Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Problem with homegrown British Muslims

nino_savatte said:
Interestingly enough both of them completely missed the fact that there were US based Pakistani millionaires drumming up support for Bush during the last election. I remember seeing an interview with one on Fox when I was over in Vegas.

The US was also quite chummy with General Zia ul Haq (a notorious Islamic fundamentalist) at one stage...then he died in a mysterious plane crash. It was this support that ultimately led to the events which saw the Taliban seize power in Afghanistan.
Yes and the CIA calls the new Taliban the "Pakistani Taliban"

The Pakistani government isn’t just one element it has various factions and there's still a section that is actively supporting the re-arming of the Taliban.

we are all in deep shit...just look at all the bombing going on in Pakistan against fellow Muslims/Christian Church's and the historical (since 1947!) subjugation of the Sindhie population

Like I said it gonna get worse.
 
iROBOT said:
Yes and the CIA calls the new Taliban the "Pakistani Taliban"

The Pakistani government isn’t just one element it has various factions and there's still a section that is actively supporting the re-arming of the Taliban.

we are all in deep shit...just look at all the bombing going on in Pakistan against fellow Muslims/Christian Church's and the historical (since 1947!) subjugation of the Sindhie population.

Like I said it gonna get worse.

Ah, Sindh...I haven't heard that name for a while. There is a lot going on in Pakistan that doesn't get reported. Anything that is reported is likely to be related to TWoT. Many also forget how Musharef seized power, he's hardly a democrat and not exactly predisposed to anything that resembles it.

The US likes dictators, especially those who are useful to their foreign policy objectives.
 
nino_savatte said:
The US likes dictators, especially those who are useful to their foreign policy objectives.
Wasnt it Truman (?) who said (in relation to a South American USA backed dictator) "he may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch"

Sounds like USA policy to me.
 
iROBOT said:
Mmmm maybe we should ask Teejay he/she/it seems to be the residential apologist.

So you make a statement that isn't true.

Someone proves you wrong.

That makes them an apologist? hmmm I see this thread went to the usual bullshit within a few short pages.

Anyone that points out that people talk shit and have their facts wrong automatically becomes an apologist, an apologist for what, no one actually bothers to state anymore, because they know its shit and whats the point of pin-pointing it?

Branding, the new form of debate, haven't got your facts right? Don't know what you are talking about? No problem, just brand anyone that proves you wrong, doesn't matter what with, take your pick, Apologist, Racist, Facist choose at random for it doesn't matter, just make sure the branding is loud and clear.
 
Fong said:
So you make a statement that isn't true.

Someone proves you wrong.

That makes them an apologist? hmmm I see this thread went to the usual bullshit within a few short pages.

Anyone that points out that people talk shit and have their facts wrong automatically becomes an apologist, an apologist for what, no one actually bothers to state anymore, because they know its shit and whats the point of pin-pointing it?

Branding, the new form of debate, haven't got your facts right? Don't know what you are talking about? No problem, just brand anyone that proves you wrong, doesn't matter what with, take your pick, Apologist, Racist, Facist choose at random for it doesn't matter, just make sure the branding is loud and clear.

Unlike you, eh Fong? You can do no wrong. In fact, you put people on ignore without ever engaging them.

Pot-kettle-black.

We've met before, haven't we, Fong?
 
Fong said:
So you make a statement that isn't true.

Someone proves you wrong.

That makes them an apologist? hmmm I see this thread went to the usual bullshit within a few short pages.

Anyone that points out that people talk shit and have their facts wrong automatically becomes an apologist, an apologist for what, no one actually bothers to state anymore, because they know its shit and whats the point of pin-pointing it?

Branding, the new form of debate, haven't got your facts right? Don't know what you are talking about? No problem, just brand anyone that proves you wrong, doesn't matter what with, take your pick, Apologist, Racist, Facist choose at random for it doesn't matter, just make sure the branding is loud and clear.
I havent conceeded that America didnt support the Pakistanis in the 1965 war...as they did offer intellegence in terms os satellite information about Indian troop movements, and the arms thay were using were predominatly America. And tell me why when it was India that got attacked the Americans embargo'd the Indians as well??????????????

Does that seem fair?????????
 
Here You go Fong...more info for you.....in red is ON THREAD TOPIC! AND why the likes of mears should be reading this and asking what the fuck is their govenment doing?

The 1965 war also led to an embargo of US arms supplies to Pakistan. Islamabad's use of American arms against India was against the assurances given by President Dwight Eisenhower to Jawaharlal Nehru that in case Pakistan used US-supplied arms against India, necessary corrective action would follow.

Though the US bureaucracy and the Pentagon were prepared to look the other way if Pakistan had won the war, they found it difficult to overlook the miserable performance of Pakistani armour at Khem Karan. Pakistan therefore turned to China and France for re-equipment of its forces. After 1965, China became the foremost supplier of arms to Pakistan.

From Bhutto's death cell testimony, it also becomes clear that Pakistan initiated its discussions with China on acquiring nuclear weapon technology around 1965. Bhutto talked of completing his 11-year-long negotiations successfully in 1976. It would not be incorrect to say that the Chinese-Pakistani strategy of containing India began in the aftermath of 1965 war.

Pakistan drew correct lessons from the failure of Operation Gibraltar when the Kashmiris did not rise against India in consequence to large-scale infiltration of Pakistani commandos into the Kashmir valley. They bided their time and in the late 1980s trained disaffected Kashmiris, who crossed over into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, in arms and infiltrated them back.

That this strategy too did not wholly succeed is a different story but it did begin the prolonged proxy war against India in Kashmir.

Pakistan also discovered it was not difficult to run rings around the conditions of American arms supplies and hide things from US inspection teams. They were able to covertly raise a second armoured division in 1965. Unfortunately for them it did not give them the victory in Punjab they expected. The second armoured division met its defeat at Khem Karan.

Pakistan used this experience of getting around US procedures in the 1980s to divert American arms -- meant for Afghans fighting Soviet forces -- to arm the various jihadi militias and to install the Taliban regime in Kabul.

On the Indian side too, the 1965 war led to significant results. The Indian Army failed to assess intelligence effectively in respect of construction of aqueducts under the Ichogil canal (that runs from India to Lahore) and on Pakistan covertly raising a second armoured division. Thus, the external and internal intelligence collection and reporting were bifurcated. A dedicated external intelligence agency – the Research and Analysis Wing -- was created.

An ill-advised reorganisation proposal in respect of Indian armour – increasing light armour and reducing medium armour –- strongly espoused by General Joyanto Nath Chaudhuri before the war, was given up. The Indo-Soviet arms supply relationship got reinforced and the Soviet Union became the sole supplier of arms for India.

Though it is not much written about, India intensified its support to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his Awami League in their demands for greater economy from Islamabad.

The 1965 war demonstrated that the 1962 debacle was not a reflection on the Indian Army but was the result of inadequacies in a few top inexperienced generals. It also proved that Indian unity was solid while Pakistan was vulnerable to divisive forces. It brought out that American short-term Cold War calculations overrode Washington's commitment to democracy.
It also highlighted that the US establishment had very wrong assessments about the Indian leadership, the Indian Army and India's ability to survive as a Union and grow into a major power.

Source...http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/06war1.htm
 
iRobot

First off I'd like to know how long you have worked for Modi as he seems as paranoid as you are ref Pakistan
(Please note that the name comes from some Muslim students in the UK in the 30s made up from Persia, Afghanistan, Kashmire, India Stan<country> Twas Jinna that started the land of the pure stuff, but the name already existed)
My late friend, Cmdr Adi Shroff was the Captin of an INS submarine during that war, and again during the East Pakistan/Bangla War. His sub had been built in Barrow in Furness - so was the UK having rings run round it?
Judging by your levels of vitriol I suspect you are a memeber of the BJP or perhaps another organ of the Sangh.
Should you have sympathy with the RSS, VHP, etc al, you really dont have the right to point
 
hipipol said:
First off I'd like to know how long you have worked for Modi as he seems as paranoid as you are ref Pakistan
(Please note that the name comes from some Muslim students in the UK in the 30s made up from Persia, Afghanistan, Kashmire, India Stan<country> Twas Jinna that started the land of the pure stuff, but the name already existed)
My late friend, Cmdr Adi Shroff was the Captin of an INS submarine during that war, and again during the East Pakistan/Bangla War. His sub had been built in Barrow in Furness - so was the UK having rings run round it?
Judging by your levels of vitriol I suspect you are a memeber of the BJP or perhaps another organ of the Sangh.
Should you have sympathy with the RSS, VHP, etc al, you really dont have the right to point
I havent I detest all forms of Fasicm and who give a toss where the name came from, they can call it Bradford for all I care.(But "The Land of the Pure"?? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese!!!!!!!!!)

I've stood up at political meetings in Gujarat State (where my family have come from, although I born in Africa) and said as muchh, got thrown out mind you! I detest them!!

And the Pakistanis and Indians having arms from THE SAME WESTERN country now there's a surprise!...I'll call you Sherlock from now if that's ok?

Now if you care to read my qoutes above, Pakistan has had a history of arming terrorist groups against India....do you deny that or not??

Is India a democracy? yes or no?. Is Pakistan an American backed dictatorship? yes or no?

Were the Pakistani's one of ONLY TWO countries in the world to recognise the Taliban? YES OR NO?

Out of all the Wars India and Pakistan have had name one where India was the aggressor???

And you have the fucking cheek to brand me a fascist???!!!

Dont make me laugh!!!
 
TeeJay said:
Most of the young British people with Pakistani ancestry that I know or meet have a lot in common with other young British people. Even where there seem to be differences this doesn't seem to amount to not being 'British'.
ermm...yeah but bearing in mind 'a lot' can cover a huge bloody spectrum and is so ambiguous, that's not really helpful,. is it?
surely what counts is what they have in common. If 'a lot' means 'football and cricket and levi jeans' that goes for a huge slice of the worlds population!
 
hipipol said:
First off I'd like to know how long you have worked for Modi as he seems as paranoid as you are ref Pakistan
(Please note that the name comes from some Muslim students in the UK in the 30s made up from Persia, Afghanistan, Kashmire, India Stan<country> Twas Jinna that started the land of the pure stuff, but the name already existed)
My late friend, Cmdr Adi Shroff was the Captin of an INS submarine during that war, and again during the East Pakistan/Bangla War. His sub had been built in Barrow in Furness - so was the UK having rings run round it?
Judging by your levels of vitriol I suspect you are a memeber of the BJP or perhaps another organ of the Sangh.
Should you have sympathy with the RSS, VHP, etc al, you really dont have the right to point
So was your mate a captain during the Bangladeshi war of independance?....was he part of this genocide...?

Summary

The mass killings in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in 1971 vie with the annihilation of the Soviet POWs, the holocaust against the Jews, and the genocide in Rwanda as the most concentrated act of genocide in the twentieth century. In an attempt to crush forces seeking independence for East Pakistan, the West Pakistani military regime unleashed a systematic campaign of mass murder which aimed at killing millions of Bengalis, and likely succeeded in doing so.

The gendercide against Bengali men

The war against the Bengali population proceeded in classic gendercidal fashion. According to Anthony Mascarenhas, "There is no doubt whatsoever about the targets of the genocide":

They were:
(1) The Bengali militarymen of the East Bengal Regiment, the East Pakistan Rifles, police and para-military Ansars and Mujahids.

(2) The Hindus -- "We are only killing the men; the women and children go free. We are soldiers not cowards to kill them ..." I was to hear in Comilla [site of a major military base] [Comments R.J. Rummel: "One would think that murdering an unarmed man was a heroic act" (Death By Government, p. 323)]

(3) The Awami Leaguers -- all office bearers and volunteers down to the lowest link in the chain of command.

(4) The students -- college and university boys and some of the more militant girls.

(5) Bengali intellectuals such as professors and teachers whenever damned by the army as "militant." (Anthony Mascarenhas, The Rape of Bangla Desh [Delhi: Vikas Publications, 1972(?)], pp. 116-17.)

Mascarenhas's summary makes clear the linkages between gender and social class (the "intellectuals," "professors," "teachers," "office bearers," and -- obviously -- "militarymen" can all be expected to be overwhelmingly if not exclusively male, although in many cases their families died or fell victim to other atrocities alongside them). In this respect, the Bangladesh events can be classed as a combined gendercide and elitocide, with both strategies overwhelmingly targeting males for the most annihilatory excesses.

Atrocities against Bengali women

As was also the case in Armenia and Nanjing, Bengali women were targeted for gender-selective atrocities and abuses, notably gang sexual assault and rape/murder, from the earliest days of the Pakistani genocide. Indeed, despite (and in part because of) the overwhelming targeting of males for mass murder, it is for the systematic brutalization of women that the "Rape of Bangladesh" is best known to western observers.

In her ground-breaking book, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, Susan Brownmiller likened the 1971 events in Bangladesh to the Japanese rapes in Nanjing and German rapes in Russia during World War II. "... 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. ... Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land ..." (p. 81).

Typical was the description offered by reporter Aubrey Menen of one such assault, which targeted a recently-married woman:

Two [Pakistani soldiers] went into the room that had been built for the bridal couple. The others stayed behind with the family, one of them covering them with his gun. They heard a barked order, and the bridegroom's voice protesting. Then there was silence until the bride screamed. Then there was silence again, except for some muffled cries that soon subsided. In a few minutes one of the soldiers came out, his uniform in disarray. He grinned to his companions. Another soldier took his place in the extra room. And so on, until all the six had raped the belle of the village. Then all six left, hurriedly. The father found his daughter lying on the string cot unconscious and bleeding. Her husband was crouched on the floor, kneeling over his vomit. (Quoted in Brownmiller, Against Our Will, p. 82.)
"Rape in Bangladesh had hardly been restricted to beauty," Brownmiller writes. "Girls of eight and grandmothers of seventy-five had been sexually assaulted ... Pakistani soldiers had not only violated Bengali women on the spot; they abducted tens of hundreds and held them by force in their military barracks for nightly use." Some women may have been raped as many as eighty times in a night (Brownmiller, p. 83). How many died from this atrocious treatment, and how many more women were murdered as part of the generalized campaign of destruction and slaughter, can only be guessed at (see below).
So was your late friend, Cmdr Adi Shroff part of the above???

Yes or no?
 
zoltan69 said:
It does matter, as this bloke isnt impartial & like shayler has an axe to grind - short of saying he jazzes up his Blog withy supposition and half truth, its never a good idea to use the blatherings of a self publicist with a chip on his shouldetr to back up a point.

Don't you think it strange that we have 'terrorist plots' that are timed conveniently for when we are in an embarrassing political situation, or when a US election is coming up, or when an anti-war candidate wins a primary, etc.

I'm incredibly suspicious of the timing of all this, as are many other people - something you could find out for yourself on Google. Don't you think, for example, that it was strange that OBL kindly produced a tape that Bush admitted helped him get re-elected?
Greg Palast has written a good article about how our governments are selling us fear.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14551.htm

see also

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14559.htm

I could post any number of links to stories that are sceptical or even unbelieving about the reality and/or timing of this so called plot. If we'd known about it for so long, why didn't they shut down the airports before Blair was going on holiday?
 
iROBOT said:
Teejay, thaks for standing up for mears.
I don't see how that is standing up for mears - just adding a bit of info about India and Pakistan.

edit: And I am not trying to take sides between India and Pakistan either. I am merely pointing out that both countries got weapons at various points from both the US (and other western countries) *and* Russia and China. This isn't unique - America also supplied arms to both Iraq and Iran during their war - the aim was to a) make sure that neither side won and b) try and prevent either side from getting to plugged in to Soviet-bloc arms.
 
Red Jezza said:
ermm...yeah but bearing in mind 'a lot' can cover a huge bloody spectrum and is so ambiguous, that's not really helpful,. is it?
surely what counts is what they have in common. If 'a lot' means 'football and cricket and levi jeans' that goes for a huge slice of the worlds population!
What I'm trying to impress on mears is that some of us have lived alongside British Muslims/British Pakistanis all our lives (I'm sure this includes you Jezza) and they are not some kind of alien species - the vast majority of people I know are very similar to everyone else. Then again, maybe I have been living in some kind of 'middle class bubble' - eg school, university, my social circles and so forth. I don't live in some poverty-riven north city nor do I hang out down the mosque. Maybe it is simply pure luck that everyone I know is very normal and very "British" albeit with a desi slant.
 
Other possibilities

I found this in an article called 'Gullible Americans' , the first part of which deals with the lies of the 9/11 commission. I didn't post that part though, because there is another thread on that topic, and, besides, I didn't want editor to ban me, and that topic seems incredibly touchy at the moment.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14531.htm
Now we are being told another improbable tale. Muslim terrorists in London and Pakistan were caught plotting to commit mass murder by smuggling bottles of explosive liquids on board airliners in hand luggage. Baby formula, shampoo and water bottles allegedly contained the tools of suicide bombers.

How do we know about this plot? Well, the police learned it from an “Islamic militant arrested near the Afghan-Pakistan border several weeks ago.” And how did someone so far away know what British-born people in London were plotting?

Do you really believe that Western and Israeli intelligence services, which were too incompetent to prevent the 9/11 attack, can uncover a London plot by capturing a person on the Afghan border in Pakistan? Why would “an Islamic militant” rat on such a plot even if he knew of it?

More probable explanations of the “plot” are readily available. According to the August 11 Wayne Madsen Report, informed sources in the UK report that “the Tony Blair government, under siege by a Labor Party revolt, cleverly cooked up a new ‘terror’ scare to avert the public’s eyes away from Blair’s increasing political woes. British law enforcement, neocon and intelligence operatives in the US, Israel, and Britain, and Rupert Murdoch’s global media empire cooked up the terrorist plot, liberally borrowing from the failed 1995 ‘Oplan Bjinka’ plot by Pakistan- and Philippines-based terrorist Ramzi Ahmad Yousef to crash 11 trans-Pacific airliners bound from Asia to the US.”

There are other plausible explanations. For example, our puppet in Pakistan decided to arrest some people who were a threat to him. With Bush’s commitment to “building democracy in the Middle East,” our puppet can’t arrest his political enemies without cause, so he lays the blame on a plot.

Any testimony against Muslim plotters by “an Islamic militant” is certain to have been bought and paid for.

Or consider this explanation. Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush and Blair are war criminals. Bush is so worried that he will be held accountable that he has sent his attorney general to consult with the Republican Congress to work out legislation to protect Bush retroactively from his violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Tony Blair is in more danger of finding himself in the dock. Britain is signatory to a treaty that, if justice is done, will place Blair before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

What better justification for the two war criminals’ illegal actions than the need to foil dastardly plots by Muslims recruited in sting operations by Western intelligence services? The more Bush and Blair can convince their publics that terrorist danger abounds, the less likely Bush and Blair are ever to be held accountable for their crimes.

But surely, some readers might object, our great moral leaders wouldn’t do something political like that!

They most certainly would. As Joshua Micah Marshall wrote in the July 7 issue of Time magazine, the suspicion is “quite reasonable” that “the Bush Administration orchestrates its terror alerts and arrests to goose the GOP’s poll numbers.”

Joshua Micah Marshall proves his conclusion by examining the barrage of color-coded terror alerts, none of which were real, and, yes, it all fits with political needs.

And don’t forget the plot unearthed in Miami to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago. Described by Vice President Cheney as a “very real threat,” the plot turned out to be nothing more than a few harmless whackos recruited by an FBI agent sent out to organize a sting.

There was also the “foiled plot” to blow up the Holland Tunnel and flood downtown New York City with sea water. Thinking New Orleans, the FBI invented this plot without realizing that New York City is above sea level. Of course, most Americans didn’t realize it either.

For six years the Bush regime has been able to count on the ignorant and naive American public to believe whatever tale that is told them. American gullibility has yet to fail the Bush regime.

The government has an endless number of conspiracy theories, but only people who question the government’s conspiracies are derided for “having a conspiracy theory.”

The implication is even worse if we assume that the explosive bottle plot is genuine. It means that America and Britain by their own aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by enabling Israel’s war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon, have created such hatred that Muslims, who identify with Bush’s, Blair’s, and Israel’s victims, are plotting retaliation.
But Bush is prepared. He has taught his untutored public that “they hate us for our freedom and democracy.”
Gentle reader, wise up. The entire world is laughing at you.
 
TeeJay said:
I don't see how that is standing up for mears - just adding a bit of info about India and Pakistan.

edit: And I am not trying to take sides between India and Pakistan either. I am merely pointing out that both countries got weapons at various points from both the US (and other western countries) *and* Russia and China. This isn't unique - America also supplied arms to both Iraq and Iran during their war - the aim was to a) make sure that neither side won and b) try and prevent either side from getting to plugged in to Soviet-bloc arms.


Sorry Teejay I know you weren’t. But I was pointing out the double standards of mears slagging off Pakistani militants when it was 1/ The British that radicalised them through the creation of an artificial country.... (At least Israel has a historical basis for existing) when the Muslims/ Hindus/ sheiks/ were pretty much united against the British until they put a wedge through the alliance by appelling to Jinnah’s despotic tendencies (don’t belive me? Check out the regime of Jinnah and get back to me with a counter that he was benevolent).

And 2/ it was the positioning of the USA against India in an attempt to sway Pakistan way from China. Now the 1965 war I’ve already printed this but here we go again….(they had no choice to embargo Pakistan either as it was agreed between Eienhower and Nehru in 1955 (sic) that if India got attacked by the Pakistanis then ythe USA had no choice...they just did it in an underhand way instead and people like you have fallen for the official line)

The 1965 war also led to an embargo of US arms supplies to Pakistan. Islamabad's use of American arms against India was against the assurances given by President Dwight Eisenhower to Jawaharlal Nehru that in case Pakistan used US-supplied arms against India, necessary corrective action would follow.

Though the US bureaucracy and the Pentagon were prepared to look the other way if Pakistan had won the war, they found it difficult to overlook the miserable performance of Pakistani armour at Khem Karan. Pakistan therefore turned to China and France for re-equipment of its forces. After 1965, China became the foremost supplier of arms to Pakistan.

From Bhutto's death cell testimony, it also becomes clear that Pakistan initiated its discussions with China on acquiring nuclear weapon technology around 1965. Bhutto talked of completing his 11-year-long negotiations successfully in 1976. It would not be incorrect to say that the Chinese-Pakistani strategy of containing India began in the aftermath of 1965 war.

Pakistan drew correct lessons from the failure of Operation Gibraltar when the Kashmiris did not rise against India in consequence to large-scale infiltration of Pakistani commandos into the Kashmir valley. They bided their time and in the late 1980s trained disaffected Kashmiris, who crossed over into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, in arms and infiltrated them back.

That this strategy too did not wholly succeed is a different story but it did begin the prolonged proxy war against India in Kashmir.

Pakistan also discovered it was not difficult to run rings around the conditions of American arms supplies and hide things from US inspection teams. They were able to covertly raise a second armoured division in 1965. Unfortunately for them it did not give them the victory in Punjab they expected. The second armoured division met its defeat at Khem Karan.
Pakistan used this experience of getting around US procedures in the 1980s to divert American arms -- meant for Afghans fighting Soviet forces -- to arm the various jihadi militias and to install the Taliban regime in Kabul.
On the Indian side too, the 1965 war led to significant results. The Indian Army failed to assess intelligence effectively in respect of construction of aqueducts under the Ichogil canal (that runs from India to Lahore) and on Pakistan covertly raising a second armoured division. Thus, the external and internal intelligence collection and reporting were bifurcated. A dedicated external intelligence agency – the Research and Analysis Wing -- was created.

An ill-advised reorganisation proposal in respect of Indian armour – increasing light armour and reducing medium armour –- strongly espoused by General Joyanto Nath Chaudhuri before the war, was given up. The Indo-Soviet arms supply relationship got reinforced and the Soviet Union became the sole supplier of arms for India.

Though it is not much written about, India intensified its support to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his Awami League in their demands for greater economy from Islamabad.

The 1965 war demonstrated that the 1962 debacle was not a reflection on the Indian Army but was the result of inadequacies in a few top inexperienced generals. It also proved that Indian unity was solid while Pakistan was vulnerable to divisive forces. It brought out that American short-term Cold War calculations overrode Washington's commitment to democracy.
It also highlighted that the US establishment had very wrong assessments about the Indian leadership, the Indian Army and India's ability to survive as a Union and grow into a major power.



So if the USA were being even handed tell me how they managed to raise a second armoured division with weapons from the USA (and France) when India had totally desimated the first? Where did they get their USA made weapons from.

You see I don’t give a fuck about India, (I’m British after all) but Pakistan has had a history of underhand operations, support for brutal regimes such as the Taliban, perpertraitors of genocide in Bangladesh, and the allowing of radical Jihad schools to flourish and to send those radical clerics to places like Britain, where they take advantage of a young pissed off underclass, and they in turn strap a bomb to themselves and try and blow me up whilst I’m trying to get to work at Kings Cross!!
 
iROBOT said:
Its called Karma.

The idiot British asked for Muslim support during the Indian struggle for independence Jinna (Muslim leader at the time) agreed and in turn the British formed an artificial mono religious country called Pakistan (“The Land of the Pure"…ffs!!!) From apart of India that's been "India" ( ;) ) for thousands of years as payment for the Muslim establishment positioning themselves against Ghandi and the Congress party.

The west fucking deserve everything they are getting...meddling cunts.

Oh and EVERY war that India has had with "The Land of the Pure" (pakistan) the USA have supported Pakistan and have armed them to the hilt aginst India....so you can fuck right off mears...dick


You are a smart one. Nice to see you support the killing of innocent people. Its to bad they didn't get to blow up those airplanes because its just what we deserve in the west.

Try employment loser
 
TeeJay said:
What I'm trying to impress on mears is that some of us have lived alongside British Muslims/British Pakistanis all our lives (I'm sure this includes you Jezza) and they are not some kind of alien species - the vast majority of people I know are very similar to everyone else. Then again, maybe I have been living in some kind of 'middle class bubble' - eg school, university, my social circles and so forth. I don't live in some poverty-riven north city nor do I hang out down the mosque. Maybe it is simply pure luck that everyone I know is very normal and very "British" albeit with a desi slant.

Don't I take pains to make the point in this thread that the majority of Pakistanis in Britian are undoubtedly good?

Some just want to ignore the few bad apples trying to kill civilians on the street and in the air. Its obviously a problem in Britian. But many around here would rather talk about US and UK foreign policy than discuss internal problems with this group.

You are willing to talk about these problems but many many around here are not.
 
mears said:
You are a smart one. Nice to see you support the killing of innocent people. Its to bad they didn't get to blow up those airplanes because its just what we deserve in the west.

Try employment loser

You are a patronising one and you have no right to condescend others on this thread, especially when you are so knowledgeably ignorant of life outside your borders.
 
mears said:
You are a smart one. Nice to see you support the killing of innocent people. Its to bad they didn't get to blow up those airplanes because its just what we deserve in the west.

Try employment loser
Erm....??

If youre govenment stopped supporting terrorist govenments (like Pakistan againt a democratic India) Or the Medievel regime in Saudi Arabia, or the Taliban during the Soviet era in Afganistan.....then none of this would have happened in the first place...It was never a forgone conclusion that Islam would end up so radical within some small but important sections of it. It was the policy in Isreal and all the "turning a blind eye" to your right wing chums. my point about the west was they are suffering from historial karma....and (as such) is deserved....doesnt mean we shouldnt try and counter the Jihadi threat....Indians have been doing it longer then any stupid Septic.

And I've noticed you COMPLETELY ignored my copius posts since the one above where I'm the last to agree with jihadi terror, I was born a Hindu for fucks sake we've been getting slaughtered by the Jihadi's (and vice versa to be truthful) far longer then the theft of North America from the Native inhabitants

EDIT TO ADD...I am self imployed mears I'm a Audio Visual Technician and this is our quite period (nobody wants to do conferences in August)...maybe you havent noticed in the USA but being unemployed for a South Asian is just wrong...cultural thing I'm sure you understand....not)
 
I happened on this information when discussing the latest terror hype, but it might also be relevant here:
The low conviction rate of those arrested points to the excessive and discriminatory use of arrest powers against Muslim communities. This is further supported by the discrepancy between the religious background of those arrested and those convicted. While almost all of those arrested are Muslims, the majority of those so far convicted appear to be non-Muslims. The IRR has documented eleven of the fifteen convictions under anti-terrorist laws since 11 September 2001. Only three Muslims have actually been convicted under the 2000 Act and two of them have been given leave to appeal their convictions. Six of those convicted under the Terrorism Act 2000 are white and were convicted for offences such as wearing a ring or carrying a flag with the symbols of banned Loyalist organisations. The 2000 Act makes it illegal even to wear a T-shirt supporting a banned organisation. A further two non-Muslims have been convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, one for sending a racist letter containing white powder to the office of Mohammad Sarwar MP.

Since arrests under anti-terrorist laws attract widespread media coverage while convictions of non-Muslims in court have not been widely reported, most people are left with the impression that the criminal justice system is successfully prosecuting Muslim terrorists in Britain. The reality is that large numbers of innocent Muslims are being arrested, questioned and released while the majority of those actually convicted in an open criminal trial are non-Muslim.
http://www.irr.org.uk/2004/september/ak000004.html
 
Cmdr Adi Shroff, INS (Indian Naval Service)

No he did not kill East Pakistani/bangla/bengali "intellectuals", he sank a Pakistani destroyer
Perhaps the blame should not be entirely laid at Britains feet for partition.
During the Quit India Movement, Congress utterly refused to co-operate with the Govt so they were bound to be grateful when Jinna, a long time Congress stalwart prior to his doubts about Nehru which lead to his joining the Muslim League, delvered his support. As for Jinnas doubts, they weren't entirely based on Communal liones but more towards the Soviet instincts of Jawalharlal, made obviuos when he invaded the recalcitrant, and Muslim, Stae of Hydrabad and when Mahastra - well Maharati firbrands who would later evolve into Shiv Sena clamoured for their own state and the dissultion of the Bomaby State which included Gujerat.
All this was played out against the background of a world war and lets not forget Subhash Chandra Bose and his INA fighting witht eh Japanese - Bose had amongst other things beeen a leading light in Congress.
All this was not the background under which any discussion of Indian independance should have taken place. Partition was something DEMANDED by the Muslim League. Wavell who preceeded Mount-Twatten was utterly opposed and wanted the talks to take a further two years, but sadly Atlee, a modest man with much to be modest about wanted out straight away, abdicating all responsibility for the millions who would later die.
As for Pakistan being some sort of mindless agressor, well the are rather keen on military action. The ISI CREATED the Taliban you half-wit, with Yankee connivance, off course they recognised them
However it is worth recalling that almost ALL invasions of Indai have happened accross what is now Pakistani soil, even Alexander of Macedon, they are bound to be nervous. really pakistan is the Punjab, including part of its old Vassal Satate Kashmir, and Sindh. They other "tribal" parts, NWF, Baluchistan. well they are there to be told what to do.
How very Punjabi
 
iROBOT said:
Erm....??

If youre govenment stopped supporting terrorist govenments (like Pakistan againt a democratic India) Or the Medievel regime in Saudi Arabia, or the Taliban during the Soviet era in Afganistan.....then none of this would have happened in the first place...It was never a forgone conclusion that Islam would end up so radical within some small but important sections of it. It was the policy in Isreal and all the "turning a blind eye" to your right wing chums. my point about the west was they are suffering from historial karma....and (as such) is deserved....doesnt mean we shouldnt try and counter the Jihadi threat....Indians have been doing it longer then any stupid Septic.

And I've noticed you COMPLETELY ignored my copius posts since the one above where I'm the last to agree with jihadi terror, I was born a Hindu for fucks sake we've been getting slaughtered by the Jihadi's (and vice versa to be truthful) far longer then the theft of North America from the Native inhabitants

EDIT TO ADD...I am self imployed mears I'm a Audio Visual Technician and this is our quite period (nobody wants to do conferences in August)...maybe you havent noticed in the USA but being unemployed for a South Asian is just wrong...cultural thing I'm sure you understand....not)

So since all of the Middle East is authoritarian you believe the US and the west should isolate all the countries, all the countries except for Turkey I guess. Is that what you want, a one size fits all foreign policy? Good luck getting an answer out of that

Pakistanis are blowing up innocents because of US foreign policy? Why are Africans or South Americans not blowing themselves up and innocents over US foreign policy:D

It doesn't pass the laugh test
 
Fong said:
No problem, just brand anyone that proves you wrong, doesn't matter what with, take your pick, Apologist, Racist, Facist choose at random for it doesn't matter, just make sure the branding is loud and clear.


I thought that these attacks were the usual response of the liberal left, who you sound like you are a part of?!!
 
oaktree said:
I thought that these attacks were the usual response of the liberal left, who you sound like you are a part of?!!

I can forsee a permaban for you.

Anyone who labels King Fong part of the "liberal left" is hiding something.

But you've been here before - haven't you?
 
mears said:
So since all of the Middle East is authoritarian you believe the US and the west should isolate all the countries, all the countries except for Turkey I guess. Is that what you want, a one size fits all foreign policy? Good luck getting an answer out of that

Pakistanis are blowing up innocents because of US foreign policy? Why are Africans or South Americans not blowing themselves up and innocents over US foreign policy:D

It doesn't pass the laugh test

You don't pass the crediblity test, so I wouldn't get all cocky if I were you, Mr Dense.
 
Evidence mounts that Al Queda played a role in the plot.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200608181611.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-17-terror-plot_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

In this war against Islamic terrorism such events constitute a great victory. Al Queda, or another Islamic fascist group which planned the attacks, spent money and human resources to plan their attack and failed.

Kudos to British law enforcement and those in the British Muslim community who helped turn in these terrorists and foil their attacks.

I am sure you all agree...
 
Back
Top Bottom