The Last Crusade

More Than 1000 Indians have been killed by a heat wave - that`s right, more than 1000 - right, by a heat wave - apparently they could not find a way to keep cool.

Think about it for a minute - more than 1000 persons have died from a heat wave - And yet, on Chowk, Indians want war - Pakistan should keep her cool, her armed forces poised, invite iternational observers and press to see the situation for themselves and invite Indians to talk. Indians ought to reconsider their hostile attitude - They are not now, nor will they be in the forseeable future, in a position to do much about Pakistan - better to talk, better to negotiate, better to effect reliable change with talks, than to simply raise tensions every three months.

think, if capability nor will, exists to prevent needless deaths of more than 1000 persons - from just heat - should we not reconsider capabilities required for war making? and what afterwards? and what about Peace making? - reconsider, negotiate.

Ever wonder why this news never gets published in SatanLand?........and the Unclish language lapdogs & their live-in worsehalfs are still trying to hang on to an archaic & anachronistic `culture`.

In UnclishLand even a child knows Unclich....buchchaa buchchaa unclaizi boltaa hai.The illiterates from Pimpistaan,Kanjiristaan,& heejristaan are not ignorants----they somehow equate `literacy` with parroting Unclish.

``You laughter,your tears

are always seeking approval from alien accents

Your jigs are learned,not impulsive

and then you still wonder

why you are not accepted as one of `them`

Racism is not their view of you

It is your own worth in your mind``

__________________________________________________

ISRAEL DECLARED “TERRORIST STATE”

The Council of Muftis of Russia has criticized the Russian mass media, which partially cover events in Palestine: “We can see only one side of the conflict.” This is the position of Israel.

In the meanwhile, at the conference on terrorism, in which foreign ministers of the countries belonging to Oraganization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) participated, Israel was declared “terrorist state.” According to the chairman of the conference, Malaysian Foreign Minister Said Hamid Albar, “a common approach should be chosen towards Israel and the world community must take measures thereupon.” Israel “does not defend itself from terrorist acts” but itself has invaded and occupied foreign territories, which causes a reciprocal reaction.

Unfortunately, in Arab world, there is no common position on Tel-Aviv’s policy, which could be seen at March summit of League of Arab States in Beirut.

An extraordinary sitting of the league will be held in Cairo on April 7. It is already known that foreign ministers of Syria and Lebanon will not participate as a protest against the nonfulfilment of the Beirut summit’s resolution, in particular of “demand to break relations to Israel and to recommence the boycott of Israel by Arab countries.” First of all, the protest is aimed against Egypt and Jordan’s policy, who do not intend to break off their peaceful agreements with Israel, Associated Press reports.

While Iranian spiritual leader, the Ayatollah Ali Homeni, following the Iraqi leadership, called on Arab states to introducing a symbolic month-long ban on oil supply to Western countries to stop supporting Israel in the Mideast conflict. Though, according to Reuters, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait refused and declined this idea.

In the meantime, a military report composed by four European militaries on situation in the Middle East discloses Israel’s plans about the escalation of confrontation and engaging Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan in a full-scale war. This is being reported by Islam.Ru, referring to the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan. In particular, as a pretext for the occupation of the south of Lebanon, Tel-Aviv could use the fact that Hezbollah is helping the Palestinians. According to military, the occupation of the south of Lebanon by Israel would strengthen its presence in the Golan Heights. At the moment, the Israeli Defence Ministry, together with US experts, are conducting air manoevers with F-16 aircraft and helicopters. Moreover, according to the military, the reestablishment of relations between Arab countries and Bagdad stimulates the US to delivering strikes against Iraq and stirs up Israeli`s policy of aggression, which is afraid of possible military cooperation between Arab countries and Iraq.

“The Israeli position established on the roof of a pilgrim house belonging to Russian Orthodox Church in Bethlehem, the shelling of temples of the Holy Land, and the mad slaughter of teenagers, women and old men is not only violation of human rights and of international law, as European and Russian politicians gingerly say. Outrage upon sacred objects of the whole Christian civilization, trample of the fundamental right of a human being on protection in the own house and in the own land, loathsome mask of genocide – this is the essence of worldly known “butcher” Sharon, who leads the Jewish state. The historical hatred of Israeli occupants of Islamic and Christian sanctuaries has its origins, and it is broadly known and does not need to be explained… It is absurd and stupid to rely on the aggressor’s excuses, who rudely violates peace in the most highly explosive region of the Middle East,” – Russian columnist Sergei Lykoshin wrote in his article “Who is taken to aim at?”

So, who will restrain Sharon?

Nasah

Mian, yeh banda aapki izzat karta hai. ``Final solution`` implies war. I only meant that the war is the final option. Like you I also advocate peace. But I request all Pakistanis here to leave Kashmir to God for heaven`s sake. Dont make them pawns in your dirty game. Nasah miaN nobody is mad enough to want war in the subcontinent. War becomes an attractive choice only when a nation is pushed to desperation by his intrasigent adversary who is bent on destroying it.

PS Yes I hate RSS since they are our internal enemies. Like Pakistan they are also out there to destroy the secular fabric of our country.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Romair #312:

``Pakistan has now offered to have joint international observors on both side of the LOC, to monitor cross-border movements. India has rejected that, as well.

``I think all this war talk is based more on India`s local politics than anything else. And it is slowly getting out of control. Any sane person should now agree for third party intervention in this conflict. Any person who is convinced of his/her stance, at least, would agree to it. Anyone who has something to hide would oppose it.``

Well, as a Pakistani, whose budget is written by the IMF and World Bank and whose territory offers `bases` to Americans whose `advisers` conduct `joint` operations in NWFP, it must be difficult for you to understand why a sovereign country would not want third parties to intervene.

Similarly, given that your country has witnessed democratic governance only in spurts, you naturally attribute all actions by an Indian govt to `local politics`. If India massed its army along the border after December 13, it was because of the elections in February in UP and Punjab; if the army mobilisation continued after the elections were over, it was because the govt wanted to distract people from Gujarat; if India goes to war now, it is due to `local politics`.

Romair, the Indian Presidential election (not referendum) is due in mid-June and elections in J&K in September, so you have more motives to ascribe Indian govt`s actions to.

Harpreet #322:

``Will one Indian please outline for me in simple terms, what will the ``war aims`` of the campaign be? To strike at a few tents or training camps in Western Kashmir, training camps that could be re-constituted anywhere anytime?

``What are the aims?``

I am wondering the same thing too. The aims of this war are not as clear-cut as the earlier ones (liberation of Bangladesh or reclaiming of Kargil).

Waging a war to kill a few terrorists seems like wielding a hammer to destroy a fly. It is an impossible task. Taking out a few tents in PoK and killing a few terrorists cannot be the objective.

If at all there is an objective, it has to be a political one (as with several wars). In this case, it could be the raising the costs to Pakistan in waging terrorist attacks on India. For too long Pakistan has waged terrorist attacks (dignified as `proxy war`) on India as a low cost-high return option. India seems to be incapable of returning the favour by waging similar scale terrorist attacks on Pak. Hence, if it wages a formal war (or attacks on terrorist camps in PoK) it would send out a strong political message to Pakistan - we reserve the right to wage war whenever there are terrorist attacks on India.

Our calculation (or hope) is that it will make Pakistan think twice in its support to terrorists. May be not after this `war`, but if India repeatedly attacks Pakistan after terrorist attacks, Pakistan may realise that terrorist attacks are not an option. It has already realised (hopefully) after Kargil that Kargil type incursions are not an option.

It has been said that India is not Israel and Pakistan is not Palestine. Very true. And Musharraf is no Arafat either who is incapable of reining in Hamas. As was said on tape by Musharraf during Kargil, the scruff of the militants` necks is with the Pakistani Army / ISI. If it decides not to support them or is no longer able to support them, militancy will come down (I am not optimistic enough for a total elimination of militancy). It will come down enough for India to think about doing its deal internally in J&K and be able to recall the Army in J&K to the barracks. Already Kashmiri militant elements (such as Hizb `commanders` in J&K) have realised that there can only be a political not militant solution.

One other thing, I do not think a fully democratic govt in Pakistan, not in fear of the army, would seek confrontation with India. The Pak army being in power in Pak is bad for India (and of course for Pak too). A war between India and Pak, if it is long enough (3 to 4 weeks), even if it is not decisive, will degrade the Pak army sufficiently for them to lose power vis-a-vis the political forces. As happened after the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. A democratically elected govt in Pakistan, not controlled by the army, and under economic and external pressure, should be able to do a deal with India. And that is an objective worth going to war for.

Hello Indians!!!

Please check out this petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/JaiHind/petition.html

...and consider signing it.

(And if you like it, letting your friends know.)

Reply Akash # 341

...if only...if only...

(Lata Mangeshkar song comes in softly as the cyclorama shades to deep blue and then black...)

Why I`m boycotting anything `made in Israel`

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown


I think we – all those who want Israel to leave the occupied territories – should follow the example of the South African activists. I have already started looking at labels and putting back anything made in Israel. Many of my friends are doing the same. We are e-mailing organisations – not those based on religion because Palestinians are not only Muslims – but all those who want to see a world committed to universal human rights. Money will count more than words. The US will not be able to prop up the economy of Israel forever and these hard wars are expensive.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/yasmin_alibhai_brown/story.jsp?story=285043

``final solution``? -- what are you saying Akash miaN?

That`s a very vulgar nazi phrase -- for heavens sake -- where did you get that horrible genocidal phrase.

I thought you didn`t like the the Indian Nazis -- the RSS.

Here is an update about SAJAer TUNKU VARADARAJAN of the WSJ. Last week, he

was named the paper`s chief television and media critic. He will write a

weekly column starting June 3, while continuing to be deputy editorial

features editor of the editorial page. Congrats to Tunku on his new

TUNKU (NOT HIS FAMILY OR REAL NAME)

India Abroad/PROFILE

The Magazine/cover story

Master of Controversy

Jeet Thayil says Wall Street Journal columnist Tunku Varadarajan enjoys

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

creating word-storms

Consider this: Late last year Tunku Varadarajan, the deputy editorial

features editor of The Wall Street Journal, wrote a column titled

Parachute Journalism Redux: Thank goodness there are alternatives to

Christiane Amanpour. The article aimed to be a comparative study of

network television`s female war correspondents.

It sniped at Amanpour for everything from her clothes (=93flak-jackets and

other kinds of tough-girl raiment=94) to her accent (=93misinterpreted as

erudition by Americans=94) to her looks (=93thought to convey an anti-Barbi=

e

seriousness=94) to her alleged androgyny (=93a fearless she-man=94).

Varadarajan`s article snowballed into a word-storm three times its

original length. An assortment of commentators weighed in. One called him

=93a knuckle-dragging caveman=94 and =93freakin=92 laughable.=94 Another sa=

id he

was =93sexist, ranting=94 and =93vindictive.=94

The gossip pages of The New York Post labeled him =93mischievous.=94 CNN

president Walter Isaacson wrote to the WSJ in courtly defense of

Amanpour=92s =93tenacity and old-fashioned grit, dodging bullets...=94

MSNBC correspondent Ashleigh Banfield described Varadarajan as

=93despicable=94 and =93absolutely abysmal.=94 She even suggested that for

someone to =93sit behind a desk at the WSJ and criticize our hair, our

demeanor and our makeup=94 is akin to the Taliban=92s treatment of women.

What was Varadarajan doing meanwhile? He was sitting back and enjoying

the whole controversy. =93It was hilarious,=94 he recently told India Abroa=

d.

=93Over-the-top, hysterical, overheated, but amusing. I must have gotten

under (Banfield=92s) skin, I suppose.=94

It would not be an overstatement to say that Varadarajan craves the range

and intensity of response that piece generated. In fact, he would

probably be deeply disappointed if there were no reaction at all.

=93Believe it or not the most satisfying thing that can happen to a

journalist who writes a controversial article is to have a sort of

avalanche of hate mail,=94 he said. =93It=92s wonderful, much better than

getting letters saying =91I agree.=92=94

His =91Citizen of the World=92 column appears every Monday in The Wall Stre=

et

Journal. In them, he often comes across as a world-class curmudgeon. It

is a word he has been called more than once.

=93My friends think I=92m fairly curmudgeonly but I suppose old-fashioned i=

s

probably what I am,=94 he said. =93The problem with journalism is that too

many people are just too nice about too many things. If someone is

slightly curmudgeonly in America he or she tends to stand out. In Britain

people who write nice things are regarded as boring and those who are not

instinctive curmudgeons cultivate it.=94

Though he says his own curmudgeonly image is not deliberately cultivated,

it is one those who know him are well acquainted with. (=93I=92m not a

curmudgeon, lest you mistake me for one, and actually have good reason to

detest summer,=94 he wrote in a =91Citizen of the World=92 column last year=

=2E)

=93I hope never to be in a position where I have to defend Tunku,=94 said

Sreenath Sreenivasan, a Columbia School of Journalism professor. =93I

disagree with a lot of what he says.=94 Sreenivasan, who counts himself

among Varadarajan=92s =93friends and fans=94 and reads everything the colum=

nist

writes, said =93on a consistent basis (Varadarajan) is the subject of more

dinner-time conversation among desis than any other writer.``

=93Like many good writers he likes to write about things that annoy him,=94

said Max Boot, editorial features editor at The Wall Street Journal and

Varadarajan=92s immediate boss. =93Luckily for our readers he is annoyed by=

a

fairly wide range of things and he likes to stir things up.=94

John Laxmi, a freelance journalist and South Asian Journalists

Association board member who has watched Varadarajan=92s New York career

from its beginnings, put it into his own perspevtive. Varadarajan was =93a

deliberate curmudgeon=94 who had =93rapidly evolved into a position of

influence,=94 he said.

Laxmi cited Varadarajan=92s articles attacking the singer Lata Mangeshkar

and the late author R.K. Narayan. =93Varadarajan appeared to be

deliberately provocative for the sake of being provocative, gaining

prominence and then using the prominence in ways that were more broadly

appealing,=94 said Laxmi. =93The question that arises is how heartfelt and

true his views are, or if he is being provocative just to make a splash.=94

Laxmi, a former investment banker with Morgan Stanley and Citigroup who

turned to freelance journalism, cited the view that an opinion writer had

no business writing unless he was being provocative. Sreenivasan would

agree with that view. He pointed out that Varadarajan=92s writing is the

single-most discussed topic on the SAJA discussion list. =93As an opinion

writer what more can you hope for?=94 Sreenivasan asked.

=93The downside is you never know if Varadarajan=92s views are authentic or

if he is stating them to make news,=94 said Laxmi. =93It is a question that

lingers since he writes well and is read widely for his writing style.=94

Born in Delhi in 1962, Patanjali (Tunku is a nickname) Varadarajan, a

British citizen, read law at Oxford University and returned there to

lecture in 1987. For six years he taught public international law,

constitutional and administrative law, and Roman law. Then, at the age of

32, he joined The Times of London as a trainee in the editorial

department. He says the switch from law to journalism was the result of

=93a standard mid-career crisis=94 and because he had been =93feeling bored=

and

underpaid=94 and =93was sick of undergraduates.=94

The Times sent Varadarajan as its bureau chief first to Madrid, then to

New York. In 1998 he quit The Times and for two years worked freelance,

writing for The New York Times, India Today and Outlook, among other

publications. In 2000 he joined The Wall Street Journal.

Varadarajan is married to Amy Finnerty, a writer for The New York Times

Magazine. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife, a small son and two

step-daughters. He and his wife are not the only journalists in the

family. A younger brother, Siddharth, is a senior editor at The Times of

India.

One of the advantages of being a journalist, Varadarajan told me, is that

you never stop working. It may also be =93a journalistic character flaw=94 =

to

constantly be looking at all events as news.

Varadarajan takes his work seriously enough to be involved in other

aspects of the job. I attended an =93Opinion Writing=94 workshop he conduct=

ed

at the SAJA 2001 annual convention. He told the class of aspiring

journalists that a good opinion piece takes research. =93Reporting, or

research as it is called in some countries, is the backbone of good

opinion writing,=94 he said.

He selected various articles from his own writings arrayed under five

significant headings: Full-Frontal Polemic, Taking on an Icon/Cherished

Institution, Over the Top/In Your Face Commentary, Against Prevailing

Sentiment, and Opinionated Reportage.

He said: =93Be blunt. Get to the point. Don=92t be mealy-mouthed.=94 A brie=

f

look at some of the titles of his WSJ columns would seem to be a lesson

in that dictum: The Reason for the Death Penalty, I Can=92t Stand

Lieberman, Clinton Would Have Conceded, In Praise of Louis Freeh,

Shareholders of the World Unite, The Monarchy is Worth Saving.=A0

At another occasion, a lecture to the Oxford Business Alumni Association

in December 2001, he said that after Sept. 11, the WSJ=92s =93self-imposed

diktat=94 was that all three editorials on the page would be about the war.

=93There was a vast amount of pressure not to repeat yourself.=94 Normalcy

would return to the page when one of its editorials would be about a

subject other than the war. But when should that be?

=93We agonized,=94 he said. =93Then one day in late October we ran a piece =

on

Michael Jordan=92s return (to basketball).=94

He mentioned some of the differences between British and American

journalism. British journalists are more attuned to =93producing words that

make waves=94 whereas Americans are more =93thoughtful and measured=94 and =

less

prone to writing for effect. =93I=92d rather have an American reporter than=

a

British one,=94 he said. =93They are more careful with facts.=94

Varadarajan grew up in New Delhi and Lucknow and was educated at Mayo

College in Rajasthan, London University=92s Dulwich College and Trinity

College, Oxford. Despite his citizen of the world tagline, he has stayed

true to his origins in some ways.

=93I have an Indian perspective about events in that part of the world,=94 =

he

said. =93I am very pro-Indian and religion has nothing to do with it.=94

He sees himself =93primarily as an Indian=94 even though he has lived in

Britain for as long as he has lived in India, is married to an American,

has American children, and cannot imagine living anywhere other than in

the United States. This self-image extends even to his facial hair.

For a period in his youth, Varadarajan sported a =93meesha,=94 or handlebar

moustache, in the style of the dacoit Veerappan, not to mention countless

Indian policemen and Bollywood villains. I asked why he took the

moustache off, wondering if it had something to do with his move to the

United States. It did not.

=93My wife didn=92t like it,=94 he said. =93It=92s as simple as that.=94 If=

left to

himself he said he would readily grow it back. After all, a manly

moustache is part of the wish list of the Indian man.=A0

Does he consider himself a secular Hindu, as the title of his

beliefnet.com column would have it? =93I take it as given that a proper

Hindu is a secular Hindu,=94 he said. =93When practiced properly it is a

tolerant religion. The intolerant fringe has given it a bad name which is

why it is important that secular Hindus should call themselves Hindu.=94

Varadarajan has commented on the 1999-2000 world democracy survey by

Freedom House and its observation that there is a strong correlation

between electoral democracy and Hinduism. Nepal, the only Hindu state, is

=93freer than most Muslim countries,=94 he said. So are India and Mauritius=

=2E

=93Islam seems to set up a political program which is hard to accommodate

with democracy. It is easy to shut democracy out of the context.=94

He said that it was possible to set up democracy in a Muslim country, but

countries such as Turkey and Bangladesh had done so by distancing

themselves from Islam. Freedom House=92s findings showed that the vast

majority of Muslim states were not free.

In recent columns Varadarajan has come out as a vociferous supporter of

India and an implacable critic of Pakistan=92s General Pervez Musharraf.

They have won him a new and approving audience among Indians,

particularly those supportive of the BJP.

=93If the United States is keen on bin Laden=92s capture it should grab

Musharraf by the scruff of his neck and read him the Riot Act,=94 he said.

=93India has lost its ability to respond effectively.=94 By not reacting to

provocation India had =93painted themselves into a corner.=94

He even spoke nostalgically of Indira Gandhi, saying if she were around

Pakistan would not be =93as bold as they are.=94

If Mohammed Jinnah, described as the founder of modern Pakistan, where to

see the country today =93he would not recognize it =96 he wanted a secular

democracy not jehadi lunacy,=94 said Varadarajan. India had reason to

expect war but nobody wanted one except the hawks.

=93I would be very sorry if a war were to happen,=94 he said.=A0

o o o o o

#348 rsridhar

Have you talked to your family in delhi? Are they in favor of a war? Would they like to see delhi leveled to avenge the deaths of a few dozen people? Would you like to visit india if war breaks out just to support your family?

Jingoists are no better than other kinds of bigots. Jingoism simply is bigotry in the name of patriotism and nationalism.

Finally a sane Indian voice.

A winner of the Sean McBride prize. Sean McBride, for those who don`t know, was one of the founders of Amnesty International. He was also a Chief of Staff of the IRA, in his early days. And, I believe, the only human being to win both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Lenin Peace Prize. He was also the Chairman of UNESCO.

Praful Bidwai`s article makes a lot of sense. A hell of a lot more sense than anything the nuclearly-armed, Hinduvta-overdosed three stooges (Fernandes, Advani and Vajpayee) have been throwing out, lately; to paraphrase, ``Give Pakistan a decisive blow,`` ``Hinduvta for everyone,`` ``All Muslims are violent (in Goa).`` I never had any respect for Advani (since he tore down Ayodhya mosque) and I never had any respect for Fernandes (since he banned AI in Kashmir, and since his tehelka scandals against his own soldiers fighting in Siachen). However I used to have respect for Vajpayee. But since his remarks against Muslims in Goa, and since the orchestrating of the attacks in Gujrat by him and his party, I have lost all respect for him, also.

I wonder what Bidwai`s views are on human rights violations in Kashmir. I have a feeling those views probably make a lot of sense also. Isn`t it interesting that all the sane voices have something to do with human rights organizations?

``Limited war: unlimited folly

Praful Bidwai

The writer is one of India`s most widely published

columnists. Formerly a Senior Fellow of the Nehru

Memorial Museum and Library, he is a winner of the Sean MacBride Prize for 2000 of the International Peace Bureau

praful@del3.vsnl.net.in

When it comes to the enunciation and elaborate fabrication of dubious, woolly or altogether spurious strategic doctrines, otherwise impoverished South Asia must be the world`s most productive region. It is certainly hard to beat as regards the practical pursuit of such doctrines through military strategies and ground-level operations -- at an enormous cost to the public.

Take a few examples: ``strategic depth``, ``minimum nuclear deterrent``, ``striking terror in the heart of the enemy`` (as a method of winning war), ``search for parity``, ``stability through nuclear deterrence``, and now, ``limited war`` between two de facto nuclear powers.

This latest is the rationalisation which many of India`s self-styled strategic ``experts`` proffer in support of military attacks on Pakistan to avenge the revolting butchery of 30 people, at Kaluchak near Jammu, on May 14. The Vajpayee government claims to have identified the terrorists involved in Kaluchak as Pakistani citizens. But it has produced no significant evidence that they acted as Islamabad`s agents.

Put simply, the Kaluchak incident does not on present evidence constitute a casus belli, or reason for war. Responsible states do not start wars without establishing serious causal connections between real threats and military action.....

Such conceptually bogus doctrines have always served the South Asian public badly. ``Strategic depth`` -- an archaic notion of refuge in the event of a hostile pursuit -- was used for eight long years to support Pakistan`s disastrous Afghanistan policy of recruiting, arming and supporting the Taliban. The result was Afghanistan`s devastation, the growing Talibanisation of Pakistan, the strengthening of Islamic-fundamentalist forces (and of Hindu-extremist reaction to them), and the eventual entry of the US into this region.....

Today, a ``limited strike`` will probably precipitate a full-scale war, with a significant possibility of escalation to the nuclear level.....

``Limited war`` was overblown by Defence Minister George Fernandes, one of India`s most reckless politicians, into a strategic principle or doctrine.

These ideas are insane and dangerous. Those who want peace must oppose them. The way out lies in decent diplomacy and, yes, joint patrolling of the LoC by India and Pakistan to prevent militant infiltration.`` (complete article at http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/index.html)

Another Indian individual who writes sanely on Kashmir is my favortie Indian author, Khushwant Singh.

I can never figure out, why even BJP-hating Indians are more than happy to listen to people like Advani, when it comes to Pakistan and Kashmir related issues, and not to people like Gandhi, Bidwai and Singh.

Then again, maybe I just follow the wrong Indian authors, and the Indians follow the right ones. I cannot however see Advani, Fernandes or Vajpayee ever winning the same stature as the three above-mentioned Indian authors.

It the Indians want to blame everything in Kashmir on Kashmiris and Pakistanis, no one can stop them. But at least take the trouble of finding out what is actually going on Kashmir, before forming an opinion. Don`t believe the Indian govt. sponsored media brainwashing.

re:Reply #: 333

ali1,

We have seen lots of testosterone from Mushy. Let us see some action. It is highly unlikely that China will come to Pak`s rescue. The next war will be decisive in India`s favor. Noone said India will not incur any damages. That is part of the war process. If i were a Paki, i would be praying to Allah for mercy.

Sridhar

P.S: BTW, the whole country including opposition parties are behind the ruling party. There are no dissenting voices. People only differ as to the nature of retaliation: a full fledged war Vs limited war in Kashmir Vs a contiuned diplomatic and political offense. Supporters of the last recourse are becoming less by the day.

Re regressive

You`re like a mutt with the worst imaginable case of diarrhea. Your ability to endlessly drop poop is incredible.

rsridhar #337 ``Once India wages a war, it will bring the war to its logical conclusion viz. further dimemberment of Pakistan, complete annihilation of the Pak Army and ISI. ``

Maybe so. However, in 1965 as I recall the Indian General in charge of that sector had announced his plans to have his evening tea at the Lahore Gymkhana Club. But the tea got cold and general sahib never could make it.

1965 was basically a stalemate (despite claims by bean counting chauvinists on both sides). Today, because of nuclear weapons, no one knows the outcome of a war between India and Pakistan. Not India, not Pakistan, not the US, and certainly not you or me. And the worst case scenario (full scale exchange of nukes on cities) would mean tens of millions dead, poisoned air and poisoned soil. And less than worst case (use of nukes as tactical battlefield weapons) will still mean poisoned air and soil. And this in nations that are already dirt poor.

(And dont think BJP is knowledgable on the outcome either - if the BJP understood Pakistan`s capabilities just a few years ago, it would not have gone from dancing in the streets into a state of shock when Pakistan responded with nuclear blasts of its own).

So you may wish to delay counting your chicken until they are hatched. And perhaps go easy on the language too.