So you will go to hell but not...

[THX_1138]

So you will go to hell but not Pakistan... That was the high point of my last viewing of the Daily Show... a bit late on the wagon since i tivo it for a weekend viewing, Jon Stewart, the host was exclaiming his astonishment on something candidate for United States presidency, John McCain said. At a rally held in honor of the NRA, sponsored by Colt Firearms, he had previously remarked: "Osama Bin Laden will not have a place on this Earth to hide. We will find him, and bring him to justice, and I will follow him to the Gates of Hell and use some of your fine equipment (he is talking about Colt Firearms here)" However, in a recent interview with Stephanopoulos (or how so ever you spell it), he made some rather bombastic claims of problems he will fix within his first term, one of which was bringing Bin Laden to justice, but when he was countered with the remark that since the consensus of the intelligence agencies is that the cretin is hiding in Pakistan, would you follow him into Pakistan? To which McCain remarked, no i wont since Pakistan is a sovereign nation. And thus in summary: Jon Stewart: "So you will go to hell but not Pakistan?!? You will go to a place of fiery fire and suffering, the metaphoric gates of which are guarded by the Devil himself, but you will not go into a country whose primary export is bed linen?!" I could not help but break into raptures as a result, but humor aside, if the United States undertakes a campaign to root out extremists from the NWFP region of Pakistan, how likely are they to succeed, and would India volunteer assistance, or consent to assistance if asked directly?

[Dravid]

rofl :hysterical::hysterical:

[Lurker]

:haha: Good or bad, Jon Stewart often takes a Mickey out of Pakistan. Maybe its due to Indian born Aasif Mandavi :--D

[Ram]

Damn, this is truly Pakistan bashing season! :haha:

[Desi Cartman]

its a question that has bothered me for a very long time. US always had good relationship with Musharaff who wasn't an elected leader but at the same time they kept shouting "democracy". I think US policy is confusing when it comes to Pak. They want them for Afghan war plus to check what India is up to but at the same time its embarrassing for the US not to say much about nuclear deals , terrorism , human rights , democracy etc

[sandtest]

its a question that has bothered me for a very long time. US always had good relationship with Musharaff who wasn't an elected leader but at the same time they kept shouting "democracy".

You need to read a lot specially books by M.K. Dhar and B. Raman, regarding origin of ISI during end period of British raj, when Britain was secretely passing the batton of control of South Asia to USA. It was a well thought strategy of white supremascists who knew that after 50 years rise of India and Indian nationalism will check their hegemonic interests in Asia. Most of you will be surprised to find the extent of western proxy involvement in creation and sustaining of ISI to bleed India and USA's hidden aspitrations to gain strategic depth in Kashmir for monitoring the region which can cover China from this side.

[CC1981]

It was a well thought strategy of white supremascists who knew that after 50 years rise of India and Indian nationalism will check their hegemonic interests in Asia.

Don't be stupid. Indian nationalism was not seen as a threat for Western hegemony over Asia and it still is not a factor. Western hegemony in Asia depends FUNDAMENTALLY over control of the mid-east and it was the same case 50 years ago. And just as 50 years ago, India has near zero influence in the muslim-dominated west asia. Furthermore, as early as 1930s, China was seen as the next superpower/hegemon out of Asia and that has materialized in 50 years. Support for ISI or Pakistan in its formative years was not designed to weaken India or the subcontinent but to give yet another fledgling nation the luxury of western military umbrella at the price of geopolitical control and concessions. PS: White supremists have not had a say in an anglo-western government for over 70 years. Its a helluva lot better record than brown/hindu-supremists who still have extremely influential control over indian politics.

[sandtest]

Pakistan's Nuclear tests were nothing but a re-test of Chinese warheads. And this was done while Amreeka was fully aware. Indian policy makers know this very well. Brijesh Mishra has written about this in a column in deccan chronicle. That is why India is very careful in taking military action against Pakistan since it is not just Pakistan but USA and China combine will break our backbones. The last time ABV government showed some spine and actually mobilized Indian troops after parliament attack. If one recalls, Operation "Parakram" is one of the biggest Indian military mobilization in her 50 years history, but we were immediately tamed by USA from backdoor threat of incursions at Chinese border. The problem of Pakistan could have been resolved that day itself -- it won't take India more than a week to dismantle terrorist army of Pakistan and terror camps in POK. And mind those peaceniks who harp about Nuke weapons escalations, RAW knew very well that Paki Nukes were not ready during that time, unless Amreeka asked China to do some vertical proliferation and send ready made warheads, there was no reason for India to worry about Nuke war escalation during that time. Even Musharraf has admitted in his book that Paki nukes were not ready and they felt the serious heat when Indian army mobilised for the first time in history in such a huge way. Bill Clinton was the worst President as far as Indian interests are concerned. This man preferred China over us at any time, while talking all sweet and no action. he single handedly held as back during Kargil, prevented us from dis-mantling Pakistani army when Pak was "Practically" yet not Nuclearized and prevented our in-house defence R&D by convincing Europe to impose defence sanctions along with USA after Pokhran, while happily suprevising balatant proliferation by China to pakis. No informed Indian should ever forgive Clinton for this. That is why compared to this George Bush is a much better man for India.

[CC1981]

That is why India is very careful in taking military action against Pakistan since it is not just Pakistan but USA and China combine will break our backbones.

USA will NOT stand by Pakistan's side in an India-Pakistan confrontation anymore. Not even if India is the agressor. USA knows which way its bread is buttered in that part of the world : Economy with India and its potential is a FAR bigger carrot for Unkil than maintaining an already downhill relation with Pakistan, espeically when Pakistan are chamchaas of the Panda and every US weapons purchase will end up in Chinese hands via Pakistan for reverse engineering. But yes, taking on Pakistan almost definitely means dealing with the Panda at the same time- and collectively, they both can own India very easily.

it won't take India more than a week to dismantle terrorist army of Pakistan and terror camps in POK.

1. We have nowhere close to the kind of intelligence required to pinpoint the hundreds of terror training camps in PoK and kohistan-swat-waziristan region. If Unkil doesnt know the exact locations of all terror camps, we don't either 2. What good will dismantling the terror camps do ? Say India goes in and at great cost of material and life,dismantles the terror training camps. Two weeks later, another one will pop up, with even bigger zeal/drive to punish the kaffir and it will continue to pop up as long as Islamism has a strong hold over pakistani society as it does currently.

Bill Clinton was the worst President as far as Indian interests are concerned

Utter nonsense. Clinton was one of the best presidents- even for India-US relationship (the current Indo-US relationship thaw started with Bill's visit to Delhi) and he more than did his part in warning Pakistan that if it went nuclear in the Kargil conflict, not only will America not support Pakistan, it will take action against it.

This man preferred China over us at any time, while talking all sweet and no action.

Uhh..in the last 30 years, EVERY AMERICAN PRESIDENT- including the one at power now and the ones who will replace him- prefer China to India. And with good reason : China is already here as a superpower, economically atleast. India is still in the 'bara ho ke bahut bara naam banaayega' stage of adolescence. Practically EVERY nation which has little to gain/lose from the geopolitics of Indo-Chinese relations will prefer China to India currently - its stronger, more organized, is a MUCH BIGGER economic force, is a much more influential world power and a far more united nation.

when Pak was "Practically" yet not Nuclearized

That is by no means determined as a fact- your basis for this is a very questionable bio from Mushie. What remains a fact, is that Pakistan had conducted nuclear tests the year before and had piggybacked a nuclear test at Lop Nor no later than 1984. What is more or less certain is that Pakistan had a few functional nukes long before they tested their nukes, as an assurance of pre-emptive strike. Infact, many Indian military personnel contend that Pakistan has had a few functional nukes since mid 1980s, when an Osirak style attack on Pakistan's nuke facilities were contemplated by India and Israel but India backed down because of info about Pakistan's 'assurance nukes'. Hell, Israel even offered to do an Osirak using Indian air-bases as fuelling points that India backed down from. What is also known is that Pakistan's nuclear self sufficiency was unknown during Kargil and it certainly is not something one can just instigate a war and 'find out' or take a chance on, especially when Pakistan had nukes for assurance

while happily suprevising balatant proliferation by China to pakis

This is nothing more than utter slander by the hinduvta-mullahs who identify with the republicans more than the democrats (ironic,because republicans are far more influenced by the christian mullahs). No US president in the last 30 years has had ANY input or influence whatsoever over China's foreign policy and to suggest Clinton 'supervised' Chinese proliferation to the PAkistanis, is an utter lie.

[sandtest]

Don't be stupid. Indian nationalism was not seen as a threat for Western hegemony over Asia and it still is not a factor. Western hegemony in Asia .

My bad, I meant South Asia not asia.

White supremists have not had a say in an anglo-western government for over 70 years. Its a helluva lot better record than brown/hindu-supremists who still have extremely influential control over indian politics.

Once again you are an idiot. When did Indian nationalists supported invasion of a country by India to expand her borders or colonize a country far away from our motherland.? Ohh wait, the only time India was fortunate to have a Nationalist government in center was ABV led NDA. And do you have a clue what they told Amreeka. let me recall....USA came to India with hips gyrating that ohhh please you can become our life long poodle partner like NATO countries are but all you need to do is just send some Indian troops in Iraq, if you want we will provide you UN cover. USA desperately needed some foots on Iraq and they wanted to outsource some part to India in return of some shining Tomahawks and Patriots. Did you know what ABV told Stock Talbott....he said STFU -- we are Nationalist, but our Nationalism is driven by Dharma which is pacifist as long as injustice is not done to us. We adhere to principle of BhagwadGita to fight injustice alone. (read Advanis book -- my country my life) Mind you India in her 60 years existence has not invaded a single country (barring war with pakistan) without consent of that country!! You commie twisting of Dharmic Indian Nationalism with Atlanticist white supremascists is inherently flawed.

[CC1981]

When did Indian nationalists supported invasion of a country by India to expand her borders or colonize a country far away from our motherland.?

Whats that gotto do with the fact that hindu-mullahs who believe in goobledegook about hindu/indian superiority (something you have supported in the past) and such nefarious neo-fascistic trends have far more sway in our politics than their counterparts in American politics ?

the only time

I disagree.

You commie twisting of Dharmic Indian Nationalism with Atlanticist white supremascists is inherently flawed

There is nothing flawed about comparing the saffron-mullahs from hindu India who talk about India being mother of civilization, giver of civilization and knowledge to the world, etc. and all other neo-Nazi type rantings and that of a white skinhead who talk about white people being givers of civilization and all things great to this world. The only difference is one is clad in saffron, another in all white.

[sandtest]

Whats that gotto do with the fact that hindu-mullahs who believe in goobledegook about hindu/indian superiority (something you have supported in the past) and such nefarious neo-fascistic trends have far more sway in our politics than their counterparts in American politics ?

Superiority??....Another commie imposed term. There is nothing like superiority of one human over another in Dharma. It is simply rejection of Abrahamic notion of "religion" and imposed definition of so called "monotheism" by Abrahamic preachers of "either our way or highway". To reject this and protect our thousand years old freedom to "belief" we Indians can go till any extent. Commie can ***** and moan about "superiority" nationalism but a raitionalists will know it's a fight for survival. We have endured hundereds of invasions including brutal islamic invasion and survived because we never required Abrahamic preaching of how to view god in "monotheistic" way. Simple reason that our civilization realized, interpreted and rejected any "fixed" and rigid definition of so called "god" by calling it "avidya" generated due to "ego" of knowledge. No wonder, great Indian civcilization saw a highly devoted belief based philosophy like Dvaita and highly agnoostic philosophies like Ajativada, Sankkhya and Jainism, Budhism existing at the same time at the same place. It is precisely this freedom of belief to "not believe" an imposed belief which is facing threat of Islamic-Christian assault in modern time. Of course commies can't see this because for them their chief deity is Mao autocracy.

I disagree.

Nice Cop out by one liner. I gave you example that if BJP wanted they could have easily sent Indian troops in Iraq and earned a strong alliance with USA, fiollowed by quick defence deal, not to mentions control of some oil rich areas....ohh between BJP is considered as Hinudtva by our p-secs and hence by default anti-Islam, yet they rejected offer of USA to invade a third country why?? ever wondered?? Noble Dharmic ideology of RSS, difficult to guess isn't it?

[CC1981]

Superiority??....Another commie imposed term. There is nothing like superiority of one human over another in Dharma. It is simply rejection of Abrahamic notion of "religion" and imposed definition of so called "monotheism" by Abrahamic preachers of "either our way or highway". To reject this and protect our thousand years old freedom to "belief" we Indians can go till any extent. Commie can ***** and moan about "superiority" nationalism but a raitionalists will know it's a fight for survival. We have endured hundereds of invasions including brutal islamic invasion and survived because we never required Abrahamic preaching of how to view god in "monotheistic" way. Simple reason that our civilization realized, interpreted and rejected any "fixed" and rigid definition of so called "god" by calling it "avidya" generated due to "ego" of knowledge. No wonder, great Indian civcilization saw a highly devoted belief based philosophy like Dvaita and highly agnoostic philosophies like Ajativada, Sankkhya and Jainism, Budhism existing at the same time at the same place. It is precisely this freedom of belief to "not believe" an imposed belief which is facing threat of Islamic-Christian assault in modern time. Of course commies can't see this because for them their chief deity is Mao autocracy.

No, superiority is the perfect word to describe the malaise. Don't try to twist my words- i never said hinduism views one human to be superior to another. I specifically said that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the saffron clad mullahs who thump their chest about the superiority of 'akhanda bharat and great bharat mata civilization' and how this civilization is the first civilization in the world, the civilization that civilized the rest of the world and all sort of SUPERIORIST DRIVEL that is not only absurd, it runs contrary to material archaeological evidence. YOU have preached the same type of superiority spiel that our 'great bharati ancestors' went civilizing the 'barbarian europeans and middle easterners who lived in their caves' and that type of SUPERIORIST DRIVEL that is IDENTICAL to the neo-nazi skinhead superiority drivel. The only difference is, the saffron mullahs deleted the word 'white' and put in the phrase ' indian civilization/culture' to replace it and continue the SAME superiority drivel. And furthermore, who are you calling a commie here ? Soemone who doesnt agree with your stupid God-worship bull***** is a commie ? pffft! I've openly said many a time that i aint a commie- i neither agree with their autocratic governance model nor do i agree with their assinine economic theories.

Nice Cop out by one liner.

Its called being concise. You self-appointed the BJP govt. as the 'only patriotic' government. I disagreed. And i still disagree.. whats there to cop-out on it and damn right thats a one liner- you want an essay as to why i disagree based on one side comment ? sorry, chum.

ever wondered??

Its called prudence and following the truism of 'lets not get involved in other people's ***** when our affairs are far from sorted and when we are languishing near the bottom of the world in average human living quality and standards'.

Noble Dharmic ideology of RSS, difficult to guess isn't it?

The RSS is just about as much 'noble' as the Nazi Party of Germany. Both did extensive charity work, gave food & clothing to the poor, constructed schools and hospitals, dug canals, etc etc...but both come with a heinously crooked mindset and philosphy that is best assigned to the garbage bin by any decent individual.

[THX_1138]

You need to read a lot specially books by M.K. Dhar and B. Raman, regarding origin of ISI during end period of British raj, when Britain was secretely passing the batton of control of South Asia to USA. It was a well thought strategy of white supremascists who knew that after 50 years rise of India and Indian nationalism will check their hegemonic interests in Asia. Most of you will be surprised to find the extent of western proxy involvement in creation and sustaining of ISI to bleed India and USA's hidden aspirations to gain strategic depth in Kashmir for monitoring the region which can cover China from this side.

i would agree with CC on this, that such clairvoyance is not typical of the western colonists who were merely attempting to 'selflessly' offload all their former colonies onto the sovereign nation market. the dual nations of india-pakistan were the results of a subversive campaign run by the Muslim League that outdated the actual independence day by close to three decades or more. furthermore, the partition has really entrenched the religious divide. pakistan is fiercely anti hindu (and not as anti india as we might understand them to be), and india has had problems reconciling with its minority. had the two nations remained as one, the population would have been forced to reconcile their religious differences and though there would be periodic blood letting, the religious divide would not have been so entrenched!

[Lurker]

You need to read a lot specially books by M.K. Dhar and B. Raman, regarding origin of ISI during end period of British raj, when Britain was secretely passing the batton of control of South Asia to USA. It was a well thought strategy of white supremascists who knew that after 50 years rise of India and Indian nationalism will check their hegemonic interests in Asia.

If that is indeed the thought of B Raman then I am extremely glad I have little time for "experts" like him, much less spend a dime for his book. The problem with Indians these days is how a small matter of 5 year(possibly 10) success have gone straight to their head!! And now every Tom Dick and B is proclaiming how India was "destined" to be successful after 50 years of its existence. That may sell in Western world since they dont know any better but how in the world does an average Indian even begin to beleive that? Specially people who are in their late 20s and 30s (or older)?? Anyone who has some idea of 80s would do very well to remember how Indian economy was back then(and yes I am surely hear some vomit about "Congressi" raaz). Late in the decade India was so bankrupt that we had to collateral our National Gold to get loans/pay interests. This in an era where Japan, Korea, Taiwan and even China were doing exceeedingly well. Sure India was supposed to dominate these, and other nations, within a decade or two!!! What a difference 2 decades make!!Both for a nation...and the IQ of its citizens! xxx

[sandtest]

I meant B.Raman's analysis of "origin" of ISI, you are unnecessarily extrapolating it to India's poverty in 80s. He has mentioned in his book about maj Gen, Cawthorne an Australian origin British army man who was given the task to form and organize an intelligent agency for Pakistan. It's a fact that when India was freed, British wanted to balance India against Pakistan. It was not possible through direct militrary assistance since India was also in freindly terms with British, particularly Nehru enjoyed good relations with British. So British did what they do best, kept their hands clean by creating a proxy. Immediately after independence, India was far behind in this field. British purposefully helped pakistan to gain a qualitative advantage in this field. ISIs deputy chief was NOT a Pakistani but a British army veteran maj. Gen. Cawthorne. Here is a link about him, which confirms this

ISI was a brain- child of British Army General R Cawthorne, who opted for Pakistan after the transfer of power and served as a Deputy Chief of Staff. Senior army officers felt that the Kashmir war was mismanaged by role of some political leaders, and PIB (Pakistan Intelligence Bureau) failed to fully coordinate and support the war efforts as required by the army. Pakistan army brains of General Rees and General Cawthorne conceived an idea of having an agency which can play a pivotal role to meet military requirements agency which can coordinate, plan and carry out tasks with full control of the army in accordance with military requirements, hence ISI was set up in 1948, and its structural format was drawn from MI5 and MI6, elite British intelligence agencies set up in 1909. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/role-of-secret-agencies_10010359.html

ISI provided Pakistan a definite and lasting edge over India, since, per Raman, Indian intelligence agencies during that time were highly mediocre formed with some local CID and ex-Police wallas.

I have little time for "experts" like him, much less spend a dime for his book.

B. Raman has served at some key positions in India intelligence agencies, not to mentions an ex-advisor to GOI. If he is not an expert on strategic issues then who is??.. armchair p-sec jornos like Kuldip Nayyar, Rajdeep fartdesai and Burkha Dutt, ArunDhoti Roy etc...:giggle:

[Lurker]

I meant B.Raman's analysis of "origin" of ISI, you are unnecessarily extrapolating it to India's poverty in 80s.

The extrapolation is very much on the lines. It was to show how misleading the chest-thumping "Western world knew India will dominate World in 50 years" claim is and I hope I have shown that.

It's a fact that when India was freed, British wanted to balance India against Pakistan. It was not possible through direct militrary assistance since India was also in freindly terms with British, particularly Nehru enjoyed good relations with British.

Whose version of fact is that?? By your account, British did Pakistanis a BIG favour to build up an institution that will help them overcome India. Now how many Pakistanis till date, in real life or forums, have you met that will remotely agree to that notion? Most of them, if not all, will straight away say how Pakistan was treated unfairly and how British were partial towards India. As for Indian angle I fail to see how you can say - Nehru(and Indians) were close to British - and in the same line suggest how British were raising another power right across the border. You are not only paying too much heed to Conspiracy theories, you are essentially portraying Indian leaders of stature(Nehru) etc as pure fools who failed to see this. Of course some of this has your background in Political philosphies but I am sure you are smart enough to realize your folly just to prove a point.

B. Raman has served at some key positions in India intelligence agencies, not to mentions an ex-advisor to GOI. If he is not an expert on strategic issues then who is??.. armchair p-sec jornos like Kuldip Nayyar, Rajdeep fartdesai and Burkha Dutt, ArunDhoti Roy etc...:giggle:

Now you are getting frantic. Where did Burkha Dutt come from?? And what suggests I read her?? Not that it should be any of your concern in the first place. My point was rather simple. Not too many people thought India would be dominating the world even 20 years back, much less 50 years. So lets stop making all these "destined to glory", "unstoppable glory made sure British power ensured India was never dominant" yada yada. Heck if British think tank was so great, and looked into the future so very well, wouldn't Great Britain be the dominant power of the world today?? :cantstop: xxx

[CC1981]

It's a fact that when India was freed, British wanted to balance India against Pakistan.

DUH! Why the hell should they not ? Try to look at it from the Brit's perspective : they ruled over BOTH India and Pakistan and you know as well as i do that the Brits did what they pleased with great aplomb ALL over subcontinent. And they had total control for atleast 100 years before independence. To the Brits, we Indians and those Paks are BOTH once part of their empire. I don't think you can draw much sinister from the British motives here: it is very very obvious that the Brits CLEARLY favoured India's overall position/society and Indian Congress's stance over that of Nascent Pakistan's. Hell, Nehru knew all about teel and moles on Lady Mountbatten, if you know what i mean and the Brits just looked the other way through the whole thing. And look at how the relationships with Britain has turned out for both nations. Britain has maintained good relations with BOTH India and Pakistan but their relationship with us is FAR warmer: Anglo-Indian policies are FAR more vibrant - on a cultural level ( many Brits actually LIKE our culture- most Brits despise the Islamism of Pakistan) to military : Britain has actually sold us a LOT of hardware and has sold us FAR BETTER and FAR MORE stuff than they have to Pakistan. At the same time, Britain didn't want to see the subcontinent descend into anarchy. This was part self-preservation, as total anarchy in subcontinent would've sucked in the mid-east into it as well ( don't forget, most of the mid-east back then was still using INDIAN RUPEES as currency!) The British center of power in the subcontinent was mostly in India. Chennai and Mumbai were the great financial centers of Britain and Kolkata + Delhi had the heaviest amount of infrastructural presence. This is why Britain was more generous with giving Pakistan territorry and helped set up its secret service, governance, etc. Remember : Pakistan came out to from the amalgam of three provinces (Punjab,Sindh and east Bengal) and relatively recent and tenuous conquests along the Hindu Kush/Pamirs. India actually had a semi-funtional base to start a government from. The whole of India operated as a 'country' anyways- it had military training facilities, government facilities etc- the Brits controlled it thoroughly, but there was a lot of governance set-up in India. Pakistan's had to be created from scratch in many areas. It did give Pakistan some boost simply to make sure Pakistan doesnt just die before its born - the situation and communalism was already very tense back then and if Pakistan turned out too small or too dysfunctional, it'd have sucked the whole area into a religious bloodbath. Britain, IMO,cannot be faulted from the angle you are looking at it. And don't worry about Pakistan- if anything, it is already walking steadily towards a slow death. China, like Hitler in WWII, will realize only too late that its ace in the hole is actually a deadweight. It is a matter of time before Baluchistan & NWFP break away or becomes defacto independent.

[punjabi_khota]

Lol, simi ban lifted.

[CC1981]

Lol' date=' simi ban lifted.[/quote'] :omg: I seriously hope you are yanking our chain.