Proof..the truth starts to come about

**Blademaster** · 10 May 11,, 14:46

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Was thinking the JF-17 and the J-20 thus far is not all it is crack up to be.

Still, J-20 represents the latest and best technology that the Chinese has to offer.

Think you mean uranium designs but at the moment, that Chinese help is still on paper. Not one brick has been laid and it was supposed to be laid 10 years ago.

China pushes ahead Pakistan nuclear plant expansion

**Yusuf** · 10 May 11,, 14:56

@ kasrkin
Hundreds of rallies held where he has called upon people to wage Jihad against India. LeT has been implicated even by the US now as the group behind Mumbai.

What you say is nothing but the same excuses Pakistan gives to not act against Saeed. Running charity work which is nothing but a front of LeT and also a way to collect funds. We are only kidding ourselves if we deny that he is not a terrorist.

Next, what about Dawood Ibrahim? All intelligence is available about his presence in Karachi. Obviously Pakistan will deny his presence just like OBL never existed in Pakistan.

What about Masood Azhar who was released from Indian jail in return for the hijacked plane and he later surfaced in Pakistan spewing venom against India.
It is all a pattern. What I have written is not OT but perfectly relevant to the issue in hand about Pakistan being a sanctuary for terrorists with sanction at the highest level.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 May 11,, 15:10

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Still, J-20 represents the latest and best technology that the Chinese has to offer.

Let me rephrase. The J-20 is not going to offset the F-22 nor the PAK-FA. It's an attempt to keep up with the Jones with style rather than substance.

China pushes ahead Pakistan nuclear plant expansion

Chashma was grandfathered.

**Cactus** · 10 May 11,, 16:46

Originally Posted by Kasrkin

What would Pakistan hope to achieve by taking what is undeniably a MASSIVE risk? Unless you want to attribute the near inhuman immorality of protecting someone who has contributed to killing thousands of your own countrymen for ideological reasons to Pakistani servicemen (some Indians wouldn't be averse to that opinion), I don't see how it would have served Pakistani interests in anyway.

FWIW, it is not just "some Indians", and in fact it was a Kiwi who got deep into the ideology explanation of the Pakistani policy-making in this discussion:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

The actual rulers of Pakistan regard that country not as a defined series of borders but simply a state of mind, a fluid cantonment in which military and financial assets can be mustered until such time as they triumphally return to their 'rightful' place as rulers of all India.

And also fwiw, I would argue that the Iranians, Afghans and Western countries are more worried about the ideological angle than the Indians. Just think about it, Indians and Paks will always have something to fight about (water, land, access east/westwards); the huge population pressures and limited resources will invariably drive natural conflicts where ideology is just a convenient battleflag to rally around. In contrast, Iran fears the Sunni Pakistan working in concert with Saudi Arabia and UAE, Afghanistan fears becoming the battlefield where the ideological war gets fought out, and the West fears the ideology for debilitating the global framework it has built up over the centuries. The first two also fear looking very empty, very inviting, very weak when the Pak get finally tired of the stalemate to the East and turn West for living-space and resources.

**Kasrkin** · 10 May 11,, 17:54

Thats an interesting take. But much the same can be said about India, China can fear it working in concert with Russia or the US. India's smaller neighbors are wary of Indian belligerence driven by an ideology based on ambitions for superpower-hood, closely linked with Hindu nationalism. The point I made is that I've so far come across this view only in an Indian perspective, colored as it is by more than half a century of bitter rivalry and contempt. I won't take the quote about Pakistan wanting to 'rule' India seriously, or about Pakistan being solely a military endeavor, simply because it is baseless and it is not up to me to prove a negative. If it is not forwarded by an Indian, it is definitely inspired by Indian rhetoric.

**Yusuf** · 10 May 11,, 18:02

Show me an example of Indias "belligerence" linked to "Hindu" nationalism. Now this thread has gone OT.

**Kasrkin** · 10 May 11,, 18:06

I won't be doing that. Don't want this to be another Pakistan VS India thread. Point is, I can make such a rhetorically driven point if I want to.

Hundreds of rallies held where he has called upon people to wage Jihad against India. LeT has been implicated even by the US now as the group behind Mumbai.

Yes there is little doubt that LeT was behind the Mumbai attacks. But the LeT is understood to be a fractured organization now. He may be the founder but there is no evidence that he ordered that attack or even knew about it. Also, his charity work may be contributing to militant ends, but it is genuine as well. The contribution of groups like the JuD was documented and acknowledged even by Western aid workers and observers during the earthquake and flood emergencies. There is absolutely no proof that the presence of internationally wanted terrorists is sanctioned at the 'highest level'. Also, HS is not an internationally wanted terrorist as far as I know.

**Tronic** · 10 May 11,, 18:21

Originally Posted by Yusuf

Show me an example of Indias "belligerence" linked to "Hindu" nationalism. Now this thread has gone OT.

Yusuf, we gotta convert to Hinduism to be patriotic these days.

You forget, its preposterous for some that Indian identity is able to go beyond religious lines. Not all of our neighbours enjoy that liberty.

**nvishal** · 10 May 11,, 18:24

@Kasrkin
If india indeed had expansionist ambitions then hundreds of thousands of indian troops would have been in afg today. In fact, if you think about it, there would have been no pakistan to begin with.

If it surprising to see parihaka(a non-south asian) figure out the reasons of the indo-pak hostility with such significant depth because most indians themselves do not understand why it is so.

**Kasrkin** · 10 May 11,, 18:29

If india indeed had expansionist ambitions then hundreds of thousands of indian troops would have been in afg today. In fact, if you think about it, there would have been no pakistan to begin with.

I think many in Pakistan would strongly disagree with the notion that Pakistan is only allowed to exist through Indian benevolence. I won't be going into this debate, point I made was that there is always room for such perceptions regarding states in the international system. You cannot substitute such vague rhetoric against any state, even Pakistan, for hard facts.

**Tronic** · 10 May 11,, 18:30

Originally Posted by Kasrkin

There is absolutely no proof that the presence of internationally wanted terrorists is sanctioned at the 'highest level'. Also, HS is not an internationally wanted terrorist as far as I know.

Saeed is an internationally sanctioned terrorist and his own "aid" organization (according to you) is an internationally sanctioned terrorist organization, as far as the UN is concerned.

UN declares Jamaat-ud-Dawa a terrorist front group - The Long War Journal
Third Mumbai Terrorist Suspect Placed Under House Arrest; Charity a Front Group For Terrorist Organization - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

**Blademaster** · 10 May 11,, 18:31

Originally Posted by nvishal

@Kasrkin
If india indeed had expansionist ambitions then hundreds of thousands of indian troops would have been in afg today. In fact, if you think about it, there would have been no pakistan to begin with.

If it surprising to see parihaka(a non-south asian) figure out the reasons of the indo-pak hostility with such significant depth because most indians themselves do not understand why it is so.

That's because we found that governing more than 150 million rabid Islamists is more of a headache than the benefits of the land brings. The creation of Pakistan was a godsend for India because it meant that 99% of rabid Islamists left India and created sh!t in Pakistan as opposed in India.

**Kasrkin** · 10 May 11,, 18:39

I'm aware that the UN has declared LeT to be a terrorist organization, and identified HS has one of its leaders. I think Pakistan has done everything required by the resolution, which I don't think includes handing HS to India or eliminating him without a trial or evidence.

'The UN's action against Jamaat-ud-Dawa requires nations to freeze the group's assets, ban the individual terrorists from traveling, and prevent the supply of weapons, technology, and other aid to the group.'

Your first link does also say:

'The group succeeded in providing aid to earthquake-ravaged regions in Kashmir in 2005 while the Pakistani government was slow to act.

The aid they've provided is genuine. Not a 'cover' for militant fund raising, I think you might be confusing the two things.

**nvishal** · 10 May 11,, 18:42

Originally Posted by Kasrkin

You cannot substitute such vague rhetoric against any state, even Pakistan, for hard facts.

The facts are already there - Partition, Several wars, Cross border terrorist strikes etc. They are a part of history now. And those events need explanations. Sadly, the world thinks it is because of kashmir.

**Kasrkin** · 10 May 11,, 18:42

That's because we found that governing more than 150 million rabid Islamists is more of a headache than the benefits of the land brings. The creation of Pakistan was a godsend for India because it meant that 99% of rabid Islamists left India and created sh!t in Pakistan as opposed in India.

See, now you appreciate all the trouble we have to deal with