not the best judge of Modi being in the USA, but I know many folks in India who follow politics, have no agenda and think he has done zilch. Just becasue you have a good idea means nothing if the execution is horribly flawed. That is the issue with him. And then they deflect attention with all the other dramebaazi.

 

Like Trump, Modi is a polarizing figure and people like that have cult like following. You cannot reason with these bhakts. They cannot see through the fog. Unlike Trump who I despise as a human being, I do not have any issues with Modi the person. I think he is genuinely nice guy, but he has not delivered on his promises. Also there are plenty of examples where someone has succeeded at the state level, but failed at the national level. That is the case with him. In the US, George W. Bush was a similar example where he was the Governor of Texas before he ran for President.

Edited by Audiophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...