Terror attacks (UK)

[Lurker]

(4)Again nobody denies USA is not so sypathetic towards India becmign perment memeber although voting is still to take place. Again I don't know why are you harping on sthg which none denied.

First of all I am not sure what you mean by "Again nobody denies USA is not so sypathetic towards India becmign perment memeber". My reasons are rather simple. Noone else has asked this question before so what do you mean by -again? Secondly the question was raised to only two peeps - DR and you . So speak for yourself, unless you two tag team. More importantly don't try to sugarcoat with "USA not sympathetic towards India". FACT: Russia has supported India's bid. FACT: France and UK supported India's bid. FACT: China, Communist country and possibly India's biggest stragetic opponent, supported India's bid. FACT: The ONLY country that has NOT supported is USA (BY the way I would like to see what spin BB, Mr Straight Shooter, will put on this). Since this happened in past 4-5 years, after India's open economy and common enemies it shall put to rest all the ghosts about Nehruvian economic policy being the "reason" why USA acted against India's interest historically. I shall pass your personal comments and attempt to answer your question now.

(1) In what way not coperating in crushing the comon enemy helps India? Mind you I am not asking in what way it will hurt USA I am interested in what way it will help India?

This is my stance. India needs to look after its interest. Indian interest have not been looked after by USA, in historical or recent past. I am willing to put my neck on the line and say USA will always put Pakistan ahead of us, atleast for next decade or so if not more. What we need to do is to be strong and look for our own partnerships. Relationship with USSR needs to be strengthened. For one it will help with Oil issue, for another it will also make sure USA is keen to get our friendship. Relationship with China is on the up and we need to improve on that. India has good relationship with France and England and for that matter most of the Europe. And more often than not Europe has been much better ally than USA so we need to build on that. In my opinion India deals much better with England than say USA. With England we are always an equal partner(atleast in past 15-20 years). Indira Gandhi would routinely pi$$ off Margaret Thatcher but there was a mutual respect. It is only with USA that we go to with a bowl in hand, give us Nuclear technology and then get pittance. I would want India's relationship with USA to be akin to that with UK. Does that answer your question DR? xxx

[Lurker]

Iam not a walking encyclopedia on US/India foreign relations or Entire Indian history.

A better point be that you are completely unaware of something that everyone else here seems to be. Including birds of same ilk as you. Dont worry about being an Encyclopedia for now BB, you need to do heck of a lot before you understand modern Indian history let alone being a walking etc etc.

Nope . I brought that up because you kept harping on the "Straight Answer" thingy .. so I thought lets take a test drive and see how you do ... the results are there to see on how you did.

Alright lets leave this war of words out now. I mean it doesnt do me and you any good except breed dislike and possibly pi$$es of other readers too.

Sorry . Its my turn to ask questions and I would like straight answers. You answer my questions on the Sharia thread and I will provide you straight answers here.

Mixing up thread are we now. I will desist from any further attack. My question remains - Which of the 5 Permanent Members did NOT support India's candidacy for the Permanent Seat in UN Security Council? I beleive this question is relevant to this thread and hence would want your answer. If you choose to repeat yourself thats your option. Anyway war of words, as far as I am concerned, is over. :regular_smile: xx

[kumble_rocks]

I will still stick if it comes from you guys who have used that "fundi" phrase zillion times in past all i see is an attempt at euphemization nothing else underlying feeling remians intact . I can't help it, sorry. But if u can somehow convince me when u used those fundie phrase u meant something harmless then we will see. Don't get me wrong I don't begrudge u or anybody else using any phrase. I know taking any stand comes at some cost, people will attack you and I am quite comfortable with that. So go ahead do that, but please don't sulk when someone responds back. I guess we are done on this no point splitting hairs further.

And obviously "Fetish " coming from you can be implied in a negative way. You had used words like "Ga.nd" before using "fetish". So , contextually , even I was justified in implying that you meant abuse. Anyways, I will also let it go. No point in harping the same things again and again.

[Lurker]

Lurker what part of this statement do you not understand ? "USA will do whatever it takes to protect its interest and it maynot necessarily be Morally palatable to the rest of the world"

Sorry man you are just harping on a broken tune. I will summarise my stance one last time since I do not have time or patience to keep doing this ad-nauseum. Indian interest has NOT been looked after by USA, in historical or recent past. And I have proved that by actual voting patterns/support in UN, not by some mumbo jumbo about Nehru hating Roosvelt and Nixon calling Indira a b**ch. Fact remains that USA made a gesture to attack India atleast once, fact remains that USA did not let India become member of UNSC. These are all FACTS. It is stupid to keep harping about getting USA's support. It did not come and it aint coming. India should have the backbone to throw away US sympathisers and chaulk its own plan, which in my opinion includes stronger relationship with USSR,China, Asia etc. xxx

[Lurker]

USA is not responsible to look after anybody else's interest other than its OWN ... thats why I asked you .... do you understand that statement. I guess not.

If you have sympathies for a country that flexes your own country's arm and denies it the right to step on the world stage(when everyone else supports it) then in my opinion the sympathisers of that country(USA) are nothing but stooges. Either that or you are harping on same line just to save your face. Regardless I aint wasting anymore time on this. Cheers! xxx

[Guest dada_rocks]

Voting has not taken place Lurker so ur point is still meaingless in techincal terms..

s my stance. India needs to look after its interest. Indian interest have not been looked after by USA, in historical or recent past. I am willing to put my neck on the line and say USA will always put Pakistan ahead of us, atleast for next decade or so if not more. What we need to do is to be strong and look for our own partnerships. Relationship with USSR needs to be strengthened. For one it will help with Oil issue, for another it will also make sure USA is keen to get our friendship. Relationship with China is on the up and we need to improve on that. India has good relationship with France and England and for that matter most of the Europe. And more often than not Europe has been much better ally than USA so we need to build on that. In my opinion India deals much better with England than say USA. With England we are always an equal partner(atleast in past 15-20 years). Indira Gandhi would routinely pi$$ off Margaret Thatcher but there was a mutual respect. It is only with USA that we go to with a bowl in hand, give us Nuclear technology and then get pittance. I would want India's relationship with USA to be akin to that with UK. Does that answer your question DR? xxx

I am reponding to the bolded part which I have problem with. (1) Am nto intersetd in what happened in past this debate will never end what they did and why they did. (2) Even on Pakistan waprt I never questioned USA is pro-pak. Mind you it;s their compulsion these days otherwise before 2001 in clinton regime in early Bush regime Indian intereste took precedence over Pakistan. Again We can;t do anything aboout it as long as pak will serve their self interest they will support them. What I do not accpet is the point that like cold-war era UA will support pakistan over India no matter what. They are watching their own interset and pakistan suddenly fits the eqn so they suddenly found favours 2001 onwards. What i still don;t understand is what benefit comes out of not taking what is on offer. Let me add heretaliban in body and spiirit remains India's problem too. yes it would be great to make them do a rethink on pakistan too but is it wise to ignore our self-interest in matters where we see eye to eye. See USA is not going to be in afghanistan forever sooner or later they will pack their bags then again it will become match between Northern Alliance regime ( india-sumpathetic may i add and taliban (pakistan sympathetic). If we don;t want taliban to return to kabul it;s in our interest that we see that these guys are sufficiecly cursed not to rear their head again. To this effect I see no reason whatsoever in not coperating with USA on this project. noboyd says sell urself and become USA's ***** like pakistan. (4) Regarding scores of other countries like USSR. Europe etc u do know relationship with none of these coountries are dependent on how we treat taliban. I say go ahead pursue those relationship further but what has that got to do anythign with moving on taliban front. We can do both. (5) Relationship with Russia is as strong as it could be. Talking of oil money russians all the good work and freindship of past aside these days have turned into perfect baniya nation and I don't abegrudge that. It's their self-interest hence they sell things at lofty price similarly we too keep our self-interest paramount and look for alternative sources too. For instance in limitary hardware supply slowly israel is becoming the biggest source after India and given the price tag for hardwares remain so skewed in israeli favour that I won;t be surprised that in course of time israel becomes the biggest source. Might I add they are as reliable as anyone, if a county can give u military hardware support without not only absence of formal diplomatic tie but also with the presense of ur kow-towing with its sworn enemythen you better stand-up and take note of its reliability.. (6) I won' trust chinese that much, God knows what they are upto be it highway to Tibbat or Arunahchal border. Be it denial of VISa of diplomats of Arunanchal Pradesh cadre they have been acting anything but friendly. Yes business has opend up but we need to keep eyes open these are the guys who stab you mid-way through sugary talk, like in 62. Here is the country whihc on one side is talking hindi-chini bhai bhai and another side starts a war. I fear these devilish moversthose who are openly hostile are easy to tackle like USA was in the past. Nope you didn't answer the question. All you have done is given list of countries with which India needs to further tighten relationships. I say go for it. But point is none of those countries with excpetion of China ( might I add I am wary of them more than USA given their blow hot and cold tendency. Recently they started murmuring on Arunachal again, have denied VISa to Aruna cadre diplomats claiming AP to be chinese territory, are putting in place highway till Tibbat/India border, have out in place barrage upstream on river which enters himanchal fro tibbat region,) have even vaguely expressed their annoyance over Indo/USA tie. So wonder what's the relavnce of that in thsi debate. My question still remains unanswered.

[kumble_rocks]

I would hereby like to see a post of mine where I support USA for twisting India's arms ...

I don't see any post where you criticize them either for their historical anti India stance.

[Lurker]

I would hereby like to see a post of mine where I support USA for twisting India's arms ...

Keep embarssing further with those semantics BB. Here let me summarise your stand in this particular thread: 1) I(BB) would much rather read FFI than Abul Kalaam's Wing of Fire. Who the f@ck cares about Indian history? I need to make people "aware" with Islamic history world over. 2) I know not about 1971 American arm twisting of India, and that should not stop me from being a Walking Encyclopedia(some self-flagellation nerve you got man!). 3) US voted against against India because of Nehru policy, blame our Babus and not USA for coming close to getting J&k away from us(by the way KP are getting killed who the f@cj cares about them)? 4) India did not get supported by USA in UNSC because..wait I need to hide myself away now. You do realize that this debate has blown in your face and you have come across as knowing little. Of course I dont expect you to accept that. Funny how you always seem to say - Prove me wrong and I will accept it. Touch touch. xxxx

[Holysmoke]

i was thinking of reading this thread.. but... 12 pages.. wtf.. where do u guys get the time?????

[Lurker]

Voting has not taken place Lurker so ur point is still meaingless in techincal terms..

That is clutching at straws my friend. Here let me give you info about this(though I am sure you know it already). China expressed its support for India's council bid last week during the visit of Chinese state councilor Tang Jiaxuan, China's first foreign minister from 1998-2003 and who plays an influential and authoritative role in Beijing's foreign policy today. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FJ26Df01.html Of the five permanent members (P-5) with powers to veto any resolution, three - Britain, France and Russia - have openly supported India's case http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3679968.stm That should answer all your concerns about that. Now to your question. I will go straight to the bold paragraph since I have a feeling I will lose track answering every single point of otherwise long thread(but do let me know if you wanted to reply specifically to any point if I have missed).

Nope you didn't answer the question. All you have done is given list of countries with which India needs to further tighten relationships. I say go for it. But point is none of those countries with excpetion of China ( might I add I am wary of them more than USA given their blow hot and cold tendency. Recently they started murmuring on Arunachal again, have denied VISa to Aruna cadre diplomats claiming AP to be chinese territory, are putting in place highway till Tibbat/India border, have out in place barrage upstream on river which enters himanchal fro tibbat region,) have even vaguely expressed their annoyance over Indo/USA tie. So wonder what's the relavnce of that in thsi debate.

First things first. I am with you in getting to the relevance of it in this thread. I can only think that we have done so much discussion that we have both lost of mumbled zumbled our ideas. Coming to issue at hand. My stance was always about India's relation with the world and specially with USA. That has what I have primarily focussed on, be it UN resolutions of USA endeavour in South Asia. I have mentioned clearly how I want relationship between India/USA to be(akin to UK) and I think barring a few semantics you dont disagree much with it(let me know if you think otherwise). Regarding China now. Chinese are obviously someone we need to be very careful about, our history teaches us that. And if you remember it was I that had asked you that question first - Can you trust Chinese? To which you had replied, and I paraphrase - Not trust but do business with them based on our interest. Which is what I am suggesting too! So where is the gap now? How have I not answered your questions? xxx

[Guest dada_rocks]

Keep embarssing further with those semantics BB. Here let me summarise your stand in this particular thread: 1) I(BB) would much rather read FFI than Abul Kalaam's Wing of Fire. Who the f@ck cares about Indian history? I need to make people "aware" with Islamic history world over. I don't know what's the relevance but yes I have read it. It's nice read.. Few quotations u will find even from Quran along wiht Gita in that book.. 2) I know not about 1971 American arm twisting of India, and that should not stop me from being a Walking Encyclopedia(some self-flagellation nerve you got man!). Lurker u are being nut if u think only u know how India?USa relationship was in past. I will leave it at that. Again I don't know the relevance.. 3) US voted against against India because of Nehru policy, blame our Babus and not USA for coming close to getting J&k away from us(by the way KP are getting killed who the f@cj cares about them)? Yes Nehru's policy did contribute to that and again i don't see the relevance of this here. 4) India did not get supported by USA in UNSC because..wait I need to hide myself away now. Voting is still to take place like India is wary of usa, USA is wary of India. And presence of posterity looking faculty is not making thins any easier. But before passing any final judgement wait till eventual vote happens. Nobodu suggested USA suddenly is India's best friend and will see eye to eye on everything and at the same time noone is suggesting India to become USa's biggest chum. Point being made here is utilizing the self-serving opening. You do realize that this debate has blown in your face and you have come across as knowing little. Of course I dont expect you to accept that. Funny how you always seem to say - Prove me wrong and I will accept it. Touch touch. I am not sure about what history u two have but u have not answered the main question and talked about everything under the sun. Even the post; where u supposedly answered me; had stories of how India should further widen ties with socres of other countries without mentioning how that endevaour comes in the way of usa/india co-operation on taliban matter. But u are chest-thumping as if u have sealed the debate and here we are still looking so desperately for an answer for the pivtotal question, which is what do we gain. I have also pointed out how hypocritically you have dropped all your sworn ethos of "all or nothing" and are sitting here in USA helping the economy of India's socalled enemy in whatever little way you can. But when it comes to India 's national intrest you much rather adhere to the "all or nothing" doctrine. If limited startegic contact/cooperation for you as an individual is oke I guess same should hold for entity called Indian nation. I think we are going in circle u won't give direct answer and those peripheral most of the time irrelevant informations won't satisfy my quest.

[Guest dada_rocks]

That is clutching at straws my friend. Here let me give you info about this(though I am sure you know it already). China expressed its support for India's council bid last week during the visit of Chinese state councilor Tang Jiaxuan, China's first foreign minister from 1998-2003 and who plays an influential and authoritative role in Beijing's foreign policy today. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FJ26Df01.html Of the five permanent members (P-5) with powers to veto any resolution, three - Britain, France and Russia - have openly supported India's case http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3679968.stm That should answer all your concerns about that. Now to your question. I will go straight to the bold paragraph since I have a feeling I will lose track answering every single point of otherwise long thread(but do let me know if you wanted to reply specifically to any point if I have missed). First things first. I am with you in getting to the relevance of it in this thread. I can only think that we have done so much discussion that we have both lost of mumbled zumbled our ideas. Coming to issue at hand. My stance was always about India's relation with the world and specially with USA. That has what I have primarily focussed on, be it UN resolutions of USA endeavour in South Asia. I have mentioned clearly how I want relationship between India/USA to be(akin to UK) and I think barring a few semantics you dont disagree much with it(let me know if you think otherwise). Regarding China now. Chinese are obviously someone we need to be very careful about, our history teaches us that. And if you remember it was I that had asked you that question first - Can you trust Chinese? To which you had replied, and I paraphrase - Not trust but do business with them based on our interest. Which is what I am suggesting too! So where is the gap now? How have I not answered your questions? xxx

China's support is conditional and the condition is India should not lobby along side Japan for UN seat. See as India remains wary of USA, USA remains wary of India. They both have their reasons. I still say vote is still to be taken and u might be pleasantly surprised. Anyway, your soln is let us further recoil in the corner. Now do u think it's the right way to win them back. I am sure u aren't that naive. So what's the way forward: shun everything or move forward where we see common ground keeping national interest in mind. Steps moving forward, this is where we disagree, there is no divergance on the rest of the matter. Agreed or not. No we don't have to disagree all the time good that we agree on sthg i.e China.:giggle:

[Guest dada_rocks]

huh ? What are you on dude .... when did I claim the stuff in bold ... ? Anyway I realize that you are getting bent out of shape for no reason so I wont respond any further or to your other silly childish remarks ... And I take it that you are shy of bumping the Sharia thread and I will be really surprised if you do go ahead and bump it ... but heres the answer to your other question .. USA was not obliged to do it. (Again try to understand that sentence I had posted few posts earlier it covers all such scenarios) I also declare you the winner in this debate if that is so important to you. Cheers. :thumbs_up:

Truce bhai log shaam ho gai hai, banki ki larai monday ko... from lurker to BB.:wilted_rose:

[CC1981]

You rexplanation:hysterical: I will put that in dust-bin where it belongs..

Vats, simply saying that you will put it in dustbin without refutation is nothing more than highlighting your ignorance and intractability in the face of logic. That is the bottomline.

[CC1981]

If we don;t want taliban to return to kabul it;s in our interest that we see that these guys are sufficiecly cursed not to rear their head again. To this effect I see no reason whatsoever in not coperating with USA on this project.

What you half-baked cookies cannot grasp is that inorder to do ANYTHING in Afghanistan, you need Pakistan's tacit approval - atleast in terms of letting your supply pass through & letting you fly over Pakistani air space. Since Pakistan would never allow that to India, it is illogical and a wishful dream to say India should be involved against the Taliban. The only other option would be to cozy up to Iran and fly over Iranian air space & have your supply routed to Herat from Iran- something the Yankees will never stand for. So ultimately, India's involvement in Afghanistan is a logistical impossibility as of now and no amount of fundie hindu thinking will change that, vats!

[Gaurav]

CC if our troops are needed in Afghanistan then it can be made to happen. I personally would not send our troops to Afghanistan. I would give moral, intelligence, military and $$$ support to Chacha Karzai. Which we are doing to some extent.... What happens in Afghanistan is very relevant to our future and current security. US will leave Afghanistan one day and Karzai will probably end up like Nazibullah :angry_smile: Btw just finished watching brand new docu on CNN by British journalist. PAKISTAN- THE THREAT WITHIN! MUST WATCH!!!!!! The docu was very damning about Mushy and his army. Conclusion of the docu was that Pakistan is terror central. Btw hats off to the P@ki journalist who said that P@ki army and Fundies are one and the same thing. Every P@ki soldier is a religious jihadi whose aim is to kill the infidel Hindu/Indians. Really must watch even though most without blinkers here are fully aware of the facts.

[Gaurav]

Melbourne: Patients at an Australian hospital have refused to be treated by several of the Indian-trained medical staff after two Indian doctors employed there were questioned in connection with the UK’s failed terror plots. Gold Coast Hospital staff, including medical registrars and residents, released a statement in support of one of the two doctors, Mohammed Asif Ali, who was released by police without charge after questioning. The second doctor, Mohamed Haneef, has been in police custody since Monday night. Speaking on condition of anonymity, doctors at the hospital said patients had refused to be treated by several of the Indian-trained medical staff, accusing them of having some connection with terrorism, the Australian daily reported. Queensland Health Minister Stephen Robertson said only a few of the hospital's staff had been subject to the racist treatment, which he condemned. "They're pretty bruised," Robertson said. "There is a sensitivity among some of those overseas-trained doctors that they may be subject to racism. I'm hoping that won't be the case. It's not the Australian way." While Robertson defended Ali, he refused to pass comment on Haneef, saying his case was a matter for the Australian Federal Police. Ali drove terror suspect Mohamed Haneef to Brisbane airport on Monday night, where the latter was arrested, and had his colleague's laptop.

[Ram]

oops... what we feared shouldnt happen, is happening ! The backlash !

[Gaurav]

Jeez if this starts happening in UK then my business is f@ked! :angry_smile: I might end up becoming a real gai walla living on the ghats of river Thames :hysterical:

[Ram]

Jeez if this starts happening in UK then my business is f@ked! :angry_smile: I might end up becoming a real gai walla living on the ghats of river Thames :hysterical:

Jesus GKD ! this is really sensitive issue for you guys innit ? All the best to you !