Ahmedabad Blasts: Numbed Apathy and The Conspiracy Of Our Resilience #73 Posted by tahmed32 on July 28, 2008 5:03:19 am


who go and rape 12 years olds


I'm pretty sure aisha was 9...

Ahmedabad Blasts: Numbed Apathy and The Conspiracy Of Our Resilience my money is on the amish...

Ahmedabad Blasts: Numbed Apathy and The Conspiracy Of Our Resilience #57 Posted by tahmed32 on July 28, 2008 3:10:35 am


Basic rights include the right to be not attacked simply because one belongs to a particular community.


a right that obviously doesn't apply to pakis - allah's chosen muslims - when they killed hundreds of thousands of bengalis and have YET to prosecute anyone for it.

Ahmedabad Blasts: Numbed Apathy and The Conspiracy Of Our Resilience #47 Posted by tahir on July 28, 2008 1:17:32 am


Put that Spiderman comic-book down and read the Qur'an in CONTEXT.


considering the fact that muslims are blowing up stuff and killing people in the name of allah every day/week, who cares about the context...

what matters is the way the way muslims interpret the koran...

Ahmedabad Blasts: Numbed Apathy and The Conspiracy Of Our Resilience #16 Posted by tahmed32 on July 27, 2008 7:37:02 pm

yeah prophetboy..pointing out facts is propaganda...

bad bad indians..how dare they bring up the fact that pakiland uses islamic terrorism as a strategic tool...

Ahmedabad Blasts: Numbed Apathy and The Conspiracy Of Our Resilience #9 Posted by tahmed32 on July 27, 2008 7:06:06 pm


And rest assured these terrorists are as much the enemies of ordinary Pakistanis as they are of Indians.


So the pakis terrorists blowing up stuff in india and afghanistan, the pakis stuffing the chanda boxes and the paki state that uses islamic terrorism as a strategic tool aren't ordinary pakis?

Ahmedabad Blasts: Numbed Apathy and The Conspiracy Of Our Resilience

muslims blowing stuff up isn't news anymore..it's like the weather report...

Ahmedabad Blasts: Numbed Apathy and The Conspiracy Of Our Resilience #7 Posted by dost_mittar on July 27, 2008 6:30:54 pm


in India, on the other hand, they seem to be always getting away alive after hitting their targets.


if people decide to put bombs in public places, there's nothing any country can do about it..it's like murder, rape and robbery..unless you want a complete police state, you can't stop this shit..

the government of india only encourages things like this when it fails to execute terrorists like afzal guru.

Government Wins Manmohan Singh Loses #127 Posted by bulleya on July 27, 2008 12:35:28 am


1. my prediction had been that the usa would be defeated in iraq


And people wonder why you're sitting on a huge stack of t-shirts with paki flags...you actually believe your own BS...

US now winning Iraq war that once seemed lost

* Combat phase ends, new phase focuses on training Iraqi army and police
* Top US commander in Iraq sees early indications Al Qaeda shifting focus to Afghanistan

BAGHDAD: The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.

Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the US now are able to shift focus from combat to building the fragile beginnings of peace.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

Focus: That does not mean the war has ended. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President George W Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Scattered battles go on, especially against Al Qaeda holdouts north of Baghdad. But organised resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.

It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to co-operate with the Americans in return for money and political support.

Al Qaeda: Gen David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press this past week there are early indications that senior leaders of Al Qaeda may be considering shifting their main focus from Iraq to the war in Afghanistan.

Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq’s future.

Militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada Al Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shia extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring.

Al Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shia population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago.

Maj Gen Ali Hadi Hussein al-Yaseri, the chief of patrol police in the capital, says, “Even eight months ago, Baghdad was not today’s Baghdad.” ap

Government Wins Manmohan Singh Loses India’s N-deal with US


By Tariq Osman Hyder

THE US-India agreement for cooperation in civil nuclear energy is the high-water mark of the US-India strategic partnership.

Only a few isolated voices in the international arms control community, particularly in America and India, have voiced concerns. George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment perceptively noted inter alia two US objectives: that a more powerful India would balance China’s growing power and influence in Asia, and that changing national and international laws on nuclear cooperation would also help bolster India’s strategic capabilities, including nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, which will further balance China’s strategic power.

India would get access to nuclear fuel, technology and reactors for its ambitious nuclear power development programme which was already facing problems due to limited uranium reserves. The chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Agency, Anil Kakodkar, stated on July 4 that India’s long-term energy security faces a huge gap if India is unable to import nuclear reactors or nuclear fuel under international cooperation. Alternatively it would be required to import 1.6bn tonnes of coal in the year 2050 alone.

The opportunity was missed to introduce a criteria-based non-discriminatory system which would have brought both India and Pakistan fully into the global non-proliferation regime and given both fossil-fuel deficit countries access to civil nuclear energy under IAEA safeguards, while encouraging strategic restraint in South Asia and furthering global non-proliferation objectives. India should have been asked to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. While India has pledged to work towards a fissile material cut-off treaty, the agreement enhances rather than restrains its fissile production capabilities.

Of India’s 22 power reactors, six of which are already safeguarded, only an additional eight will be placed under safeguards, not immediately but progressively up to 2014. If run for that purpose, the eight un-safeguarded reactors can comfortably produce 1,400 kg of weapons-grade plutonium a year, which is sufficient for around 280 nuclear weapons. As all safeguarded reactors would have access to imported fuel there is no economic rationale for excluding these reactors.

Even when run for power generation alone, the un-safeguarded reactors would provide reactor-grade plutonium, in lesser quantities, which could be used for nuclear weapons and for India’s ambitious breeder reactor programme which has also been kept outside safeguards. The first Indian breeder reactor would be able to produce 135 kg of weapons-grade plutonium every year. Four larger breeders are planned which eventually could produce some 500-800 kg of weapons-grade plutonium a year. In comparison, the annual production of India’s existing military reactors is estimated at 33 kg.The Indian separation plan presented to its parliament on May 11, 2006 states that India would include in the civilian list of facilities under safeguards only those determined not to be relevant to its strategic programme. Hence the agreement, while fulfilling India’s energy requirements, frees its limited 60,000 tons of uranium reserves for its strategic programme and objectives, an outcome lauded by India’s leading strategist K. Subrahmanyam. The US justification that the agreement is placing additional Indian reactors under safeguards amounts to scraping the bottom of the non-proliferation barrel.

India is moving fast towards a nuclear submarine-based second-strike capability, as well as an ICBM capability which will require plutonium for missile warheads. Bharat Karnad, professor at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, is of the opinion that India’s new ‘cold start’ doctrine will give it the ability to wage limited war against Pakistan, secure in the fact that its growing strategic capabilities will neutralise Pakistan’s deterrence. The fact is that strategic stability is under threat and an unnecessary arms race may result.

While the agreement is between the United States and India, a draft umbrella safeguards agreement between the IAEA and India will be examined, as per requirements, by the IAEA’s board of governors at the end of July. It remains to be seen how far it will accord with global non-proliferation objectives. This also holds true for subsequent discussion in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Now is the time for the board of governors and then the NSG to use their leverage to get it right. If the board of governors succumbs to pressure, as is likely, even more responsibility devolves on the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which was set up to prevent or at least restrict proliferation. If it is to retain any credibility, the group must do the right thing.

The IAEA has different models of safeguards agreements. Almost all are based on facility-specific agreements, which apply safeguards in perpetuity and extend safeguards on the material produced. There are no conditionalities. The five permanent members of the Security Council have voluntary offer agreements, placing certain facilities under safeguards, which they can withdraw at any time for reasons of national security.

The draft India-IAEA agreement is a hybrid of the two models. India retains the right to take unspecified corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of a disruption in foreign fuel supplies. A high-level Indian team briefing the board members in Vienna recently was unable to clarify what this meant. The agreement would also subsume existing and stricter safeguards agreements on Indian reactors. Moreover, the accord with the US has been brought into the preamble of the draft India-IAEA agreement. Since military nuclear facilities and programmes are mentioned in the former, it is clear that India seeks legitimisation to further its military programme.

India’s concurrence to safeguards is dependent on continuous access to fuel supplies as well as a strategic reserve of fuel over the lifetime of India’s reactors. There is no mention of moving towards an additional protocol with the IAEA, which is another requirement of the agreement with the United States. No list of facilities has been listed, although the separation plan is a public document. There is no safeguard against the transfer or replication of imported nuclear technology to the benefit of the military. In effect the draft agreement is a blank cheque. It should be brought in line with the unconditional permanent safeguards model, with no room for interpretive ambiguity.

The objective of the international community should be to link support for India’s legitimate energy needs with extending safeguards to all its power generation and breeder reactors, leaving a limited military capacity, and to use it as a model for other non-NPT states. To do otherwise would be a grave disservice to non-proliferation objectives, and to regional and international peace and security.

The writer, a former diplomat, headed Pakistan delegations in nuclear CBMs talks with India from 2004 to 2007.

Government Wins Manmohan Singh Loses #59 Posted by anil on July 24, 2008 8:52:04 pm

So the two issues that people bring up are moot..

i.e.
1. OH NOES!! India can't test

2. Oh NOES!! what about Iran...

Government Wins Manmohan Singh Loses #36 Posted by pmishra2 on July 24, 2008 9:04:48 am


You would think that before this vote indian democracy was completely free of corruption or vote buying !


You nailed it...and to hear the kuldip nayyars tell it, you'd think India's relationship with Iran was the most important relationship in India's history EVER...or that india could have just tested a whole bunch of nukes if it hadn't signed this deal...

Government Wins Manmohan Singh Loses #30 Posted by dost_mittar on July 24, 2008 7:51:52 am


it will have to decide how to vote on the Iran issue.


Two questions....

1. What if the deal hadn't been signed...do you think it would have been easier for india to go for another round of tests?

2. Why is it a big deal if India throws Iran under the bus or sits on the fence? what great strategic interest does India have with Iran...and is this interest bigger that it's relationship with the US...

Government Wins Manmohan Singh Loses #22 Posted by dost_mittar on July 24, 2008 7:09:54 am

Like I said, this deal is only important until india can get the U-Pu-Thorium cycle going...once that's done, it'll have enough power from it's thorium plants while having saved it's indigenous supplies of uranium for bombs...

Government Wins Manmohan Singh Loses to hear pakis tell it, the deal means slavery for india...if so, why are they begging for a deal even after being repeatedly turned down....?

Pakistan desire similar nuclear deal with US; Qureshi PDF Print E-mail

LONDON, July 24 (APP)-Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has said his country desire a similar nuclear deal with US as it has done with India. Responding to questions at the conclusion of his keynote address at the British Security think tank-International Institute for Strategic Studies- on Thursday afternoon, the Foreign Minister said Indo-US nuclear agreement must not be discriminatory in nature.

“Pakistan should be eligible for the same facility,” he said citing country’s growing energy requirements and needs.

Government Wins Manmohan Singh Loses
as it imposes a virtual ban on any nuclear weapons testing by India while its adversaries, especially China, face no such restriction.


The only way this would be a ban is if india were giving away it's nuclear weapons...and, as you say in your article, it's not..

so this point is moot...india can test if it wants...the consequences will be no worse than what happened in 98..

hats off to manmohan...the best leader india has had...ever..