PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan's AQ Khan: No Bangladesh if we had nuke


Zunaid
May 17, 2011, 07:19 PM
From DS:

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=186203

From the original Newsweek article:

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/pakistan-s-a-q-khan-my-nuclear-manifesto.html

If we had had nuclear capability before 1971, we would not have lost half of our country—present-day Bangladesh—after disgraceful defeat.

Electrequiem
May 17, 2011, 07:24 PM
Now they have nukes ... but they are en route to losing all of their country - present day Pakistan - after disgraceful political, moral, financial misconduct. Karma is a b*tch.
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Android)

Fazal
May 17, 2011, 08:10 PM
They should be thankful that they didn't.

If they had nuke in 1971 , they would have lost their whole country instead.

roman
May 17, 2011, 10:20 PM
They should be thankful that they didn't.

If they had nuke in 1971 , they would have lost their whole country instead.
well said vai...

Alchemist
May 17, 2011, 10:25 PM
Now they have nukes ... but they are en route to losing all of their country - present day Pakistan - after disgraceful political, moral, financial misconduct. Karma is a b*tch.
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Android)

Beautifully said.

People like AQ Khan are living in the past and need to wake up to see the reality.

al Furqaan
May 17, 2011, 10:44 PM
there are 2 possible elements to the quote by AQ Khan.

1) that Bangladesh had no reason to seperate.

this is false, and i hope most people are opposed to this potential element of what AQ Khan may have been trying to say.

2) that India would have stopped short of a full scale war had Pakistan had nukes back then.

most probably true for the following reasons. there has never, IIRC, in the history of nuclear weapons dating back to 1945, been a single example of a full scale war (Kargil doesn't count due to overall small scale) between 2 nations that have nuclear weapons capability. there has however, been countless examples of disputes between nuclear-non-nuclear and non-nuclear/non-nuclear parties.

****notice i said "full scale" above. it is possible, depending on how brave that Indian administration might have been at the time of a "limited" war. i.e they would engage with Pakistani forces but would never strongly enough so as to push them into hitting the button. this quite hypothetical tho, hence its only a logical possibilty and far from a certainty.

Alchemist
May 17, 2011, 11:02 PM
Most of the people in present day Pakistan still believes that 'they' were defeated by Indian Army in 1971 and try to play down the role of Mukti Bahini in that war.

They just simply can't take the fact that their so called 'best' army in the world got pawned by our brave Mukti Bahini (made of farmers and students) so much that it took India to 'officially' defeat them only 10 days! Still they have the mouth to talk about this (people like AQ Khan).

Epic Fail.

magic boy
May 17, 2011, 11:05 PM
No wonder why this scientist argues this way. This portrays the actual mentality of a nation like Pakistan in many aspects.only a terrorist could talk like this. They they wanted to root out a whole peace loving unarmed nation like Bangladesh due to silly religion & political lame excuse. By Genocide`71 their army showed how cruel they can be.

wtf! you were not satisfied enough by killing +raping+torturing+oppressing our people!! now you express your bloody sickest desire of bombing nuke on us, if you had that!? go to hell morons!

Dilscoop
May 17, 2011, 11:16 PM
#Jutamaar

iDumb
May 17, 2011, 11:18 PM
NO AQ Khan if his dad had condoms.

al Furqaan
May 17, 2011, 11:35 PM
Most of the people in present day Pakistan still believes that 'they' were defeated by Indian Army in 1971 and try to play down the role of Mukti Bahini in that war.

They just simply can't take the fact that their so called 'best' army in the world got pawned by our brave Mukti Bahini (made of farmers and students) so much that it took India to 'officially' defeat them only 10 days! Still they have the mouth to talk about this (people like AQ Khan).

Epic Fail.

Alchemist bhai, it would have been possible in theory, for us to have won our independence without Indian intervention. However, it would have taken a protracted guerilla campaign that would have bled our people in an unbelievable way. In all likelyhood, we would have been devastated. If even 1 million people were killed in 9 months, imagine the scale had it gone on for 10 years.

While it is true that popular rebellions are seldom ever crushed, they also rarely ever succeed on their own.

Thats not to say that we owe the Indians anything. They pursued their self interest (by and large) and for once, it coincided with our national interests. As anyone will agree, our interests have been mostly divergent since that time.

asdfjkl
May 17, 2011, 11:45 PM
"Our nuclear-weapons program has given us an impregnable defense"

HAH HAH ...

Dilscoop
May 17, 2011, 11:47 PM
I can't wait till Obama take down these Pakies. Freaking Osama feeders

Bonglababu
May 18, 2011, 12:02 AM
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdWlrNDWyGaOvrOq-siqtzZnGAODsla7o7z8mekYljvao3gNI2

Isnaad
May 18, 2011, 12:12 AM
Great joke AQ! XD And I would have become the most famous scientist on earth if I had my PC in the early 1900s! 8)
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

Rabz
May 18, 2011, 12:55 AM
There used to be time when I'd have said, " I want what he is having."
Puff puff pass.

Alas its a new decade.

mac
May 18, 2011, 01:33 AM
^he is having some from his own farm. he is actually advertising his products.
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Android)

HereWeGo
May 18, 2011, 09:58 AM
Drone him!!!! Cmon USA, he is a bigger threat than those uneducated militants at the Afghan Pakistan border....

PLS PLS Arrest him with your seals or just drone the B@stard

Banglaguy
May 18, 2011, 01:55 PM
Well tough luck mate... I mean, by 2015 we'll be a nuclear power.

Rifat_02
May 18, 2011, 02:40 PM
I am trying to imagine what would happen if Al Qaeda gets hold of those nukes in Pakistan. Security & intelligence forces in Pak are in shambles, half those forces are probably extremists.

US should be more worried with Pak having nukes than Iran
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

AhmedN
May 18, 2011, 04:57 PM
'Unrealistic' comment by a scientist of a defeated nation.

Had they nukes in that time, they must not have West Pakistan.

al Furqaan
May 19, 2011, 11:01 AM
I am trying to imagine what would happen if Al Qaeda gets hold of those nukes in Pakistan. Security & intelligence forces in Pak are in shambles, half those forces are probably extremists.

US should be more worried with Pak having nukes than Iran
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

see the problem with thinking like a western neo-con is that, generally speaking, it necessitates illogical thinking and making "connections" out of what is, in reality, a bunch of disparate pieces of sensationalism.

what would happen if AQ got their hands on a nuke?

the answer is the same thing would happen if they got their hands on a box of Trojan Magnums. in other words, pretty much nothing noteworthy.

you see a nuke is not a stick of dynamite, its not a conventional chemical explosive. whats the difference you might ask?

a stick of dynamite is dangerous in the wrong hands. a stick of dynamite can be used by a 5 year old. all he has to do is light the fuse and voila. all it requires is watching one 20 minute episode of Looney Tunes to understand the practical use of it.

a nuke, not so simple.

suppose you had a nuke in your bedroom. how to set it off? there's no fuse. there's no "push here to activate" button. lets say you did activate it. how would you get it to its intended destination without being in its kilometer-magnitude blast radius? bear in mind it weighs several hundred kilos, so hurling it like a molatov probably won't work.

the reality is that stealing and using even a single weapon would require great technical know how. which is why PhD scientists usually work at such fascilities. loading a warhead on a missle and launching it, then guiding it to its target, as well as cracking any computer security passwords is actually rocket science.

its not something you and i could do for fun after an episode of binge drinking.

HereWeGo
May 19, 2011, 09:51 PM
see the problem with thinking like a western neo-con is that, generally speaking, it necessitates illogical thinking and making "connections" out of what is, in reality, a bunch of disparate pieces of sensationalism.

what would happen if AQ got their hands on a nuke?

the answer is the same thing would happen if they got their hands on a box of Trojan Magnums. in other words, pretty much nothing noteworthy.

you see a nuke is not a stick of dynamite, its not a conventional chemical explosive. whats the difference you might ask?

a stick of dynamite is dangerous in the wrong hands. a stick of dynamite can be used by a 5 year old. all he has to do is light the fuse and voila. all it requires is watching one 20 minute episode of Looney Tunes to understand the practical use of it.

a nuke, not so simple.

suppose you had a nuke in your bedroom. how to set it off? there's no fuse. there's no "push here to activate" button. lets say you did activate it. how would you get it to its intended destination without being in its kilometer-magnitude blast radius? bear in mind it weighs several hundred kilos, so hurling it like a molatov probably won't work.

the reality is that stealing and using even a single weapon would require great technical know how. which is why PhD scientists usually work at such fascilities. loading a warhead on a missle and launching it, then guiding it to its target, as well as cracking any computer security passwords is actually rocket science.

its not something you and i could do for fun after an episode of binge drinking.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5127462544428235727#

watch the video and you would realize that there is nothing sensationalism about the fear!!!
It just takes one man with the know how and a wrong motive to cause a disaster. AQ Khan had the potential to be that wrong man. And it wont surprise me if that wrong man originates from Pakistan again...

Jadukor
May 19, 2011, 10:17 PM
Alchemist bhai, it would have been possible in theory, for us to have won our independence without Indian intervention. However, it would have taken a protracted guerilla campaign that would have bled our people in an unbelievable way. In all likelyhood, we would have been devastated. If even 1 million people were killed in 9 months, imagine the scale had it gone on for 10 years.

While it is true that popular rebellions are seldom ever crushed, they also rarely ever succeed on their own.

Thats not to say that we owe the Indians anything. They pursued their self interest (by and large) and for once, it coincided with our national interests. As anyone will agree, our interests have been mostly divergent since that time.
Very nicely put...

HereWeGo
May 19, 2011, 11:11 PM
Alchemist bhai, it would have been possible in theory, for us to have won our independence without Indian intervention. However, it would have taken a protracted guerilla campaign that would have bled our people in an unbelievable way. In all likelyhood, we would have been devastated. If even 1 million people were killed in 9 months, imagine the scale had it gone on for 10 years.

While it is true that popular rebellions are seldom ever crushed, they also rarely ever succeed on their own.

Thats not to say that we owe the Indians anything. They pursued their self interest (by and large) and for once, it coincided with our national interests. As anyone will agree, our interests have been mostly divergent since that time.

Even the Guerilla campaign was possible because of the arms and training provided by the Indians. While most of the help provided by the indians can be termed for their self interest but when was the last time we did something big for another country without our own interest being involved?
Also India did provide refuge to millions of bengalis for 9 months, they literally opened the border, which they did not really need to do. So I guess credit must be given where due. With SMR in the Pakistan Jail, Indira Gandhi made it her top priority to gather support for Bangladesh all over the world. And India was the first country to recognise us while all the muslim countries took its own sweet time because we weren't muslim enough.
Now we can blame India for building dams but we have also harbored their terrorists in our own soil for years while these terrorists carried out their terror campaigns. I dont know which is worse but we should definitely try to built better ties with India more than Pakistan. Latter killed millions, involved in nuclear proliferation, harbors no 1 terrorists and educates kids with all the wrong morals and values.

Jadukor
May 20, 2011, 12:18 AM
see the problem with thinking like a western neo-con is that, generally speaking, it necessitates illogical thinking and making "connections" out of what is, in reality, a bunch of disparate pieces of sensationalism.

what would happen if AQ got their hands on a nuke?

the answer is the same thing would happen if they got their hands on a box of Trojan Magnums. in other words, pretty much nothing noteworthy.

you see a nuke is not a stick of dynamite, its not a conventional chemical explosive. whats the difference you might ask?

a stick of dynamite is dangerous in the wrong hands. a stick of dynamite can be used by a 5 year old. all he has to do is light the fuse and voila. all it requires is watching one 20 minute episode of Looney Tunes to understand the practical use of it.

a nuke, not so simple.

suppose you had a nuke in your bedroom. how to set it off? there's no fuse. there's no "push here to activate" button. lets say you did activate it. how would you get it to its intended destination without being in its kilometer-magnitude blast radius? bear in mind it weighs several hundred kilos, so hurling it like a molatov probably won't work.

the reality is that stealing and using even a single weapon would require great technical know how. which is why PhD scientists usually work at such fascilities. loading a warhead on a missle and launching it, then guiding it to its target, as well as cracking any computer security passwords is actually rocket science.

its not something you and i could do for fun after an episode of binge drinking.
I disgaree. Even though Al Qaeda do not have the technical know how to develop a nuke it would be foolish to undermine its ability to set one off. I mean modern tactical nukes do not set off on impact...they are armed via electronic codes... which i assume they would also acquire along with the nuke.

Come on if Pakistani Military can blast one at their Test site...it can't require too much intelligence. We must not forget that this is the same organization that operates on a global network and orchestrated simultaneous attacks during 9/11 passing swiftly under the radar of U.S intelligence network.

Your arguement about how the perpretrator would get away from the blast radius is not valid either.. because he wouldn't even make an effort just like the other drone that are simply brain washed to die...

bujhee kom
May 21, 2011, 02:30 AM
Hahahahah....Is this AQ Khan the same Pakistani Khan who sold neclear documents to a completely volatile regime/dictator like North Korea just for cash!! Also sold to Iran and Libiya!! Libiya, can you believe it, to Qaddafi!! Just as same as the match fixing cricketers that they produce!! Violating humanity and sport simultaniously! What is it with this place on earth that is nothing but sheer embarrassment for the modern human race and humanity!

Qadeer Khan, you fool, both Pakistan and India are beautiful, rich country with great history, artifacts, heritage and culture. The difference is India showcases it's multiculturism and all it's ethnic/religious groups' contributions (look at the Mughal and Delhi/Gujarat Sultanat archeological sites and how they present them, take pride in them, after being a predominantly Hindu nation)to its fullest benifit when in contrast in Pakistan if there was anything rich, rare, priceless of archeological, historical importance if it is of Buddhist/Hindu significance, it gets destroyed, defaced as in those Buddha statues destroyed by the Talibans in Afghanisthan. That right there shows the clear decay, the depression of a delusional, violant and lost leadership/people.

A big mouth but not much of action!

bujhee kom
May 21, 2011, 03:02 AM
Even the Guerilla campaign was possible because of the arms and training provided by the Indians. While most of the help provided by the indians can be termed for their self interest but when was the last time we did something big for another country without our own interest being involved?
Also India did provide refuge to millions of bengalis for 9 months, they literally opened the border, which they did not really need to do. So I guess credit must be given where due. With SMR in the Pakistan Jail, Indira Gandhi made it her top priority to gather support for Bangladesh all over the world. And India was the first country to recognise us while all the muslim countries took its own sweet time because we weren't muslim enough.
Now we can blame India for building dams but we have also harbored their terrorists in our own soil for years while these terrorists carried out their terror campaigns. I dont know which is worse but we should definitely try to built better ties with India more than Pakistan. Latter killed millions, involved in nuclear proliferation, harbors no 1 terrorists and educates kids with all the wrong morals and values.

Majority of the major wealthy middle-eastern monarch countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran directly sent cash and support to Pakistan to buy weapons and ammunitions directly for the purpose of suppressing and derailing Bangladesh's birth.

Banglatiger84
May 21, 2011, 03:00 PM
Quite a few Pakistanis believe their holy ISI "destroyed the Soviet Union", and that they will similarly destroy the US and the West and India and Israel and everyone else.
Others believe if Zia was alive Pakistan would have conquered India by now
So its hard for the ones who are delusional to admit they lost to Mukti Bahini...

HereWeGo
May 21, 2011, 05:45 PM
Quite a few Pakistanis believe their holy ISI "destroyed the Soviet Union", and that they will similarly destroy the US and the West and India and Israel and everyone else.
Others believe if Zia was alive Pakistan would have conquered India by now
So its hard for the ones who are delusional to admit they lost to Mukti Bahini...

They also believe that they are the flag bearer of Islam. I think it was Zia (Pakistani military dictator) who compared Pakistan is to muslims as Israel is to the Jews. LOL, its a different story that no muslim from another country would ever like to apply for a Pakistani passport!!! :D

al Furqaan
May 21, 2011, 08:39 PM
Even the Guerilla campaign was possible because of the arms and training provided by the Indians. While most of the help provided by the indians can be termed for their self interest but when was the last time we did something big for another country without our own interest being involved?

i think the big point is being missed here. the fact that India acted [mostly] in self interest is only relevant in the context of countering those who would praise her for non-existent altruism. India may or may not be a hostile state, and even that is a relative designation.


Also India did provide refuge to millions of bengalis for 9 months, they literally opened the border, which they did not really need to do. So I guess credit must be given where due. With SMR in the Pakistan Jail, Indira Gandhi made it her top priority to gather support for Bangladesh all over the world. And India was the first country to recognise us while all the muslim countries took its own sweet time because we weren't muslim enough.

I used to think so also. But not anymore for a number of reasons. Firstly, the refugee issue must be taken into context of the over-riding foreign policy objective of defeating an enemy which straddles you on two opposite ends. Secondly, during war times, refugees always stream into neighboring areas. Two examples can be the Afghan refugees who are still in Pakistan. Majority of Afghans are agreed that Pakistan is a hostile state, even though have accepted refugees for 20+ years. The other example can be Palestinian refugees harbored in Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt. These nations have no regard for the human rights of their refugees - as exemplified by late King Husseins' massacre of them some years back - so obviously, there is humanitarianism there and most importantly, keeping these refugees is part of their primary foreign policy aimed towards Israel.


Now we can blame India for building dams but we have also harbored their terrorists in our own soil for years while these terrorists carried out their terror campaigns.

This no different than justifying Hamas since Israel also shoots at innocent school kids or vice versa. I think we can both agree that both parties are wrong since two wrongs don't make a right. But that should also apply to Bangladesh and India. Especially when the wrongs are of totally disparate. More Bangladeshis have already been adversely affected by the damming which is a chronic issue than the 9 months of Pakistani war. So in terms of threats, personally, I would place India far above Pakistan not only on potential alone but in terms of tangible harm as well, which no one can deny. I don't think Bangladesh will ever achieve its potential as a nation due to internal corruption, and external Indian actions.

In the end, this is probably something that won't see unity, and Bangladeshis will have to agree to disagree at the detriment of their own well being until a generation arrives which can divorce petty emotion for realities on the ground. We should be in charge of our own destiny, not the Indians nor the Pakistanis.

HereWeGo
May 21, 2011, 09:27 PM
1) i think the big point is being missed here. the fact that India acted [mostly] in self interest is only relevant in the context of countering those who would praise her for non-existent altruism. India may or may not be a hostile state, and even that is a relative designation.




2) I used to think so also. But not anymore for a number of reasons. Firstly, the refugee issue must be taken into context of the over-riding foreign policy objective of defeating an enemy which straddles you on two opposite ends. Secondly, during war times, refugees always stream into neighboring areas. Two examples can be the Afghan refugees who are still in Pakistan. Majority of Afghans are agreed that Pakistan is a hostile state, even though have accepted refugees for 20+ years. The other example can be Palestinian refugees harbored in Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt. These nations have no regard for the human rights of their refugees - as exemplified by late King Husseins' massacre of them some years back - so obviously, there is humanitarianism there and most importantly, keeping these refugees is part of their primary foreign policy aimed towards Israel.



3)This no different than justifying Hamas since Israel also shoots at innocent school kids or vice versa. I think we can both agree that both parties are wrong since two wrongs don't make a right. But that should also apply to Bangladesh and India. Especially when the wrongs are of totally disparate. More Bangladeshis have already been adversely affected by the damming which is a chronic issue than the 9 months of Pakistani war. So in terms of threats, personally, I would place India far above Pakistan not only on potential alone but in terms of tangible harm as well, which no one can deny. I don't think Bangladesh will ever achieve its potential as a nation due to internal corruption, and external Indian actions.

In the end, this is probably something that won't see unity, and Bangladeshis will have to agree to disagree at the detriment of their own well being until a generation arrives which can divorce petty emotion for realities on the ground. We should be in charge of our own destiny, not the Indians nor the Pakistanis.

1) There is nothing to suggest that India was ever hostile towards Bangladesh. The dams that are build are not because they want to show hostility towards bangladesh but more an act to support its own population.

2) Now I cannot agree at all with your second point. Here are my two reasons. i) Bangladesh doesn't open its borders for the Myanmar rohingas southeast of our border, although they are persecuted by the Myanmar Junta. Again not because we are inhuman but mostly because our economy cannot sustain hundreds and thousands of myanmar refugees. Remember India was not a economic powerhouse during the 70s either. ii) the example you give for Pakistan and Afghanistan is not valid since Pakhtuns live on both sides of the Durand line in the federally administered tribal areas. Afghanistan doesnt even recognise the durand line. The border has been porous since ever and Pakhtuns consider it as their land and it is not guarded by the pakistan security force.

Hence the fact that a relatively weak economy of India during the 70's allowed millions of us in their country deserves the praise.

3)When any country is surrounded by a powerhouse than there is this neighbor jealousy that always exist (USA and Canada). The dam is an issue for sure, but We did manage to get fair share of water with Farakka Dam. Opposition would dismiss the fact but again that is entirely petty politics.
As far as Tipaimukh is concerned, I believe that the Indian premier has promised not to do anything that would adversely affect bangladesh. They even invited a parliamentary committee from Bangladesh to brief on the issue, which the opposition denied to sent any of its representatives. Again the simple reason is so they can oppose and create anarchy.

Now Pakistan is a threat to Bangladesh because most of the terror fundings are coming either from middle-east or from Pakistan. Some of the JMB terrorists recieved their training from Pakistan. As a country they have more nukes than both india and China. While people are dying of starvation, they are more interested in spending billions on toys for Army and building more plutonium enrichment plants (there was a CNN report on this 2 days back) .... Bigger Threat is Pakistan hands down. Not only for BD but for the western world as a whole.

al Furqaan
May 21, 2011, 11:03 PM
1) There is nothing to suggest that India was ever hostile towards Bangladesh. The dams that are build are not because they want to show hostility towards bangladesh but more an act to support its own population.


they should at least negotiate if they are not hostile, especially since they understand the implications. if bangladesh was a more powerful country, India would not be able to be so unilateral.

2) Now I cannot agree at all with your second point. Here are my two reasons. i) Bangladesh doesn't open its borders for the Myanmar rohingas southeast of our border, although they are persecuted by the Myanmar Junta. Again not because we are inhuman but mostly because our economy cannot sustain hundreds and thousands of myanmar refugees. Remember India was not a economic powerhouse during the 70s either.

what about the Arabs/Palestinians then?

regardless, this is because the cost of hosting the refugees is not a seperate cost, but a component of the pricetag of a foreign policy objective. India accepted the cost of hosting bangladeshi refugees knowing that a) it was going towards their 2nd most important foreign policy objective which was to neuter pakistan. since you will agree that pakistan is actually more of a danger to India than China, this would make it their MOST important foreign policy objective, at least retrospectively if not back in 1971. bangladesh has no such foreign policy objective vis a vis Burma to exploit the Rohingyas with. b) an independent bangladesh could potentially be used as it has been used which would in the long run, overrun the cost of hosting refugees for 9 months.

ii) the example you give for Pakistan and Afghanistan is not valid since Pakhtuns live on both sides of the Durand line in the federally administered tribal areas. Afghanistan doesnt even recognise the durand line. The border has been porous since ever and Pakhtuns consider it as their land and it is not guarded by the pakistan security force.

if that is the case, Bengalis live on both sides of the river too. and loads more than Pashtuns. but that is an irrelevant point regardless, IMO, because obviously the Pashtun refugees are coming from the Afghan side, which is for all intents and purposes a seperate country. just because the Pashtun tribes don't recognize the border - and many of them do not - does not mean that Afghanistan and Pakistan are a single country. Afghanistan, Pakistan, the UN, everyone recognizes the border and that Pakistan's economy is seperate from Afghanistans. this means that Pakistan is the one who is paying for these Afghan refugees. secondly, who said that all the refugees are Pashtuns? there could be Tajik and Hazara and other groups among the refugees as well. Pashtuns only make up 30-40% of Afghanistan's population.

Hence the fact that a relatively weak economy of India during the 70's allowed millions of us in their country deserves the praise.


not in the context of the grander scheme of self interest i.e neutering Pakistan.

3)When any country is surrounded by a powerhouse than there is this neighbor jealousy that always exist (USA and Canada). The dam is an issue for sure, but We did manage to get fair share of water with Farakka Dam. Opposition would dismiss the fact but again that is entirely petty politics.
As far as Tipaimukh is concerned, I believe that the Indian premier has promised not to do anything that would adversely affect bangladesh. They even invited a parliamentary committee from Bangladesh to brief on the issue, which the opposition denied to sent any of its representatives. Again the simple reason is so they can oppose and create anarchy.

i am unaware of the details, but you brought up the Dam issue and agreed that it is a source of a problem, albeit a small one. i am not sure it is quite so small given how water-based our country's economy is.


Now Pakistan is a threat to Bangladesh because most of the terror fundings are coming either from middle-east or from Pakistan. Some of the JMB terrorists recieved their training from Pakistan. As a country they have more nukes than both india and China. While people are dying of starvation, they are more interested in spending billions on toys for Army and building more plutonium enrichment plants (there was a CNN report on this 2 days back) .... Bigger Threat is Pakistan hands down. Not only for BD but for the western world as a whole.

Pakistan is a bigger threat for the western world, yes. I will agree. BD, not so much. I think the JMB issue is blow out of proportion to the danger they pose. Again, I'm not arguing that they aren't a problem, but my argument is that they are a proverbial mosquito in the room and not a cobra. Why?

If the JMB has potential to wreak havok, and I mean something that is even equal in size than any of the other myriad criminal threats we have in Bangaldesh, what are they waiting for? Perhaps they are waiting for Qiyamat? Some other event? As opposed to the havok caused on a daily basis in Pakistan, on the count of scores of persons killed per day, the number in BD is perhaps a score killed in the past 5 years. In other words, blown heavily out of proportion. Serial killing cannibal nuns in Italy pose a greater threat purely based on the numbers.

Not to mention that JMB is an internal Bangladeshi problem. How much of the funding comes from Pakistan as opposed to the middle east? At some point Bangladesh should take responsibility for her own militants. I hate to sound like the resident Pakistan advocate, but most of these things don't make sense. I mean who ever heard of terrorists, who don't commit terrorism? What exactly is JMB waiting for?

Zeeshan
May 22, 2011, 12:57 AM
Looks like Mr A--Quotient took the 1999 world cup defeat a little too seriously.

Nafi
May 22, 2011, 07:18 AM
1) There is nothing to suggest that India was ever hostile towards Bangladesh.


:floor:

The biggest joke I have seen on this forum.

Banglaguy
May 22, 2011, 07:37 AM
:floor:

The biggest joke I have seen on this forum.

Haha... Actually, second form me...

firstlane
May 22, 2011, 07:56 AM
no aq khan if his dad had condoms.

hahahaaaa

HereWeGo
May 22, 2011, 09:55 AM
Pakistan is a bigger threat for the western world, yes. I will agree. BD, not so much. I think the JMB issue is blow out of proportion to the danger they pose. Again, I'm not arguing that they aren't a problem, but my argument is that they are a proverbial mosquito in the room and not a cobra. Why?

If the JMB has potential to wreak havok, and I mean something that is even equal in size than any of the other myriad criminal threats we have in Bangaldesh, what are they waiting for? Perhaps they are waiting for Qiyamat? Some other event? As opposed to the havok caused on a daily basis in Pakistan, on the count of scores of persons killed per day, the number in BD is perhaps a score killed in the past 5 years. In other words, blown heavily out of proportion. Serial killing cannibal nuns in Italy pose a greater threat purely based on the numbers.

Not to mention that JMB is an internal Bangladeshi problem. How much of the funding comes from Pakistan as opposed to the middle east? At some point Bangladesh should take responsibility for her own militants. I hate to sound like the resident Pakistan advocate, but most of these things don't make sense. I mean who ever heard of terrorists, who don't commit terrorism? What exactly is JMB waiting for?

I have already explained the dam issue, you can do your own research to verify that fact. I would like to know how else you think India may be a threat to Bangladesh?

Now back to Pakistan, you dont hear abt JMB bombings in recent years is because their network has been destroyed from the core. However they did wreck havoc during the years that they existed. But that is not to suggest that the threat is forever gone because the line of fund is still there. Islami bank of Bangladesh is now being investigated about its link to this terror funding. Sources suggest that a lot of it originated from Pakistan. While JMB does not exist anymore but a lot of other banned parties do operate inside Bangladesh (Hizb-ur-Tahrir) and posses massive risk.

Not too long ago, 3 Pakistani nationals were arrested inside Bangladesh for planning to target the US embassy inside Bangladesh.

No one can deny the Jaamat link to Pakistan, JMB originated from Jamat and hence Matiur Rahman Nizami denied that the group even existed. See the connection.

Not to mention, ISI is a very strong organization and elements inside ISI allegedly linked to Al-qaeda. Now when the major secret service agency of a country is so badly infiltrated by a terrorist organization, they do posses massive risk. (ISI links to Al-Qaeda is alleged but can be easily verified through some of the comments made by Hamid Gul who is now a retired ISI chief).

Nafi
May 22, 2011, 12:54 PM
I have already explained the dam issue, you can do your own research to verify that fact. I would like to know how else you think India may be a threat to Bangladesh?

Now back to Pakistan, you dont hear abt JMB bombings in recent years is because their network has been destroyed from the core. However they did wreck havoc during the years that they existed. But that is not to suggest that the threat is forever gone because the line of fund is still there. Islami bank of Bangladesh is now being investigated about its link to this terror funding. Sources suggest that a lot of it originated from Pakistan. While JMB does not exist anymore but a lot of other banned parties do operate inside Bangladesh (Hizb-ur-Tahrir) and posses massive risk.

Not too long ago, 3 Pakistani nationals were arrested inside Bangladesh for planning to target the US embassy inside Bangladesh.

No one can deny the Jaamat link to Pakistan, JMB originated from Jamat and hence Matiur Rahman Nizami denied that the group even existed. See the connection.

Not to mention, ISI is a very strong organization and elements inside ISI allegedly linked to Al-qaeda. Now when the major secret service agency of a country is so badly infiltrated by a terrorist organization, they do posses massive risk. (ISI links to Al-Qaeda is alleged but can be easily verified through some of the comments made by Hamid Gul who is now a retired ISI chief).

This hogwash is all based on speculation, for all we know it is indian RAW agents who are conspiring these organisations. Though the most likely culprit are wahabisits in Saudi Arabia. Pointing the finger at Pakistan is silly, Pakistan gains nothing from destabilising Bangladesh, but India gains everything.

It is India not Pakistan that kills innocent civilians in border areas, allow smuggling drugs and arms, bullies us into explotive deals, neglect Bangladesh's fair share of water, arm the Shanti Bahini in CHT, and prevents transit to Nepal/Bhutan/Chaina, as well as claiming contested territories that rightfully belong to us.

al Furqaan
May 22, 2011, 01:23 PM
I have already explained the dam issue, you can do your own research to verify that fact. I would like to know how else you think India may be a threat to Bangladesh?


1) the dam issue is from your your own admission. at best you justify it the same way some have justified hamas in the other thread by saying "oh well we harm them, so its ok for them to harm us". you haven't said that both are wrong, out of some sort of bout of Indophilia mixed with latent Islamophobia.

not only that, but more people - tens of millions - are directly affected by the dams than the number of people who have been directly or indirectly affected by pakistani agents in Bangladesh.

2a) economic bullying. now i don't profess to know much about economics but i do know a few basic things. that billion dollar loan inked by the BAL is economic slavery in the same way that when i borrow some money from my parents i have to do exactly what they say. why can't we use that billion dollars to arm and train our BSF guards? why can't we use it to build more madrassas? why can't we use it for hospitals or invest it in something useful? a credit card is a loan with a very bad interest rate, but even then you are allowed to spend your credit line on whatever you want. you could spent it on hookers, if you like. here the interest rate is a relatively low 1.75% - which still comes out to ton of money over the 20 year plan - but we have to spend it on a project that is not necessarily our most pressing need of the hour. now we see the deal stalling, which IMO, is a good thing. better to be poor and not owe anyone than be in debt to a loanshark.

2b) trade imbalance as pointed out by someone else on FC forum. there is a glut of Indian products in BD, products which are probably not any better than our domestic substitutes and probably far inferior to slightly more expensive chinese products.

3) border issues. i understand the need to protect borders, but any country which shoots to kill illegal migrants operates in a different state of "altruism" than one that accepts 10 million refugees 40 years earlier. The US doesn't shoot Mexican illegals who pose a much greater security risk with their drugs and criminal records than the average BD migrant.



Now back to Pakistan, you dont hear abt JMB bombings in recent years is because their network has been destroyed from the core. However they did wreck havoc during the years that they existed. But that is not to suggest that the threat is forever gone because the line of fund is still there. Islami bank of Bangladesh is now being investigated about its link to this terror funding. Sources suggest that a lot of it originated from Pakistan. While JMB does not exist anymore but a lot of other banned parties do operate inside Bangladesh (Hizb-ur-Tahrir) and posses massive risk.

Not too long ago, 3 Pakistani nationals were arrested inside Bangladesh for planning to target the US embassy inside Bangladesh.

No one can deny the Jaamat link to Pakistan, JMB originated from Jamat and hence Matiur Rahman Nizami denied that the group even existed. See the connection.



what was JMB's body count in their peak years? Security in Bangladesh is very very weak, not just compared to western countries, but compared to India even. Law enforcement is also highly corrupt. Given the lack of any major terrorist activity in Bangladesh, I'd say the threat is virtually non-existent. Just consider the fact that India has had dozens of terror attacks in the past 5 years from Islamist and Maoist sources. Bangladesh has had zero because if even one person was injured in an attack, we'd have a large thread on FC about it since its actually news. Contrast to Pakistan (where the terror threat is actually present) there are massive attacks every day and no threads pop up, because that is business as usual. See the difference?

As far as I know, HuT is a non-violent khilafat movement. As stated in wikipedia:

Some observers believe Hizb ut-Tahrir is the victim of false allegations of connections to terrorism, pointing out that the organization explicitly commits itself to non-violence.[9] Others argue that the group's opposition to violence is tactical and temporary,[10] and that it works to create a politically charged atmosphere conducive to terrorism.

At worse its admitted that HuT is non-violent but only strategically so.

Bottom line is that Bangladesh is a very moderate, liberal Islamic country. None of the usual terrorist shaningans fly there. It is also disconnected geographically from the rest of the muslim world.

Not to mention, ISI is a very strong organization and elements inside ISI allegedly linked to Al-qaeda. Now when the major secret service agency of a country is so badly infiltrated by a terrorist organization, they do posses massive risk. (ISI links to Al-Qaeda is alleged but can be easily verified through some of the comments made by Hamid Gul who is now a retired ISI chief)

Agreed. But the threat of ISI or AQ is actually over-exagerrated in the West even. There are quite a few CIA/FBI analysts who have attested to that. As an American, I have a greater risk of being killed by a drunk driver, drug-related killing, car accident, or heart disease than I do of being killed by a terrorist. More Americans died in their sleep in the past 10 years than have died from terrorist attacks.

The threat of AQ in muslim countries is actually higher than it is in the west. Bali, Istanbul, Casablanca, Amman, Karachi and Lahore will attest to that. Bangladesh is for the most part an anomaly within that context in the Muslim world. It is a very low profile nation, and asides from that isolated incident you mentiond, there hasn't been anything big around here.

HereWeGo
May 22, 2011, 01:28 PM
This hogwash is all based on speculation, for all we know it is indian RAW agents who are conspiring these organisations. Though the most likely culprit are wahabisits in Saudi Arabia. Pointing the finger at Pakistan is silly, Pakistan gains nothing from destabilising Bangladesh, but India gains everything.

It is India not Pakistan that kills innocent civilians in border areas, allow smuggling drugs and arms, bullies us into explotive deals, neglect Bangladesh's fair share of water, arm the Shanti Bahini in CHT, and prevents transit to Nepal/Bhutan/Chaina, as well as claiming contested territories that rightfully belong to us.

Please enlighten me on which point I made was a speculation?
I did not mention that Tipaimukh wont affect Bangladesh because frankly I dont know. What I do know is that the Indian Premier has promised not to build the dam if it effects Bangladesh adversely. Also what I do know is that Parliamentary comitte from Bangladesh was invited by India to brief on the issue. BNP did not send any of its representatives there for no good reason except to keep it a source of tension.

As far as border smuggling is concerned, BDR is there for the sole purpose of preventing smuggling. What are they doing?

Shanti bahini lead by shantu Larma signed a peace treaty more than a decade back.

We did not let india till recently to use our territory for transit, dont know why u are shouting as if its our right to use india from transit.

Bottom line, a peace in the region helps everyone. Pakistan is a threat because they breed radical ways of thinking. And govt is not in full control of the army and ISI. And they are proven to harbor both number 1 terrorists of India and USA inside their territory. Nothing I said is speculation. All based on facts...

U are the one relying on conspiracy theories by bringing RAW and all.

HereWeGo
May 22, 2011, 01:45 PM
1) the dam issue is from your your own admission. at best you justify it the same way some have justified hamas in the other thread by saying "oh well we harm them, so its ok for them to harm us". you haven't said that both are wrong, out of some sort of bout of Indophilia mixed with latent Islamophobia.

not only that, but more people - tens of millions - are directly affected by the dams than the number of people who have been directly or indirectly affected by pakistani agents in Bangladesh.

2a) economic bullying. now i don't profess to know much about economics but i do know a few basic things. that billion dollar loan inked by the BAL is economic slavery in the same way that when i borrow some money from my parents i have to do exactly what they say. now we see the deal stalling, which IMO, is a good thing. better to be poor and not owe anyone than be in debt to a loanshark.

2b) trade imbalance as pointed out by someone else on FC forum. there is a glut of Indian products in BD, products which are probably not any better than our domestic substitutes and probably far inferior to slightly more expensive chinese products.

3) border issues. i understand the need to protect borders, but any country which shoots to kill illegal migrants operates in a different state of "altruism" than one that accepts 10 million refugees 40 years earlier. The US doesn't shoot Mexican illegals who pose a much greater security risk with their drugs and criminal records than the average BD migrant.




what was JMB's body count in their peak years? Security in Bangladesh is very very weak, not just compared to western countries, but compared to India even. Law enforcement is also highly corrupt. Given the lack of any major terrorist activity in Bangladesh, I'd say the threat is virtually non-existent. Just consider the fact that India has had dozens of terror attacks in the past 5 years from Islamist and Maoist sources. Bangladesh has had zero because if even one person was injured in an attack, we'd have a large thread on FC about it since its actually news. Contrast to Pakistan (where the terror threat is actually present) there are massive attacks every day and no threads pop up, because that is business as usual. See the difference?

As far as I know, HuT is a non-violent khilafat movement. As stated in wikipedia:



At worse its admitted that HuT is non-violent but only strategically so.

Bottom line is that Bangladesh is a very moderate, liberal Islamic country. None of the usual terrorist shaningans fly there. It is also disconnected geographically from the rest of the muslim world.



Agreed. But the threat of ISI or AQ is actually over-exagerrated in the West even. There are quite a few CIA/FBI analysts who have attested to that.

5) As an American, I have a greater risk of being killed by a drunk driver, drug-related killing, car accident, or heart disease than I do of being killed by a terrorist. More Americans died in their sleep in the past 10 years than have died from terrorist attacks.

The threat of AQ in muslim countries is actually higher than it is in the west. Bali, Istanbul, Casablanca, Amman, Karachi and Lahore will attest to that. Bangladesh is for the most part an anomaly within that context in the Muslim world. It is a very low profile nation, and asides from that isolated incident you mentiond, there hasn't been anything big around here.

1) Mentioned this before and just copy pasting it "I did not mention that Tipaimukh wont affect Bangladesh because frankly I dont know. What I do know is that the Indian Premier has promised not to build the dam if it effects Bangladesh adversely. Also what I do know is that Parliamentary comitte from Bangladesh was invited by India to brief on the issue. BNP did not send any of its representatives there for no good reason except to keep it a source of tension. "

2) Trade imbalance is a funny topic really!!! Yes there is a massive imbalance but not because we give them free access to our market and they dont, the reason is we need their product since we cannot produce enough. Importing onions or rice or any product is much cheaper from India than any other place in the world due to the close proximity of India. We can always impose heavy taxes on indian products, and we do that for luxury goods (like saree and cars), but we cant do that for food product because that would effect our own population. Who do you think would be more affected if there is a complete trade ban between the two?

3)Border guards are allowed to shoot people inside "no mans land", thats international law. Both BDR and BSF are equipped with assault rifles and not non lethal weapons. Hence when they shoot, people die. U can argue about that to the international court if you dont like the law.

4) HuT is a terrorist organisation as recognised by the west. Bangladesh has its own share of banned organisations like "Allah'd dal" etc (dont remember all the names). If you feel the west oer exagerrates Al Qaeda threat than I have nothing to say to you. They bombed embassies (kenya and Tanzania), Trains(Madrid), clubs (Bali) and even Pentagon itself (9/11) etc. And these organisation recives some logistical support from with in the Pak military. They want to expand their network in other muslim countries and hence they are a threat. Simple really...

5) About the bolded part, even one death in the hands of the terrorist is 1 too many. There is a famous bob dylan song "Blowing in the wind", below are couple of lines from that song
"how many deaths will it take till he knows
that too many people have died? "
I pose that question for you, how many deaths in the hand of Islamic militants like JMB will it take for you to call it too many?


One last request, please keep the discussion civil. No name calling please, I am a muslim myself and hating on the JMB or AlQaeda is not Islamophobia. And defending India is neither Indophilia. By that defination I can have two similar titles for you too :)

al Furqaan
May 23, 2011, 05:49 PM
Who do you think would be more affected if there is a complete trade ban between the two?


no one is talking about a wholesale ban. what i've done is provided a reason for "humanitarian" motives, and you've gone off the deep end with a question based on an extreme premise. you don't counter trade imbalances with zero trade, you correct it by countering the balance.

but even your extreme response has an answer. Chinese products are by and large several degrees superior to similarly priced Indian products. expand trade there. expand trade with Indonesia and Malaysia, look eastwards. look to Turkey which is one of the faster growing economies in Europe.



HuT is a terrorist organisation as recognised by the west. Bangladesh has its own share of banned organisations like "Allah'd dal" etc (dont remember all the names). If you feel the west oer exagerrates Al Qaeda threat than I have nothing to say to you. They bombed embassies (kenya and Tanzania), Trains(Madrid), clubs (Bali) and even Pentagon itself (9/11) etc. And these organisation recives some logistical support from with in the Pak military. They want to expand their network in other muslim countries and hence they are a threat. Simple really...

I'm basing on threat levels strictly by the numbers and by probability. Bangladesh Rifles has killed more people in Bangladesh in the past 10 years than HUT, JMB, JIB, JOB, JAB, JZB, and JKB combined. Statistically speaking, the Bangladesh Rifles are more of a threat than these groups. Boycott's grandmother is probably a bigger threat.

The fact of the matter is, there are CIA officials who agree the threat is exagerrated. Retired CIA official, Glen L Carle has stated:

We must not delude ourselves about the nature of the terrorist threat to our country. We must not take fright at the specter our leaders have exaggerated. In fact, we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are.

This is the US he's talking about. Bangladesh is slightly lower than US in terms of who the terrorists are after. It might explain why there's been 0 attacks in Bangladesh. 0 usually indicates a low level of threat.


I pose that question for you, how many deaths in the hand of Islamic militants like JMB will it take for you to call it too many?

Even a single injury is an injury too many.

Now how many deaths from a foreign and neighboring country (not naming any names) is would you consider too many? 100? 1000?

How many negatively affected victims would you consider too many? 1 million? 10 million?

And finally, what is the greater number, the answer to your question or the number of people killed + harmed by Islamic militants in Bangladesh?

HereWeGo
May 23, 2011, 11:11 PM
no one is talking about a wholesale ban. what i've done is provided a reason for "humanitarian" motives, and you've gone off the deep end with a question based on an extreme premise. you don't counter trade imbalances with zero trade, you correct it by countering the balance.

1) but even your extreme response has an answer. Chinese products are by and large several degrees superior to similarly priced Indian products. expand trade there. expand trade with Indonesia and Malaysia, look eastwards. look to Turkey which is one of the faster growing economies in Europe.





I'm basing on threat levels strictly by the numbers and by probability. Bangladesh Rifles has killed more people in Bangladesh in the past 10 years than HUT, JMB, JIB, JOB, JAB, JZB, and JKB combined. Statistically speaking, the Bangladesh Rifles are more of a threat than these groups. Boycott's grandmother is probably a bigger threat.

The fact of the matter is, there are CIA officials who agree the threat is exagerrated. Retired CIA official, Glen L Carle has stated:



This is the US he's talking about. Bangladesh is slightly lower than US in terms of who the terrorists are after. It might explain why there's been 0 attacks in Bangladesh. 0 usually indicates a low level of threat.




Even a single injury is an injury too many.

3) Now how many deaths from a foreign and neighboring country (not naming any names) is would you consider too many? 100? 1000?

How many negatively affected victims would you consider too many? 1 million? 10 million?

And finally, what is the greater number, the answer to your question or the number of people killed + harmed by Islamic militants in Bangladesh?

1) I dont understand what are you trying to get at. The reason we import certain goods from India is because it just makes more economic sense (price, quality etc) and not because we have a certain quota system for their goods. For India, since they are a huge country that produces almost about everything that we produce so they really dont want to flood their market with our goods.

2) Your stats are misleading, we are talking about prevention of terror threat and not about countering the threat after it has happened.
What you see in Pakistan is a result of

i)too much hatred thats being preached about the west
ii)too much money spent on the army and not on education and health,
iii)too much conspiracy theories being fed to the people while real facts get diluted.Its astonishing that major Pakistani TV networks actually televised (9/11 -Loose Change) and sold it as facts.
iv)Islamicizing the society by General Zia ul Haq
v)army proiding logistical assistance to banned terror organizations so that they can fight for them in Kashmir and allowing safe haven for Talibans
vi)Discriminatory laws and no freedom of speech for the minority population.

I just dont want Bangladesh to be going in that path..simple.

Also the other day you mentioned how the west exaggerates about the safety of Nuke, Guess what, yesterday the Tehrik Taliban Pakistan managed to infiltrate the naval air base in Karachi (supposedly the most secured location in Pakistan). U still think there is nothing to be worried?


3) Well if you name the country than that would make it much easier for me. As i already mentioned, if you are again referring to the dam than for the last time here are my two points in brief
3a) Farakka Dam - We already have a water sharing treaty put in place for that signed in 1996-97
3b) Indian Prime Minster promised not to do anything that would harm Bangladesh (referring to the Tipaimukh Dam)

If you are referring to the people dead in the border, all I can say is that shooting people trying to cross the border illegally is not considered a crime.

Banglatiger84
May 23, 2011, 11:56 PM
If you are referring to the people dead in the border, all I can say is that shooting people trying to cross the border illegally is not considered a crime.

While i agree with your other points, this one is just plain wrong; by that logic it is not a crime to bulldoze an illegally built house even when there are people inside who have not moved out after being warned....

HereWeGo
May 24, 2011, 01:24 AM
While i agree with your other points, this one is just plain wrong; by that logic it is not a crime to bulldoze an illegally built house even when there are people inside who have not moved out after being warned....

I understand your point of view, logic and above all humanity dictates that these people who are mostly very poor and crossing the border just for a better life should not be shot. Hence you see and hear about all the outrage that is directed towards the BSF. However how do you protest about something that is not deemed illegal!! The only solution is using non lethal weapons and BDR, BSF working together to stop illegal crossing. Do remember it is also a case of negligence of duty or corruption through bribe for the BDR. We can stop it from our side of the border too.

Nafi
May 24, 2011, 08:32 AM
If you two want to educate yourselves on India-Bangladesh relations further, you can read this

http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR97.pdf

al Furqaan
May 24, 2011, 05:34 PM
1) I dont understand what are you trying to get at. The reason we import certain goods from India is because it just makes more economic sense (price, quality etc) and not because we have a certain quota system for their goods. For India, since they are a huge country that produces almost about everything that we produce so they really dont want to flood their market with our goods.

Thats well and dandy, but I have been told that this is not the case. Our markets are flooded even with products of which we have domestic versions which are of more or less the same quality. That is where the economic subservience can be thwarted.



I just dont want Bangladesh to be going in that path..simple.

there are very few reasons to believe bangladesh is going down that path. if it were, it would be hogging the headlines abroad like pakistan is.

Also the other day you mentioned how the west exaggerates about the safety of Nuke, Guess what, yesterday the Tehrik Taliban Pakistan managed to infiltrate the naval air base in Karachi (supposedly the most secured location in Pakistan). U still think there is nothing to be worried?

Absolutely. Firstly, just because you say its the most secure location in Pakistan doesn't mean that is. Secondly, I doubt they infiltrated it. If 10-15 guys infiltrated an army base, they would kill more than 4 pakistani soldiers. What they did was launch an attack kill a few guys on the periphery and then got killed. They weren't able to walk out alive with a knapsack, but you believe they could just shove a nuclear bomb into a duffel and run off.

But lets suppose, for arguments sake that you had in your possession a pakistan nuclear bomb.

A) how would you set if off?

and

B) how would you get it to your target?


3) Well if you name the country than that would make it much easier for me. As i already mentioned, if you are again referring to the dam than for the last time here are my two points in brief
3a) Farakka Dam - We already have a water sharing treaty put in place for that signed in 1996-97
3b) Indian Prime Minster promised not to do anything that would harm Bangladesh (referring to the Tipaimukh Dam)

If this is true, I concede this aspect of the argument and we can just focus on Pakistan and their nukes which are so easy to get a hold of that everyone has one in their garage.


If you are referring to the people dead in the border, all I can say is that shooting people trying to cross the border illegally is not considered a crime.

So you are a proponent of extra-judicial killings provided they occur on the wrong side of an international border but are opposed to alternative political views which at least claim to be non-violent?

HereWeGo
May 25, 2011, 01:55 AM
1)Thats well and dandy, but I have been told that this is not the case. Our markets are flooded even with products of which we have domestic versions which are of more or less the same quality. That is where the economic subservience can be thwarted.


2)there are very few reasons to believe bangladesh is going down that path. if it were, it would be hogging the headlines abroad like pakistan is.


3)Absolutely. Firstly, just because you say its the most secure location in Pakistan doesn't mean that is. Secondly, I doubt they infiltrated it. If 10-15 guys infiltrated an army base, they would kill more than 4 pakistani soldiers. What they did was launch an attack kill a few guys on the periphery and then got killed. They weren't able to walk out alive with a knapsack, but you believe they could just shove a nuclear bomb into a duffel and run off.

But lets suppose, for arguments sake that you had in your possession a pakistan nuclear bomb.

A) how would you set if off?

and

B) how would you get it to your target?




If this is true, I concede this aspect of the argument and we can just focus on Pakistan and their nukes which are so easy to get a hold of that everyone has one in their garage.



4) So you are a proponent of extra-judicial killings provided they occur on the wrong side of an international border but are opposed to alternative political views which at least claim to be non-violent?

please do not argue just for the sake of it or atleast hear yourself and think if it makes any sense

1) Consumers are free to choose whatever product they wish to buy. If a better version of a Bangladeshi product exist at a cheaper price than consumers have no reason to neglect that and buy an Indian product. Supply is based on demand. Econ 101

2) Bangladesh was going down that path not too long ago. It started with the Udichi bombing followed by Ramna Batamul, Cinema theaters , Courts etc. If you do not see any more suicide bombing incidents inside the country in recent years because these militant network(primarily JMB) has been demolished. However the threat still exist. I am not going to repeat as to why. Please refer to the earlier posts.

3) Are you kidding me!!!! I mean seriously???? If there are two things that most Pakistani political commentators agree on than that is the fact that the naval base is one of the most secured place and some sort of inside help must have allowed the terrorists in.
Here is a note from a person in a different forum: Past GHQ attacks, along with attacks on Musharraf(assassination attempts) have both been proven to have come from infiltration within the military sphere. It is entirely possible that this could have been a security breach within the military establishment. The military establishments have been often divided in terms of reaching a consensus on pursuing foreign policy towards Afghanistan and the U.S. Pakistan is one of the most dangerous places on earth at this time. And 100 odd nuclear warheads only makes more dangerous for the rest of the world.

AQ Khan tried to sell nuke technology to North Korea, Libya, Iran and God knows who else!!! I am not a conspiracy theorist like some fanatics I get into argument with, but it is widely accepted amongst the CIA circles and Benazir Bhutto herself testified that there is no way that without the knowledge of the Pak army, AQ khan could have travelled to North Korea on a Pak military aircraft. Since Musharraf was an ally so USA did not embarrass him. Just like USA let Zia ul Haq continue to work on the Nuclear bomb because he became an US ally during the Soviet Afghan war. Anyways bottom line, Iran and North Korea definitely have the technology to build missiles to carry and blow of nuclear warheads. And a rogue element from Pakistan actively tried to sell nuclear technology to these countries. All someone needs to do is to supply enriched uranium or plutonium to these countries to create another Hiroshima.

Also please do a read up on the PNS Mehran incident. your facts are not accurate....

4) Can you please be a little more direct. I am not sure what you are getting at here...

DJ Sahastra
May 25, 2011, 10:03 AM
My advance apologies before my 2 cents.

If i understand some of the sentiments in this thread, then the issues like trade imbalance, sporadical border skirmishes etc. with india far outweigh the 1971 genocide by Pakistan and make India a bigger enemy of Bangladesh than those who perpetuated probably a genocide on a scale as big as Jewish holocaust even if it is never talked of in the same breath or on the same scale.

I find it rather surprising that i didn't really throw up. In a way, i feel pity for some of the elite Bangladeshi diaspora that has been raised in the comforts of US and UK and is so far detached from the history of its own nation that it ranks on apalling, if not downright pathetic. Many on this forum have actually questioned why Bangladesh got separated from its Muslim brothers - yes, they got squatted by some of the elderly members who no longer post, atleast that frequently, on the forum, but question they did. I am really interested in knowing what version of the liberation history have these elites read and what prompts them to think that the West Pakistan was nothing but an elderly brother gone stray. I understand the co-religion part. But then, that is what makes me not understand much really. How much do you take from someone and gloss-over just because he/she shares your own faith? I would like to know what logic have many of these elites used to justify or gloss over the acts of the Pakistani Army, establishment and Junta during the 71 struggle. I am often bewildered.

Soon we will see that it was actually an evil India/Hindu design in separating the two countries that only had some petty disputes. Or that those who had no qualms authorizing the rape and murder of several thousand "sisters" are actually the "brothers gone astray". Or maybe even that Bangladeshis deserved it for protesting too much about too little. With every new generation, especially the generation lodged in the far west, the gap between the ground realities of those days and the perception is wider and much more contrasting than ever. The strawman enemey is always too strong and too powerful.

It's a shame really. For one thing, i must admit i admire Pakistanis more. In my interactions with them, i notice that they remember their humiliation of 1971 with far more passion and anger than most Bangladeshis on this forum remember of their holocaust.

Actually, the whole thought process is nauseating. I have often wondered why is that the world talks so much about the Jewish holocaust and no one even knows something happened to Bangladeshis in 1971. I think i understand somewhat now.

bujhee kom
May 25, 2011, 10:29 AM
My advance apologies before my 2 cents.

If i understand some of the sentiments in this thread, then the issues like trade imbalance, sporadical border skirmishes etc. with india far outweigh the 1971 genocide by Pakistan and make India a bigger enemy of Bangladesh than those who perpetuated probably a genocide on a scale as big as Jewish holocaust even if it is never talked of in the same breath or on the same scale.

I find it rather surprising that i didn't really throw up. In a way, i feel pity for some of the elite Bangladeshi diaspora that has been raised in the comforts of US and UK and is so far detached from the history of its own nation that it ranks on apalling, if not downright pathetic. Many on this forum have actually questioned why Bangladesh got separated from its Muslim brothers - yes, they got squatted by some of the elderly members who no longer post, atleast that frequently, on the forum, but question they did. I am really interested in knowing what version of the liberation history have these elites read and what prompts them to think that the West Pakistan was nothing but an elderly brother gone stray. I understand the co-religion part. But then, that is what makes me not understand much really. How much do you take from someone and gloss-over just because he/she shares your own faith? I would like to know what logic have many of these elites used to justify or gloss over the acts of the Pakistani Army, establishment and Junta during the 71 struggle. I am often bewildered.

Soon we will see that it was actually an evil India/Hindu design in separating the two countries that only had some petty disputes. Or that those who had no qualms authorizing the rape and murder of several thousand "sisters" are actually the "brothers gone astray". Or maybe even that Bangladeshis deserved it for protesting too much about too little. With every new generation, especially the generation lodged in the far west, the gap between the ground realities of those days and the perception is wider and much more contrasting than ever. The strawman enemey is always too strong and too powerful.

It's a shame really. For one thing, i must admit i admire Pakistanis more. In my interactions with them, i notice that they remember their humiliation of 1971 with far more passion and anger than most Bangladeshis on this forum remember of their holocaust.

Actually, the whole thought process is nauseating. I have often wondered why is that the world talks so much about the Jewish holocaust and no one even knows something happened to Bangladeshis in 1971. I think i understand somewhat now.

:up: Thank you dulabhai!:notworthy:
:flag::applause:

Pura stage maat korey dilen dekhi DJ dada/dulabhai!

HereWeGo
May 25, 2011, 10:35 AM
My advance apologies before my 2 cents.

If i understand some of the sentiments in this thread, then the issues like trade imbalance, sporadical border skirmishes etc. with india far outweigh the 1971 genocide by Pakistan and make India a bigger enemy of Bangladesh than those who perpetuated probably a genocide on a scale as big as Jewish holocaust even if it is never talked of in the same breath or on the same scale.

I find it rather surprising that i didn't really throw up. In a way, i feel pity for some of the elite Bangladeshi diaspora that has been raised in the comforts of US and UK and is so far detached from the history of its own nation that it ranks on apalling, if not downright pathetic. Many on this forum have actually questioned why Bangladesh got separated from its Muslim brothers - yes, they got squatted by some of the elderly members who no longer post, atleast that frequently, on the forum, but question they did. I am really interested in knowing what version of the liberation history have these elites read and what prompts them to think that the West Pakistan was nothing but an elderly brother gone stray. I understand the co-religion part. But then, that is what makes me not understand much really. How much do you take from someone and gloss-over just because he/she shares your own faith? I would like to know what logic have many of these elites used to justify or gloss over the acts of the Pakistani Army, establishment and Junta during the 71 struggle. I am often bewildered.

Soon we will see that it was actually an evil India/Hindu design in separating the two countries that only had some petty disputes. Or that those who had no qualms authorizing the rape and murder of several thousand "sisters" are actually the "brothers gone astray". Or maybe even that Bangladeshis deserved it for protesting too much about too little. With every new generation, especially the generation lodged in the far west, the gap between the ground realities of those days and the perception is wider and much more contrasting than ever. The strawman enemey is always too strong and too powerful.

It's a shame really. For one thing, i must admit i admire Pakistanis more. In my interactions with them, i notice that they remember their humiliation of 1971 with far more passion and anger than most Bangladeshis on this forum remember of their holocaust.

Actually, the whole thought process is nauseating. I have often wondered why is that the world talks so much about the Jewish holocaust and no one even knows something happened to Bangladeshis in 1971. I think i understand somewhat now.

To base your arguments on some forum posts made mostly by minors who probably has never seen the war and never lived in the country itself is also nauseating!!!
Bangladesh genocide is not recognized in the same breadth as the holocaust for few major reasons
1) Hardly any journalists had the chance to cover the war from inside Bangladesh since all the journalists were forced out.
2) The death figure in itself is disputed
Finally and most importantly
3) It would humiliate most of the world including USA and middle east, who actively supported genocide as a result of supporting and arming the Pak Military.

Tintin
May 25, 2011, 10:47 AM
To base your arguments on some forum posts made mostly by minors who probably has never seen the war and never lived in the country itself is also nauseating!!!
Bangladesh genocide is not recognized in the same breadth as the holocaust for few major reasons
1) Hardly any journalists had the chance to cover the war from inside Bangladesh since all the journalists were forced out.
2) The death figure in itself is disputed
Finally and most importantly
3) It would humiliate most of the world including USA and middle east, who actively supported genocide as a result of supporting and arming the Pak Military.

The obvious follow up question is what is *Bangladesh* doing about this most important part of their history ? DJ's point (and I tend to agree) is that the answer is "very little"

HereWeGo
May 25, 2011, 11:09 AM
The obvious follow up question is what is *Bangladesh* doing about this most important part of their history ? DJ's point (and I tend to agree) is that the answer is "very little"

What do you want them to do?
Liberation war is recognized in Bangladesh as the most glorious chapter in our history. We need to strengthen our ties with the US for obvious economic reason and hence cannot afford to embarrass them.
And Yes there is a vocal minority inside the country for whom Muslims can do no wrong. Pakistan is the beacon and torch bearer of Islam and hence they can do no wrong and these terrorists are seen as freedom fighters. However this is a problem with every muslim country. Bangladesh is a secular republic and most importantly this distorted view is only posessed by a confused minority .

Jadukor
May 25, 2011, 11:15 AM
Bangladesh is a secular republic and most importantly this distorted view is only posessed by a confused minority .
not too sure about that... i have seen a lot of people suffering from the "Jews/Hindus are responsible for my constipation" syndrome

DJ Sahastra
May 25, 2011, 11:45 AM
To base your arguments on some forum posts made mostly by minors who probably has never seen the war and never lived in the country itself is also nauseating!!!
Bangladesh genocide is not recognized in the same breadth as the holocaust for few major reasons
1) Hardly any journalists had the chance to cover the war from inside Bangladesh since all the journalists were forced out.
2) The death figure in itself is disputed
Finally and most importantly
3) It would humiliate most of the world including USA and middle east, who actively supported genocide as a result of supporting and arming the Pak Military.

HereWeGo,

Dismiss the school of thought as one from "minors who probably has never seen the war and never lived in the country" at your own peril. Behind the clever mask of sophistry of words, and behind a general restrain and refrain in part due to the high standards maintained by the admins and mods of this forum, you will find many a suave and sophisticated harboring those very thoughts. I would be glad to be off mark on this one.

Also, while i agree with the problems Bangladesh faced in voicing it's suffering, i disagree with the conclusion. While i can understand an average American not having enough understanding of what transpired in Bangladesh in 1971, i don't understand the general lack of passion or even acknowledgement of the liberation war among a significant newer generation Bangladeshis. And i often contrast that with an average Pakistani or an Indian, for example.

What surprises me often is that - Bangladeshis are the most passionate bunch. I have seena strong passion to anything "Bangla" - it just oozes on this forum. And yet, i have found so much passivity and even revisionism for the aspect of Bangladesh, the liberation war, that some outsiders like me look with intense passion, disbelief and above all, respect.

DJ Sahastra
May 25, 2011, 03:34 PM
People who keep talking a whole lot about India's support to Bangladesh as being "for the strategic reason of splitting Pakistan into two" have no Idea how much they insult those who worked from the sides and risked their lives and career for a common cause of humanity. India is not defined by one entity - definitely not by the policies or strategies of its military.

When the full-scale conflict between East and West pakistan was imminent, at the strategic level, (call it, military level) there were two dominant school of thoughts (plus one more - the last one which was in minority) in India:
1. We should help East Pakistan break away from West Pakistan. This will help India strategically and also help East Pakistan.
2. We should stay neutral and let the conflict between East Pakistan and West Pakistan go on. The nature of conflict assured assures us that it won't be anything short-term. This log-term conflict will progressively weaken an already weak state of Pakistan and in turn help India emerge powerful strategically and stable comparatively, as a nation. Lets watch from the sides, protect our borders and have fun.
3. We should help West Pakistan in this conflict with East Pakistan. This will help win over the more rogue West Pakistan Army and Junta to our side, heal some wounds from the past and help stabilize the region (minority views, especially from deobandis and peaceniks).

Strategically, the second school of thought was no less powerful than the first. Many retired army personnel who were involved in the decision-making still hold a grudge that their strategy was overwhelmed by a political diktat. A geographically and culturally disjoint Pakistan was only going to be under more and more burden on itself and less and less of a threat to outside world.

However all the strategies would count for nothing - because something else was happening in india.

At the level of common people, there was wide coverage of happenings in East Pakistan and surging support for the cause of people on the eastern side of our borders. The intellectuals from WB and prominent Bengali personalities had ensured that plight of people of Banglades-to-be was highlighted to a great extent in the Indian media. From mass-support perspective, there was only one voice and one strategy - Help Bangladesh (or East Pakistan).

At the political level, support to people of Bangladesh was the only option given the mood of the people. This despite some politicians (deoband-muslim league influences) still favoring ertswhile Pakistan and pressuring the premier to support them.

One thing that went big in favor of Bangladesh was a strong lady as the head of the affairs. Despite the US warnings both direct and through channels, and despite the objections of some strong and powerful muslim leaders, she stood firm in her resolve and commitment to help Bangladesh. An Independent Bangladesh was only one of the strategic choices for strategic thinkers in New Delhi, the other being a progressively degenerating East and West Pakistan. But an Independent Bangladesh was only only choice of people throughout India. There was a culmination of mass-support and humanitarian thinking. That all of that coincided with a strategic upper-hand vis-a-vis West Pakistan was always a bonus.

Looking at everything from the prism of today's relations - Border skirmishes, trade imbalance, water-sharing problem etc - is not the best way to revisit the history.
Anyone who talks of India's support to Bangladesh as purely for self-interest insults scores of writers, pundits, and many an artists who performed selflessly to gather support for Bangladesh. It is also an insult to the people who let the politician be known that they were on the side of people of Bangladesh.

HereWeGo
May 25, 2011, 04:02 PM
People who keep talking a whole lot about India's support to Bangladesh as being "for the strategic reason of splitting Pakistan into two" have no Idea how much they insult those who worked from the sides and risked their lives and career for a common cause of humanity. India is not defined by one entity - definitely not by the policies or strategies of its military.

When the full-scale conflict between East and West pakistan was imminent, at the strategic level, (call it, military level) there were two dominant school of thoughts (plus one more - the last one which was in minority) in India:
1. We should help East Pakistan break away from West Pakistan. This will help India strategically and also help East Pakistan.
2. We should stay neutral and let the conflict between East Pakistan and West Pakistan go on. The nature of conflict assured assures us that it won't be anything short-term. This log-term conflict will progressively weaken an already weak state of Pakistan and in turn help India emerge powerful strategically and stable comparatively, as a nation. Lets watch from the sides, protect our borders and have fun.
3. We should help West Pakistan in this conflict with East Pakistan. This will help win over the more rogue West Pakistan Army and Junta to our side, heal some wounds from the past and help stabilize the region (minority views, especially from deobandis and peaceniks).

Strategically, the second school of thought was no less powerful than the first. Many retired army personnel who were involved in the decision-making still hold a grudge that their strategy was overwhelmed by a political diktat. A geographically and culturally disjoint Pakistan was only going to be under more and more burden on itself and less and less of a threat to outside world.

However all the strategies would count for nothing - because something else was happening in india.

At the level of common people, there was wide coverage of happenings in East Pakistan and surging support for the cause of people on the eastern side of our borders. The intellectuals from WB and prominent Bengali personalities had ensured that plight of people of Banglades-to-be was highlighted to a great extent in the Indian media. From mass-support perspective, there was only one voice and one strategy - Help Bangladesh (or East Pakistan).

At the political level, support to people of Bangladesh was the only option given the mood of the people. This despite some politicians (deoband-muslim league influences) still favoring ertswhile Pakistan and pressuring the premier to support them.

One thing that went big in favor of Bangladesh was a strong lady as the head of the affairs. Despite the US warnings both direct and through channels, and despite the objections of some strong and powerful muslim leaders, she stood firm in her resolve and commitment to help Bangladesh. An Independent Bangladesh was only one of the strategic choices for strategic thinkers in New Delhi, the other being a progressively degenerating East and West Pakistan. But an Independent Bangladesh was only only choice of people throughout India. There was a culmination of mass-support and humanitarian thinking. That all of that coincided with a strategic upper-hand vis-a-vis West Pakistan was always a bonus.

Looking at everything from the prism of today's relations - Border skirmishes, trade imbalance, water-sharing problem etc - is not the best way to revisit the history.
Anyone who talks of India's support to Bangladesh as purely for self-interest insults scores of writers, pundits, and many an artists who performed selflessly to gather support for Bangladesh. It is also an insult to the people who let the politician be known that they were on the side of people of Bangladesh.

Agreed!! but unfortunately there are two groups of people in bangladesh
1) One like me, who agrees with your point of view and really do not need a second reminder
2) Others who would always support Pakistan more over India, totally overlooking the fact that as a country Pakistan killed millions of us and taken away the honor of thousands of other women and never showed any remorse (not talking abt individuals but as a state). And this support is simply based on the fact that Pakistan is a Muslim majority country. As a poster here noted, these people suffer from "Jews/Hindus are responsible for my constipation" syndrome (also sometimes they like to put it as muslim brotherhood). No matter what you say, you will never change their point of views as long as India remains a hindu majority country.

That is unfortunately the sad reality that u and I must learn to admit.

There is one thing I would disagree with you though
you mentioned " i don't understand the general lack of passion or even acknowledgement of the liberation war among a significant newer generation Bangladeshis. And i often contrast that with an average Pakistani or an Indian, for example. " - This cannot be furthest from the truth. If there is one thing that we always cherish and we shall forever be proud of, than that is our achievement during the war of liberation. Nothing will ever change that.

RazabQ
May 25, 2011, 04:51 PM
DJ, TinTin - you raise good points. Some thoughts. Not counters - rather parallel thoughts and additional color if you will.
1) You are mistaken in thinking the average Bangladeshi does not remember/respect the suffering and genocide of 71. Watch 5 random drama series and you'll have 3 that explicitly mention muktijudhdho and hanadar Pakistani. Heck the other day I was watching a video of sutdent sketches in a slum school in Dhaka (a charity I champion - Agami - supports these students). Even there out of 3 sketch there was one on a Muktijodhdha's aspirations. Witness the huge hue and cry over the recent movie with the Pakistani soldier and Bangladeshi girl love affair. Two out of our 3 Independence related national holidays commemorate the genocidal aspects of the indepence struggle. Awareness and repugnance at the genocide is definitely there.

2) When you observe disaffection towards India right now by certain elements, do not assume that this is cheapening our horror with 71. Rather it shows the magnitude of the dismay felt by many Bangladeshis at our former partner/supporter. It should be understood that those who are born after 71 have HEARD/READ/VIEWED ON TV/BEEN TOLD about the horrors. But many have LIVED the major floods caused by Farakkafication, the border bullying etc. They are more IMMEDIATE to someone who is 40 or younger.

3) I really like the 3 strategic choices you presented in your post. No doubt there were some serious humanitarian concern amongst the populace for option 1. Yes India could have gained some serious strategic clout by a long-term fight between East & West Pakistan in option2 . But there is a serious side-effect to option 2. An unstable Pakistan would have created huge long-term refugee problems and eventually the instability would be exported to India. Witness the existing immigration issues in West Bengal. Witness the suicide bombers emanating from Pakistan. These would have been magnified if both sides were unstable (yes I'm asserting BD is way more stable). I believe these considerations made Option 2 untenable, leaving option 1 as the only viable one.

4) Having said that, I am still personally grateful for Indian intervention in 1971 as it no doubt saved hundreds of thousands of lives and brought us a swift victory. A benefactor is a benefactor regardless if he/she hopes to gain something in the process. That gratefulness however does NOT mitigate, I daresay for some of the posters here, the more imminent issues with India (vis. border, water, trade imbalance, "lunch money", etc.) In a way it's a compliment to India's growth I suppose :) On the flip side Pakistan is almost an afterthought - they have no borders with Bangladesh. Trade with them is minimal.

DJ Sahastra
May 25, 2011, 10:03 PM
RazabQ,

#1 was not even an option until Indira Gandhi decided to go for it. Military can have strategies, but decisions in india are still made by political leadership. And influence of public opinion and external factors rule.

You see, one of the unheralded stories of 1971 war (Not taking anything away from Bangladesh and its freedom fighters) was the above decision. Not many people realise how touch and potentially dangerous option that was for India. You see, we were not exactly a powerhouse - we had only a slender superiority over Pakistan, Military wise. There were two big no-nos for india:
1) India had already suffered setback at the hands of Chinese and Pakistan were almost assured of Chinese intervention if they faced any military threat from india
2) Pakistan was also banking on its ally, the US, to threaten/persuade India to stay off.

People of lesser pedigree would've literally pee'd off at the prospect of US Navy ship heading towards the Indian Ocean.

But the lady decided to stand firm and take her chances. Rest is history.

Option #2 was a safe bet. No costs in terms of military operation. Refugee problem, yes, but no one had yet started to visualise the modern day "suicide bombers". We were in a different time period when terrorism, as we know today, was an unknown entity. And Pakistan leaders would be more than willing to work out a 'deal' with Indian for just keeping quiet at those critical times.

The biggest mistake on part of Pakistan, and its strategy-makers was the assumption that India will not intervene. So steadfast was this belief that they repeatedly ignored the request by Pakistani generals in Bangladesh to reinforce and augment their strength. The shock and disbelief at India's open defiance at the possibility of US and Chinese intervention lingered all the way to the gallows of some of their top leaders who would subsequently be hanged. Many in their top leadership felt betrayed by China and US.

What some posters want to write today as "India's foreign policy" was not even an option until the bold and courageous lady showed some balls. It was not a statement on any policy. It was an expression of an intent - intent to call the bluff of US and do what the situation demanded as the right thing to do. And there was only one right thing to do. May her soul rest in peace.

punjabsher
May 25, 2011, 10:19 PM
[MOD: Zero tolerance for any sort of prejudice: racial, gender, religious etc.]

bujhee kom
May 25, 2011, 10:22 PM
Hahahahahahh.....!!

punjabsher
May 25, 2011, 10:24 PM
here is an objective report on 1971 by one of my favorite defense analysts. he is really intelligent and outspoken. hope this video helps you discover reality, brothers. especially the tragic genocide of Pakistanis at the hands of RAW and RAW agents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZxmJ97qqdE

Zunaid
May 25, 2011, 10:26 PM
Good discussion DJ and Razab.

You must also consider the utter stupidity of the Pakistan establishment when they were so drunk with their own kool-aid that they believed they could strike a devastating blow with an Israel 6-day war like preemptive strike of the Indian Air Bases. All they did was crater a few airfields which were repaired in over a few hours. The retaliatory strikes pretty much castrated the Pakistan Air Force and the sky's were mostly under Indian control.

The war between India and Pakistan was almost inevitable post Bangladesh scenario. I have friends and relatives who had to escape to West Bengal and they do speak with fondness the amount of love they received from the people in West Bengal, irrespective of whether India acted solely on behalf of their own self-interest or not.

Interesting where this thread has migrated to.

DJ Sahastra
May 26, 2011, 10:26 AM
Dr Z,

One of my colleague at work, now a Canadian working in US, hails from Chittagong. Even today, his eyes swell up when he recounts the journey his Dad and one uncle took during 71 war, from Chittagong to Assam to WB. Two of his uncles refused to vacate the ancestral land and stayed back. While Pakistani Army did not spare anyone, it seems they had a special liking for Hindu families.

The man is in his 50s but can still narrate the events from when he was about 10 as if they had just happened yesterday. I can still see that longing in his eyes to be able to visit his ancestral home some day. His dad and uncle did visit their village a few years later. His uncles who had chosen to stay back were both killed, and so were most of the people that they knew. There was not much left of the village that they had left behind or the people that they knew of. If that wasn't enough, it seems by some law, all of their land and house was taken away.

But the main theme of his story is always the help that he recieved from those who faciliated their escape from the village, the warmth with which they were recieved the moment they crossed over into Assam, the help that they recieved not only in getting to WB from Assam but also in being able to establish themselves.

40 years later, lot of water has flowed down the Ganga and Farrakka barrage.

On a lighter note, i have no connection to either West Bengal or Bangladesh or even Bengali culture. This forum is my only fascination (apart from Bangla as a language - i find it charming, Bappi Lahiri - no serious, and Dayal Baba - it is an epic parody IMO, and Pabna - my imagined home). I dated a Bengali girl once, but that shouldn't count.

iDumb
May 26, 2011, 11:56 AM
I just finished reading second half of this thread, I think my IQ just shot up by 2 points. Never expected that from a BC forum.

anyways, DJ Saha, if you don't mind me asking, can you tell me a little bit about you? ie your background.

DJ Sahastra
May 26, 2011, 04:40 PM
I just finished reading second half of this thread, I think my IQ just shot up by 2 points. Never expected that from a BC forum.

anyways, DJ Saha, if you don't mind me asking, can you tell me a little bit about you? ie your background.

iDumb,

You are about to put the third tangent to this thread by asking me that question :).

I am from Mumbai, India and like scores of Indians here in US, a computer Engineer. When not working, i enjoy Flying, DJing and Scuba diving.

One of my favourite past-times on this forum used to be reading Bangla and trying to translate it. Of course, that was after i found out that Zunaid, Tehsin etc. were not feminine names. But i must say, there used to people who really used to write very impressive Bangla back then. The forum has dulled out since. Whatever happened to posters like BabuBangla, FaltuRidwanBhai, Arnab, ATMR (the current version is too sophisticated) etc. For example, you won't find many gems like:

Eboong!! Chomotkari Shot. Chowk Dhadhano Shot. Mati Kamrano Shot. Dhristinondan Maar. Ball Choli giya Chhe Shuja long leg. Ekta Run.

or

Udjaan Bomaar Bishforone shobai Gordhebder Okaal Mrittu.

Maybe they aren't that interesting or funny. But i like those kind of expressions in a language.

I like all the Babas of the forum (Kana Baba, Pagla Baba) and outside (Dayal Baba, Mazar'er Baba).

I really don't know what more to say :).

iDumb
May 26, 2011, 04:58 PM
I know your bangla cricket background. You also have a bengali gf or something like that. I wanted to know your background in relation to '71 war. Given your hobbies, I am guessing you are not that old. And being a young man yet the passion in which you write some of your posts made me wonder about your background. A typical Indian (young - born after or around 70) from Mumbai living in U.S. would not have the knowledge or the passion in which you write about the 71 war I feel.

That's why I asked. But I guess you are just well read.

DJ Sahastra
May 26, 2011, 05:25 PM
iDumb,

No, i don't have a background in relation to 71 war. I wasn't even born for atleast half a decade after the war.

Readings, interactions and interests are all i have as far as all of wars, including the 71 war, are concerned. I personally feel that Bangladesh is one of the rare examples where a deserving nation got and continues to get the raw end of the stick, both from the world community as well as it's own leaders.

bujhee kom
May 26, 2011, 10:02 PM
Oo acchaa...Dj bhaiya...tarpor bolun apnakey amra keno dulabhai boley daki...jehetu kalpurush da apankey dula mia boley dakey...bolun dada er pichoney karon-ta ki :lol:

DJ Sahastra
May 26, 2011, 11:18 PM
Bujhee Kom Bhai,

I am trying hard to recollect what was the story behind Dulabhai. Maybe kalpurush can help here. Yes, i did find Mona attractive and i mistook some prominent forum personalities to be females and my intentions were not exactly pure, but i think there was something more behind the dulabhai episode.

Wait, i think i remeber.

I used to call everybody as Shalar-Bhai.

I was very fond of 'Shalar-Bhai'. Actually i found it quite cute. 'Shalar-Bhai' and 'Ekta Lathi Mara Dorkar' were a deadly combination. I think the roots of Dulabhai lie somewhere in that phase of my stay on the forum.

banfan2
May 27, 2011, 08:32 AM
no point arguing over who did what in 1971. i'm really greatful to india that they help us get our liberation no matter what was their interest but htey saved us from a genocide thats all i know. the main thing is we have to move on and build a strong country for our future genreation. regarding that i must admit that india has some issues with bangladesh. but its very simple that a bigger country will try to dominate smaller neighbours with weaker economics. the truth is we havent done nothing to challenge india or force them to listen to us. at first we should concentrate on our economy and maintain a good relationship with india to make the best use of them. we have natural resources, we have men power. whatever we have we should try to get hte most out of it and we should use a big neighbour country like india as an advantage. dont live on the past and try to work on the present adn build the future. we can use pakistan also. like our garment industry is growing big. we can buy cottons from paksitan bcs their cottons are better than indian cotton and also cheaper. but the problem is one group will say we should not trade with pakistan and the other group will say we should boycott india and import everything from pakistan. both are wrong. we have to do what is best for our country and our ppl and ppl need to understand this. and i dont care much about india adn pakistan when 80% of our people live under the poverty line. our mothers still die giving birth, people die withour treatment and children die starving

CricketPagolChele
May 27, 2011, 12:06 PM
1) There is nothing to suggest that India was ever hostile towards Bangladesh. The dams that are build are not because they want to show hostility towards bangladesh but more an act to support its own population.



Joke of this modern century.

These are few reasons that suggest India is a hostile country

1. The Indian BSF killing Bnagladeshi citizens every other day (no matter who they are) and hanging their dead bodies on the fence like animal.

2. Why India has given military , financial, and moral support to "Shanti Bahini" ? Shanti Bahini still today operates from Indian soil.

3. 100s of Bangladeshi terrorists live peaceful life in India, why India dont push them back instead of pushing poor bengali speaking muslims back ?

4. Why India so eager to build "TipaiMukh" which would destroy Bangladesh?

5. Why Bangaldeshis do not have unrestricted access to "3 bigha"?

6. Why India do not try to stop smuggling of phensidyl which destroying our country?

Are these signs of a "friend"?

Nafi
May 27, 2011, 12:38 PM
Trying to make India look better, by mentioning 1971, is nonsense. Should we be grateful for assistance, yes if you want to express gratitude, then so be it.

But in present times, our main focus are our conflicting interests with India. We have no significant relations (positive or negative) with Pakistan that affect current affairs.

roman
May 27, 2011, 02:09 PM
2) When you observe disaffection towards India right now by certain elements, do not assume that this is cheapening our horror with 71. Rather it shows the magnitude of the dismay felt by many Bangladeshis at our former partner/supporter. It should be understood that those who are born after 71 have HEARD/READ/VIEWED ON TV/BEEN TOLD about the horrors. But many have LIVED the major floods caused by Farakkafication, the border bullying etc. They are more IMMEDIATE to someone who is 40 or younger.


:up::up:Post of this thread.

We should not forget our past but we also cant ignore present. During our liberation war, 90% of the population showed gratitude towards India. No doubt without India's help things wouldnt have been so smooth. Who knows may be we would have been still part of Pakistan. Credit should be given where its due. But why this India-like rate fell so radically over the last 40 something years?

Relationship between these two countries should have been much better. We have extended the hand of friendship towards India and its time for them to do the same. Sometimes its good to have that little guy in the block as your friend...

DJ Sahastra
May 27, 2011, 02:53 PM
RazabQ had a very valid point about the present times, the nature of the conflicts and its impact on the perception and relationships between the two countries.

Today's conflicts are gonna stay or even get worse. With limited resource like waters, rivers etc. already stretched to their last drop and an ever increasing demand from an ever increasing and voracious population on both sides, i don't foresee things getting any better. The practical reality - there is no additional water coming from farakka or anywhere (unless you are talking about rising sea levels).

The idea is not to make India look better by mentioning 1971 - it is irrelevant. The idea behind discussing 1971 was to make sure that geo-political and realities of today don't shape the perception of a war that was unparalleled at so many levels and indeed, was fought at so many levels.

On a side note, every charge levelled at India applies equally well to Bangladesh - some more than the other. Political compulsions aside, no national government or regime in India has been hostile to Bangladesh. The same cannot be said about Bangladesh where every alternate regime has tried to feed and feed on anti-India frenzy.

al Furqaan
May 27, 2011, 04:00 PM
please do not argue just for the sake of it or atleast hear yourself and think if it makes any sense

1) Consumers are free to choose whatever product they wish to buy. If a better version of a Bangladeshi product exist at a cheaper price than consumers have no reason to neglect that and buy an Indian product. Supply is based on demand. Econ 101


ok, fair enough.

2) Bangladesh was going down that path not too long ago. It started with the Udichi bombing followed by Ramna Batamul, Cinema theaters , Courts etc. If you do not see any more suicide bombing incidents inside the country in recent years because these militant network(primarily JMB) has been demolished. However the threat still exist. I am not going to repeat as to why. Please refer to the earlier posts.

such incidents happen everwhere. it does not mean that the threat should be hyper-exagerrated. just yesterday, 2 people were killed in a bombing in eastern China. this doens't mean China is on the verge of falling to terrorists. and with that China has seen more deaths to bombings than BD has this year.


3) Are you kidding me!!!! I mean seriously???? If there are two things that most Pakistani political commentators agree on than that is the fact that the naval base is one of the most secured place and some sort of inside help must have allowed the terrorists in.

prove it. once again the issue is that if the Pakistani nukes are so easy to steal and detonate, why hasn't it been done yet?

you haven't even answered the question as to how one could detonate it, and you expect some half educated mullah to just walk in put a 10 ton missile in the pocket of his shelwar and light it with a BIC lighter?

in addition to cease arguing for the sake of argument, perhaps you can can answer questions that have been addressed to you.

Here is a note from a person in a different forum: Past GHQ attacks, along with attacks on Musharraf(assassination attempts) have both been proven to have come from infiltration within the military sphere. It is entirely possible that this could have been a security breach within the military establishment. The military establishments have been often divided in terms of reaching a consensus on pursuing foreign policy towards Afghanistan and the U.S. Pakistan is one of the most dangerous places on earth at this time. And 100 odd nuclear warheads only makes more dangerous for the rest of the world.

So lets get this straight.

Pakistan has nukes.
Pakistan has terrorists.
Pakistan has terrorists infiltrating the army.
Pakistan has terrorists wishing to get nukes.
Pakistan has terrorists who know how to arm, load, and deliver nukes.
Pakistan has terrorists willing to use nukes.

and yet, as of today, no one's been nuked. where is the disconnect?

AQ Khan tried to sell nuke technology to North Korea, Libya, Iran and God knows who else!!! I am not a conspiracy theorist like some fanatics I get into argument with, but it is widely accepted amongst the CIA circles and Benazir Bhutto herself testified that there is no way that without the knowledge of the Pak army, AQ khan could have travelled to North Korea on a Pak military aircraft. Since Musharraf was an ally so USA did not embarrass him. Just like USA let Zia ul Haq continue to work on the Nuclear bomb because he became an US ally during the Soviet Afghan war. Anyways bottom line, [B]Iran and North Korea definitely have the technology to build missiles to carry and blow of nuclear warheads. And a rogue element from Pakistan actively tried to sell nuclear technology to these countries. All someone needs to do is to supply enriched uranium or plutonium to these countries to create another Hiroshima.

1) and who gave AQ Khan his nukes? the Canadians. are you blindly bigoted towards Canadians and Canada as well?

2) North Korean, Libya, Iran, and God knows who else are not pointing any weapons at Bangladesh. So where is the threat? Your whole rant is how Pakistan is a greater threat than India to Bangladesh. Where is it?


4) Can you please be a little more direct. I am not sure what you are getting at here...

what difference does it make? i was crystal about asking how terrorists would set off a nuke, and somewhere in between imagining threats and going off onto the Libyan threat to Bangladesh, you forgot to answer.

HereWeGo
May 28, 2011, 02:57 PM
^^ I am tired of these fruitless arguments with you. There is no point in continuing it further. The world considers Pakistan a major threat, their nuclear asset is a threat and their over zealous miliary expenditure as a threat. That country breeds more radicalism than any middle eastern country. But you feel otherwise. And nothing I say or do shall ever change that. Hence no point. Except I wanna know where did Canada come from? AQ Khan stole Nuclear designs from Nederlands, I have no clue abt his association with Canada!!

Nafi
May 28, 2011, 05:07 PM
^^ I am tired of these fruitless arguments with you. There is no point in continuing it further. The world considers Pakistan a major threat, their nuclear asset is a threat and their over zealous miliary expenditure as a threat. That country breeds more radicalism than any middle eastern country. But you feel otherwise.
[/B]

No, Pakistan may be a threat to the world. But its not a direct threat to Bangladesh, its as much as a threat to Bangladesh as it is to Sudan.

HereWeGo
May 28, 2011, 07:00 PM
No, Pakistan may be a threat to the world. But its not a direct threat to Bangladesh, its as much as a threat to Bangladesh as it is to Sudan.

LOL!! So Bangladesh is not a country inside planet earth?? :P
Anyways I am tired of this argument... so just in brief for the last time
1) JMB bomb expert and some of the militants themselves received their training in Pakistan.
2) Not too long ago 3 Pakistani citizen was arrested inside Dhaka for plotting to bomb the US embassy inside Dhaka
3) Some militant funds inside BAngladesh come from with in Pakistan
4) AQ Khans statement would also suggest that he would have either used the nuclear weapon on India if the scared tactics didn't work, or might have used it to bomb Bangladesh in 1971.
5) There are ultra nationalist + extremist elements inside the Pakistan Army who still consider us as Hindu Agents and would not mind harming the country for 1971. If you don't believe me than please search Youtube on Pakistani defense analyst by the name of Zaid Hamid.

I would have provided the source for all the above points, but I am really drowned in other work. Please do your research and be rest assured that none of the points are false accusations.

Nafi
May 28, 2011, 08:30 PM
4) AQ Khans statement would also suggest that he would have either used the nuclear weapon on India if the scared tactics didn't work, or might have used it to bomb Bangladesh in 1971

Genocide to kill off ''hindu/ non-pakistani(I use this term in their view)'' population is horrific in itself.

But really, using the nuclear bomb on essentially what is part of your own country. Even Hitler wouldn't do that.

I think you are just very prejudiced against Pakistanis.

Zunaid
May 28, 2011, 08:53 PM
Genocide to kill off ''hindu/ non-pakistani(I use this term in their view)'' population is horrific in itself.

But really, using the nuclear bomb on essentially what is part of your own country. Even Hitler wouldn't do that.

I think you are just very prejudiced against Pakistanis.

You can speak for Hitler?

Godwin's law will come into force methinks.

I'm not sure HereWeGo is necessarily being prejudiced. He us just being realistic. But he can speak for himself.

As for myself, I feel sorry for the Pakistanis at the direction their country has gone and hope they can right things soon.
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (iPhone)

HereWeGo
May 28, 2011, 09:09 PM
Genocide to kill off ''hindu/ non-pakistani(I use this term in their view)'' population is horrific in itself.

But really, using the nuclear bomb on essentially what is part of your own country. Even Hitler wouldn't do that.

I think you are just very prejudiced against Pakistanis.


^^^Thanks doc, will take it from here...

@Nafi: Since you cannot provide any counter arguments hence your tactics changed to name calling...

So by that very argument of me being prejudiced makes you the same but against India. And I have a couple more names for you before I start with providing details for my point 4.
a) The fact that you think that Hitler would never use the nuclear weapon is in itself the biggest joke I have heard in a long time. He personifies evil. And trying to show him in positive light makes you a Hitler sympathizer and hence an Anti Semite...
^^^ Sorry for the name calling, I know u are neither of the three, just showing u why name calling is wrong...

Now just to give u some pointers as to why I think I am right when I stated
4) AQ Khans statement would also suggest that he would have either used the nuclear weapon on India if the scared tactics didn't work, or might have used it to bomb Bangladesh in 1971.

1) Scared tactics did not work during the Kargil War. Remember both India and Pakistan was nuclear armed when the war was faught
2) Indira Gandhi was an iron lady and would never compromise. So how else you suggest AQ khan wanted to use the weapons in 1971?

DJ Sahastra
May 29, 2011, 12:16 AM
Genocide to kill off ''hindu/ non-pakistani(I use this term in their view)'' population is horrific in itself.

But really, using the nuclear bomb on essentially what is part of your own country. Even Hitler wouldn't do that.

I think you are just very prejudiced against Pakistanis.

If prior to 1971, anyone had talked about Pakistani Army raping and murdering tens of thousand (i am using the numbers very conservatively) of their own people to teach them a lesson, i doubt if anyone would've believed that. But that is what they did.

What is more scary is, i didn't hear AQ Khan say "If we were reasonable and if we had treated people of East Bengal with fairness and respect, there would be no Bangladesh". Instead, what he is saying is, if Pakistan had God's weapon back then, they would've ensured that Bangladesh had no option to raise their heads - that they would've ensured that no one would help Bangladesh out of fear of the God's weapon and the revolution would've been crushed effectively.

From a purely Bangladeshi perspective, when someone comes and says, "Oh, but Pakistan wouldn't have used it", it is a rather sad commentary. Actually, it's a shame really. How does it matter whether they would've used it or not. If the revolution was crushed, would the outcome have been any better from a Bangladeshi perspective if they hadn't used the nuclear weapon? When you have killed/maimed/injured close to 100 thousand people, you have already crossed the threshold of the damage froma nuclear weapon. How much more damage was a nuclear weapon going to cause? Japan wasn't any worse after Hiroshima/Nagasaki than Bangladesh was after the 71 genocide. And that's putting it mildly.

HereWeGo
May 29, 2011, 12:43 AM
http://tribune.com.pk/story/177622/anniversary-what-if-pakistan-did-not-have-the-bomb/?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4de0b3e9cfa7dd55%2C0


Anniversary: What if Pakistan did not have the bomb?
By Pervez Hoodbhoy
Published: May 28, 2011

Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan has spent the last few years confined by the Pakistan Army to one of his palatial Islamabad residences where he whiles away his days writing weekly columns in newspapers. This venerable metallurgist, who claims paternity rights over Pakistan’s bomb, says it alone saves Pakistan. In a recent article, he wistfully wrote: “If we had had nuclear capability before 1971, we would not have lost half of our country – present-day Bangladesh – after disgraceful defeat.”

Given that 30,000 nuclear weapons failed to save the Soviet Union from decay, defeat and collapse, could the Bomb really have saved Pakistan in 1971? Can it do so now?

Let’s revisit 1971. Those of us who grew up in those times know in our hearts that East and West Pakistan were one country but never one nation. Young people today cannot imagine the rampant anti-Bengali racism among West Pakistanis then. With great shame, I must admit that as a thoughtless young boy I too felt embarrassed about small and dark people being among our compatriots. Victims of a delusion, we thought that good Muslims and Pakistanis were tall, fair, and spoke chaste Urdu. Some schoolmates would laugh at the strange sounding Bengali news broadcasts from Radio Pakistan.

The Bengali people suffered under West Pakistani rule. They believed their historical destiny was to be a Bengali-speaking nation, not the Urdu-speaking East Pakistan which Jinnah wanted. The East was rightfully bitter on other grounds too. It had 54% of Pakistan’s population and was the biggest earner of foreign exchange. But West Pakistani generals, bureaucrats, and politicians such as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, feared a democratic system would transfer power and national resources to the East.

Denied democracy and justice, the people of East Pakistan helplessly watched the cash flow from East to fund government, industry, schools and dams in the West. When the Bhola cyclone killed half a million people in 1970, President Yahya Khan and his fellow generals in Rawalpindi’s GHQ could not have cared less.

The decisive break came with the elections. The Awami League won a majority in Pakistan’s parliament. Bhutto and the generals would not accept the peoples’ verdict. The Bengalis finally rose up for independence. When the West Pakistan army was sent in, massacre followed massacre. Political activists, intellectuals, trade unionists, and students were slaughtered. Blood ran in street gutters, and millions fled across the border. After India intervened to support the East, the army surrendered. Bangladesh was born.

That Pakistan did not have the bomb in 1971 must surely be among the greatest of blessings. It is hard for me to see what Dr AQ Khan has in mind when he suggests that it could have saved Pakistan.

Would the good doctor have dropped the bomb on the raging pro-independence mobs in Dhaka? Or used it to incinerate Calcutta and Delhi, and have the favour duly returned to Lahore and Karachi? Or should we have threatened India with nuclear attack to keep it out of the war so that we could endlessly kill East Pakistanis? Even without the bomb, estimated civilian deaths numbered in the hundreds of thousands if not a million. How many more East Pakistanis would he have liked to see killed for keeping Pakistan together?

Some might argue that regardless of the death and destruction, using the bomb to keep Pakistan together would have been a good thing for the people of East Pakistan in the long term. A look at developmental statistics can help decide.

Bangladesh is ranked 96th out of 110 countries in a 2010 prosperity index compiled by an independent London-based think-tank, the Legatum Institute, using governance, education, health, security, personal freedom, and social capital as criteria. Pakistan is at the 109th position, just one notch above Zimbabwe. By this measure the people of the East have benefited from independence. The UN Human Development Index puts Bangladesh at 146/182 and Pakistan at 141/182, making Pakistan only marginally superior. This implies that Bengalis would have gained little, if anything, by remaining with West Pakistan.

But numerical data does not tell the whole story. Bangladesh is poorer but more hopeful and happier. Culture is thriving, education is improving, and efforts to control population growth are more fruitful than in Pakistan. It is not ravaged by suicide bombings, or by daily attacks upon its state institutions and military forces.

What can the bomb do for Pakistan now? Without it, will India swallow up Pakistan and undo partition? Such thought is pure fantasy. First, India has a rapidly growing economy and is struggling to control its population of 1.2 billion, of which almost half are desperately poor. It has no reason to want an additional 180 million people to feed and educate. Second, even if an aggressive and expansionist India wanted, asymmetrical warfare would make territorial conquest and occupation impossible. The difficulties faced by America in Iraq and Afghanistan, or of India in Kashmir, make this clear.

The bomb did deter India from launching punitive attacks at least thrice since the 1998 tests. There were angry demands within India for attacking the camps of Pakistan-based militant groups after Pakistan’s incursion in Kargil during 1999, the December 13 attack on the Indian parliament the same year (initially claimed by Jaish-e-Muhammad), and the Mumbai attack in 2008 by Lashkar-e-Taiba. However, this problem only exists because the bomb has been used to protect these militant groups. The nuclear umbrella explains why Pakistan is such a powerful magnet for all on this planet who wage war in the name of Islam: Arabs, Chechens, Uzbeks, Uighurs, and various westerners. It was, as we now know, the last lair of Osama bin Laden as well.

Pakistan is learning the same painful lesson as the Soviet Union and white-South Africa learned. The bomb offers no protection to a people. Rather, it has helped bring Pakistan to its current grievously troubled situation and offers no way out.

On this May 28, the day when Pakistan tested its nuclear weapons, let us resolve to eliminate this curse rather than celebrate. Instead of building more bombs, we need to protect ourselves by building a sustainable and active democracy, an economy for peace rather than war, a federation in which provincial grievances can be effectively resolved, elimination of the feudal order and creating a tolerant society that respects the rule of law.

The author is a professor of nuclear physics and teaches in Islamabad and Lahore

Published in The Express Tribune, May 28th, 2011.


A Pakistani sane journalist.

Please read the bolded part and have some Self respect!!!

bujhee kom
May 29, 2011, 12:55 AM
^^^Thank you for sharing this article HWG bhai.

Neel Here
May 29, 2011, 08:46 AM
came to BC after a while and decided to break my self-imposed moratorium over this thread. :)

regarding pervez hoodbhoy, he is a respected high-energy physicist (or nuclear physicist in layman terms) one of the very few that pakistan has (unsurprisingly, given how nobel laureate abdus salam was treated in his own country). unlike a certain AQ khan whose only claim to fame is stealing nuclear centrifuge designs from netherlands' urenco. :-D

if you want to understand why pakistan is today what it is, you need to take a deep look at its education system, starting from the primary level. and I don't mean the madrassas, I mean the govt approved public school system, where the bulk of pakistan gets 'educated'.
pervez hoodbhoy's seminal work on pakistan's education system is a must read to understand the roots of pakistan's problems and why it is only going to get worse in the near future. http://www.amazon.com/s?search-alias=stripbooks&field-isbn=9780195778250 he also has written numerous articles on the topic that should be available with a little google search.
read it alongside Military Inc. — Inside Pakistan's Military Economy by Ayesha Siddiqa.
there's a reason why someone famously said, pakistan is the only place where the military has a country( rather than the usual way, a country has a military)

Night_wolf
May 29, 2011, 08:53 AM
^glad that u r back!

al Furqaan
May 31, 2011, 07:03 PM
^^ I am tired of these fruitless arguments with you. There is no point in continuing it further. That country breeds more radicalism than any middle eastern country. But you feel otherwise. And nothing I say or do shall ever change that. Hence no point. Except I wanna know where did Canada come from? AQ Khan stole Nuclear designs from Nederlands, I have no clue abt his association with Canada!!


You still haven't answered the question about why the Paki terrorists have not yet gotten their hands on nukes given the ease with which they are bought and sold in the corner bazaar.

You also haven't given any indication as to how a Nuke might be fired, once obtained. Or are you also of the delusion that you simply pull a pin and toss it up like a Murali doosra?

I haven't actually said that Pakistan is not a threat, nor that it is not a threat to the west. Not sure sure I replied to you first, or if you replied to me, but I simply stated that arguing that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are a threat to Bangladesh (or any other country) is nothing short of a 21st century "yellow journalism". The same kind of journalism/policy-making, for example, that issued color codes to inform us of the current threat level we were under. The color code itself is not a bad idea, but the arbitrary changing of yellow to orange to red and back again every few months was clearly a policy move for that specific time period. Now that the wars have been waged, there is no imminent need to keep us in fear. Thats not to say the threat doesn't exist, but as expressed by some amongst the FBI/CIA, the threat is rather magnified.

How is that relevant you might ask?

It is relevant because the threat of Pakistan's nukes are highly overstated. 1971 criminals against humanity they might have been, but so too was Hitler. Doesn't mean Hitler was responsible for every bad thing on earth since that time.

Pakistan poses slightly more than zero risk to Bangladesh, nuclear or otherwise. They have far larger worries than creating a puppet Islamist republic in Dhaka. They might try Kabul first.

As for how Canada is relevant, Canada has spread a lot of the US's nuclear technology, including to Pakistan. Now if you say its the Netherlands, than let me rephrase the question. Do you think Netherlands is a bigger threat to the world and Bangladesh since they armed Pakistan which is a threat to the world and Bangladesh?

As for the world's views, in this instance I do agree with the world vis a vis Pakistan, except on the issue of nuclear weapons threats. Only India is threatened by Pak's nukes, and to my knowledge they're still alive and well.

The world considers Pakistan a major threat, their nuclear asset is a threat and their over zealous miliary expenditure as a threat.

Now the world also believed, not so long ago, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That Arabs were anathema to democratic rule. That Iran, according ot the Israelis, are just six months away from the nuclear "point of no return". The US government - and by extension of all of NATO- not many decades ago, supported Pakistan during their 1971 genocide against a country I won't name. The world's word is not enough to justify racist propaganda and to support ideation that encourages policies which will result in the direct deaths of countless innocent people. No sir, the world's current views are not enough for that.

HereWeGo
May 31, 2011, 11:11 PM
You still haven't answered the question about why the Paki terrorists have not yet gotten their hands on nukes given the ease with which they are bought and sold in the corner bazaar.

You also haven't given any indication as to how a Nuke might be fired, once obtained. Or are you also of the delusion that you simply pull a pin and toss it up like a Murali doosra?

I haven't actually said that Pakistan is not a threat, nor that it is not a threat to the west. Not sure sure I replied to you first, or if you replied to me, but I simply stated that arguing that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are a threat to Bangladesh (or any other country) is nothing short of a 21st century "yellow journalism". The same kind of journalism/policy-making, for example, that issued color codes to inform us of the current threat level we were under. The color code itself is not a bad idea, but the arbitrary changing of yellow to orange to red and back again every few months was clearly a policy move for that specific time period. Now that the wars have been waged, there is no imminent need to keep us in fear. Thats not to say the threat doesn't exist, but as expressed by some amongst the FBI/CIA, the threat is rather magnified.

How is that relevant you might ask?

It is relevant because the threat of Pakistan's nukes are highly overstated. 1971 criminals against humanity they might have been, but so too was Hitler. Doesn't mean Hitler was responsible for every bad thing on earth since that time.

Pakistan poses slightly more than zero risk to Bangladesh, nuclear or otherwise. They have far larger worries than creating a puppet Islamist republic in Dhaka. They might try Kabul first.

As for how Canada is relevant, Canada has spread a lot of the US's nuclear technology, including to Pakistan. Now if you say its the Netherlands, than let me rephrase the question. Do you think Netherlands is a bigger threat to the world and Bangladesh since they armed Pakistan which is a threat to the world and Bangladesh?

As for the world's views, in this instance I do agree with the world vis a vis Pakistan, except on the issue of nuclear weapons threats. Only India is threatened by Pak's nukes, and to my knowledge they're still alive and well.



Now the world also believed, not so long ago, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That Arabs were anathema to democratic rule. That Iran, according ot the Israelis, are just six months away from the nuclear "point of no return". The US government - and by extension of all of NATO- not many decades ago, supported Pakistan during their 1971 genocide against a country I won't name. The world's word is not enough to justify racist propaganda and to support ideation that encourages policies which will result in the direct deaths of countless innocent people. No sir, the world's current views are not enough for that.

You never know when to stop!!! and hence u never cease to amaze me (not in a positive way but a George bush kind of way)....

Now first and foremost, not for the first time, you have some of your information completely wrong. Canada did not provide any kind of nuclear assistance to Pakistan. Neither did Netherlands. AQ Khan STOLE the technology from the Dutch (Urenco), it was not voluntarily provided to him.

Now coming back to some of your points
Out of all the countries with nuclear weapons capability (guess there are 8 in total), only Pakistans Nuclear weapons are deemed as unsafe. Now there must be some valid reasons behind it.

Now the reasons!
i) Again elements of Al-Qaeda has infiltrated the Pakistani Army. The latest and greatest evidence is provided by the PNS Mehran incident.
ii) The infiltration report was covered in detail by a Pakistani journalist who is now killed. Guess what, his superiors are blaming the ISI for the kidnapping and killing. And here is the source

http://www.dawn.com/2011/06/01/missing-journalist-shahzad-found-dead.html

This is not a blog, but the headline for today in the most widely circulated Pakistani newspaper "DAWN".

Once you have the enriched uranium or plutonium, causing the explosion is not rocket science. You can do your own research on the topic in your own sweet time.

Now finally about the threat posed by Pakistan to Bangladesh!!

Heres my earlier post

1) JMB bomb expert and some of the militants themselves received their training in Pakistan.
2) Not too long ago 3 Pakistani citizen was arrested inside Dhaka for plotting to bomb the US embassy inside Dhaka
3) Some militant funds inside BAngladesh come from with in Pakistan
4) AQ Khans statement would also suggest that he would have either used the nuclear weapon on India if the scared tactics didn't work, or might have used it to bomb Bangladesh in 1971.
5) There are ultra nationalist + extremist elements inside the Pakistan Army who still consider us as Hindu Agents and would not mind harming the country for 1971. If you don't believe me than please search Youtube on Pakistani defense analyst by the name of Zaid Hamid.


Now about your major point that "Terrorist elements inside Pakistan is not threatning Bangladesh with nukes"
You are right, it is highly unlikely that Alqaeda would ever consider to nuke Bangladesh. Although I dont trust the moles inside Pakistani army but even the idea of them nuking bangladesh is far fetched. I grant you that. However any negative implications to the west would have an adverse economic implication for Bangladesh. USA is our major export partner (RMG) and any adverse effect on the US economy would have serious implications for our people. And all that because of orgasm that pakistan establishment seem to get by enriching weapons grade uranium and plutonium.

al Furqaan
June 1, 2011, 12:49 AM
Now first and foremost, not for the first time, you have some of your information completely wrong. Canada did not provide any kind of nuclear assistance to Pakistan. Neither did Netherlands. AQ Khan STOLE the technology from the Dutch (Urenco), it was not voluntarily provided to him.


Didn't one of our mukti bahini "steal" a Pakistani fighter? They didn't "voluntarily provide" it. All is fair in love and war, and in defense of one's nation. India had the nuke, so Pakistan needed it and was fully justified in pursuing it, if all the other nations are justified. There are no special rules for Pakistan that I am aware of.

Plus, Canada is well known for spreading US nuclear secrets. This may be a urban legend, but assuming its true...

If US, China, UK, Israel, Russia, France, GB, India aren't rogue nuclear powers, then who did the Canadians sell secrets to to be distrusted internationally? The Maltese?

Now coming back to some of your points
Out of all the countries with nuclear weapons capability (guess there are 8 in total), only Pakistans Nuclear weapons are deemed as unsafe. Now there must be some valid reasons behind it.

And now we finally get to the crux of the matter. Because Fox News says so, it "must" have valid reasons behind it.


Now the reasons!
i) Again elements of Al-Qaeda has infiltrated the Pakistani Army. The latest and greatest evidence is provided by the PNS Mehran incident.
ii) The infiltration report was covered in detail by a Pakistani journalist who is now killed. Guess what, his superiors are blaming the ISI for the kidnapping and killing. And here is the source

Again. If AQ already has access to teh nukes, why haven't they used them? Did they suddenly run out of enemies? Is the WoT over? Did I miss a headline?

And if they don't have access yet, then how insecure are Pakistan's weapons? If terrorists are crawling all over the place, and the nukes are easy to get, then how come they haven't gotten them?




Once you have the enriched uranium or plutonium, causing the explosion is not rocket science. You can do your own research on the topic in your own sweet time.

Thats not what I asked you. How would you or any random Tom/Dick/Harry cause the nuclear explosion at the desired target? Just admit you can't answer that question, which is the crux of your arguments regarding PAK nuke threat to Bangladesh or even the World.

Now finally about the threat posed by Pakistan to Bangladesh!!

Heres my earlier post


Now about your major point that "Terrorist elements inside Pakistan is not threatning Bangladesh with nukes"
You are right, it is highly unlikely that Alqaeda would ever consider to nuke Bangladesh. Although I dont trust the moles inside Pakistani army but even the idea of them nuking bangladesh is far fetched. I grant you that. However any negative implications to the west would have an adverse economic implication for Bangladesh. USA is our major export partner (RMG) and any adverse effect on the US economy would have serious implications for our people. And all that because of orgasm that pakistan establishment seem to get by enriching weapons grade uranium and plutonium.

Moot point since whoever controls PAK nukes (army or AQ) has not yet nuked america, nor has anyone expressed intent to nuke america.

It is far more likely that India would nuke Pak than Pak would nuke the US, for the simple matter that PAK does not possess the delivery systems to reach any point of USA whereas India can easily reach eveyr point of PAK.

In the same asanine vein, I can argue that such an Indian strike on Pakistan will cause PAK to lose their cricket team, thereby leaving fewer teams willing to play Bangladesh, thereby depriving BCB and Bangladeshis (players, staff, employees, sponsors, Grameen Phone, etc) of much revenue, thereby being a direct economic threat to Bangladesh. See how stupid that sounds? Yeah, I thought so.

Zunaid
June 1, 2011, 01:02 AM
al Furqaan - your fascination with the Canadians is amazing. This _is_ the first time I've heard anything about the Canadians being party to nuclear proliferation. Could you share some links so that I can read up on it.

Detonating a fully-fledged atomic device may not be imminently possible by a rag-tag band of tribal fighters but if you notice there has been an increasing radicalization of some educated buggers.

If not the Bomb, I am fearful of a dirty bomb being set off in a populated place. That does not require too much know-how.

DJ Sahastra
June 1, 2011, 09:05 AM
al Furqaan - your fascination with the Canadians is amazing. This _is_ the first time I've heard anything about the Canadians being party to nuclear proliferation. Could you share some links so that I can read up on it.

Detonating a fully-fledged atomic device may not be imminently possible by a rag-tag band of tribal fighters but if you notice there has been an increasing radicalization of some educated buggers.

If not the Bomb, I am fearful of a dirty bomb being set off in a populated place. That does not require too much know-how.

Actually, i was about to ask that myself. I was not aware of Canadian angle to the nuclear proliferation and it would be good information to have.

DJ Sahastra
June 1, 2011, 09:39 AM
Didn't one of our mukti bahini "steal" a Pakistani fighter? They didn't "voluntarily provide" it. All is fair in love and war, and in defense of one's nation. India had the nuke, so Pakistan needed it and was fully justified in pursuing it, if all the other nations are justified. There are no special rules for Pakistan that I am aware of.


Al Furqaan,

1. How is Multi Bahini stealing a Pakistani fighter (a country that they were at war with) same as A Q Khan stealing from Dutch research centre (employee stealing from his employers).
2. Is your above example not exactly on the lines of my neighbour is rich and i am poor and i feel threatened that he might use his money-power to boss over me, so i should ask my kid to go and steal from his work place so that we could both be equal-equal?

al Furqaan
June 1, 2011, 01:41 PM
Al Furqaan,

1. How is Multi Bahini stealing a Pakistani fighter (a country that they were at war with) same as A Q Khan stealing from Dutch research centre (employee stealing from his employers).


I'm not fully aware of the details, but given that the Dutch do not have a weapons program, AQK "stole" from what was most likely a civilian program. How did AQK get in there to begin with? He was probably hired as any other research scientist is hired. As long as he stole technology ie "ideas" and not any physical material ie plutonium or uranium, the "theft" could at best be considered a copyright violation of sorts. A research center is above all an academic institution and an academic institution is concerned with the dissemination of information.

Had AQK gone to Cambridge instead, studied black holes, and went back to Pakistan with that knowledge and produced a Nobel Prize in physics, would we still be ranting about how he "stole" a Nobel?

Miraz bhai works in the UK in cancer biology, if he goes back to Bangladesh, will he be barred from helping kids with leukemia since much of his knowledge was obtained in the UK?

The issue is that AQK did not study black holes or cancer. He studied things that could be applied to weapons programs. And thats the issue. The idea of thievery is totally irrelevant, not only for the reasons highlighted in my earlier post, but because every nuclear nation got their nuclear programs (barring probably the Soviets who relied on totally home-grown scientists) from people or information or institutions housed outside their borders. Many of the people invovled in the Manhatan Project were not from the US (German scientists for example).


2. Is your above example not exactly on the lines of my neighbour is rich and i am poor and i feel threatened that he might use his money-power to boss over me, so i should ask my kid to go and steal from his work place so that we could both be equal-equal?


Not a good analogy because AQK stole from the Dutch and the Pakistanis were not being threatened by the Dutch. This statement would work if AQK stole technology from India. And even then, India and Pakistan have never made peace and are in essence "at war with each other" to this day. There is very little love lost between the citizens of the two countries. In a war murder becomes kosher, spying becomes kosher, and stealing becomes kosher.

In fact, I will go a step further and say that India's development of nuclear weapons was directly responsible for Pakistan having them today. UNtil then, Zulfikur Ali Bhutto had no plans on creating a program until after Smiling Buddha that is. Cause and effect.

Now to make you feel a little better, I'll blame China for your weapons, blame the soviets for the Chinese weapons, and blame the Americans for the Soviets. And the blame for the American weapon then necessarily falls on the Nazis, Japanase, and Italians.

al Furqaan
June 1, 2011, 01:58 PM
al Furqaan - your fascination with the Canadians is amazing. This _is_ the first time I've heard anything about the Canadians being party to nuclear proliferation. Could you share some links so that I can read up on it.

Detonating a fully-fledged atomic device may not be imminently possible by a rag-tag band of tribal fighters but if you notice there has been an increasing radicalization of some educated buggers.

If not the Bomb, I am fearful of a dirty bomb being set off in a populated place. That does not require too much know-how.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

according to this, Canada sold technology to India that assisted in the development of the Indian bomb. i'm looking for hard evidence, but i heard from hearsay that the Canadians have often peddled nuclear technology in contravention of non-proliferation principles. perhaps this is the only example, but it should suffice for the purpose of establshing "first blame".

re: the rag-tags...i doubt even Herewego and Poorfan are delusional enough to believe a veritable illiterate like Bangla Bhai or Richard Reid has the capability to successfully launch a nuclear tipped Ghazni at Dhaka or Las Vegas or Delhi. but lets not forget that organizations like AQ have always had "educated buggers" in the form of engineers, doctors, scientists, etc in their ranks. and still not even a dirty bomb. i think i got a psuedo-concession from Herewego on this front as he seemed to change his tune away from madrassah kids being the eminent threat to elements of the Pak army. and that is a fair assessment, although i won't agree on the "doomsday" aspect of its implications.

however, i'll agree the threat of a dirty bomb is real and not imagined, even though we've been fortunate enough to have not see one yet.

al Furqaan
June 1, 2011, 02:06 PM
It must also be noted that AQK "theft" only hastened things, it didn't change anything. Nuclear technology is, in the context of national industries, not that complex. The fact that impoverished nations like India and Pakistan can attain them should be testament to that fact. What makes nuclear technology elite is not the genius of the weapon - E = mc^2 is now no longer genius but common knowledge - its the difficulty in obtaining highly restricted elements. The material exists in mines of third world africa. Everything else is basic from the bomb cases, to conventional explosive charge. Specific design is, at this stage, just the artsy difference.

The reason Bangladesh doesn't have a weapon is not because we don't know how to do it, but because we don't have access to the materials.

BASSMAN
June 1, 2011, 02:23 PM
This just goes to show how barbaric there intellects were. They have always held a superiority complex over Bangladesh. They are now being punished for their wrong doings. I hope these pigs rot in hell for their crimes in 1971.
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition

DJ Sahastra
June 1, 2011, 02:54 PM
I'm not fully aware of the details, but given that the Dutch do not have a weapons program, AQK "stole" from what was most likely a civilian program. How did AQK get in there to begin with? He was probably hired as any other research scientist is hired. As long as he stole technology ie "ideas" and not any physical material ie plutonium or uranium, the "theft" could at best be considered a copyright violation of sorts. A research center is above all an academic institution and an academic institution is concerned with the dissemination of information.


I got my answer. You have NO idea what you are talking about.

HereWeGo
June 1, 2011, 03:50 PM
I got my answer. You have NO idea what you are talking about.

It took you these long to figure out!!! :P
We CompEng are supposed to be smart men!! :up:

al Furqaan
June 1, 2011, 06:59 PM
I got my answer. You have NO idea what you are talking about.

Fine AQ Khan stole nuclear information. Big woop. If we prosecuted every scientist, entrepreneur, company, and military for "stealing" humanity would still be walking around clothed in leaves off a tree. Yes, even the clothes on your back, was not your original idea, and yet you make use of it. The chinese invented rockets, but today the US is most powerful nation in part due to their nuclear weapons delivery systems (ie missles).

Advances, be they economic, political, militaristic, or otherwise is ultimately based on the exchange of capital and/or ideas. An exchange which is not always fair, or even legal.

The following clip may help to illustrate in more comedic fashion:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/n8BtHZWGB8c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But the point of the matter is "are pakistan's nuclear weapons a danger to anyone?" The answer is an emphatic "no" unless of course you happen to be Indian. Herewego is not Indian, hence I got on his case about alleging that Pakistan is a threat to bangladesh or the US, which he bases mostly on 2 or 3 random acts which weren't even successful. Not to mention that he forgets that the "B" in JMB stands for Bangladesh and not Pakistan. But "B" and "P" have been confused by fobby desis for generations.

You as an Indian have a reason to be prejudiced against Pakistan and Pakistanis, which even if it cannot be condoned can at least be understood. Understanding something and justifying it are two totally different things. Herewego, unless he was personally affected by 1971 doesn't not have a similar excuse. Do I like Pakistanis who have a condescending attitude towards Bangladeshis? Of course not. In fact, I have less tolerance for them than I do for India's bhagwan brigade. And thats saying quite a bit.

Zunaid
June 1, 2011, 07:22 PM
I am sorry al Furqaan, I'm not picking on you but a lot of your "arguments" are replete with ifs, shouldas, couldas, assumptions, misconceptions etc that I feel compelled to respond here. This may be an incoherent rambling since I have yet to have my coffee this morning.

You were being a bit disingenuous when you used Miraz's work on cancer biology as an analog to AQK stealing 'ideas'. What AQK steal was the blueprints for the Urenco centrifuge which are not only company secrets but also internationally regulated. If you do need to use an analogy then perhaps the analogy is an Indian engineer working for Honda stealing the blueprints for the hybrid-car design and selling it to Tata. At the very least it is an intellectual property theft which I personally take very seriously. But we are not talking about hybrid engine plans here are we?

You do have a point that it didn't change things and just hastened it. You are partially correct about nuclear technology is not complex but it also cannot be reduced to Einstein's E = MC^2. The key to making a bomb is the availability of sufficient quantity of weapons grade uranium/plutonium.Throw in a few physicists and metallurgists and you are well on your way. In 1964, the US Army hhired two professors with physics PhDs but no experience with nuclear weapons or access to nuclear secrets. The two were given the task of designing an atomic bomb using only information available to the general public. It took them roughly two years, but in the end they designed an implosion style weapon one could make in a local machine shop.

What's stopping all and sundry from having the bomb IS the difficult engineering process to refine the ores to produce weapons grade fissile material.

This has been the main barrier to more countries acquiring nuclear weapons on their own - the centrifuges, breeder reactors what not. The devices and materials needed to do the processing requires a high degree of technical know-how, a long history of research and experience in materials science, metallurgy and electronics engineering, and lots of moola.

Now going back to your fascination with the Canadians you must be thinking of the CIRUS (Canada-India reactor US) that was built in the 50s. The agreement was that the reactor could only be used for 'peaceful' purposes and that is why the US gave Heavy Water for the reactor under the 'atoms for peace' program. This was way before more involved non-proliferation agreements or policies were in effect and India smartly refused to accept fuel from Canada and set up their own program to produce fuel indigenously. Again, like AQK's act, this probably hastened India's production but was not instrumental.

One thing I do agree with alF - that India decided to finally build the bomb accelerated Pakistan's effort to build it's own but Bhutto had already initiated plans in 1972, two years before India's detonation in Pokhran. 1974 just accelerated Pakistan's efforts.

Zunaid
June 1, 2011, 07:29 PM
You as an Indian have a reason to be prejudiced against Pakistan and Pakistanis, which even if it cannot be condoned can at least be understood. Understanding something and justifying it are two totally different things. Herewego, unless he was personally affected by 1971 doesn't not have a similar excuse. Do I like Pakistanis who have a condescending attitude towards Bangladeshis? Of course not. In fact, I have less tolerance for them than I do for India's bhagwan brigade. And thats saying quite a bit.

Can of worms alert!

I had to snip this part from your post above. Why does a Bangladeshi who was personally affected by 1971 be the only one to have a reason to be 'prejudiced' (not the word I would have used, but since you used it I will keep it) against Pakistan and Pakistanis. Almost all Bangladeshis have been and are still affected by the trauma of our birth and there are many valid reasons as to why our weltanschaungen with respect to Pakistan would be different than say for Burkina Fasso or Tuvalu. And why would an Indian have a reason to have the same prejudice? Sorry, inquiring minds want to know.

HereWeGo
June 1, 2011, 07:48 PM
Fine AQ Khan stole nuclear information. Big woop. If we prosecuted every scientist, entrepreneur, company, and military for "stealing" humanity would still be walking around clothed in leaves off a tree.
:D
Quote of the century!!! :clap::notworthy:
( Please dont teach stealing to your kids :P )


Couple small correction, just for the fun of it. I can literally give counter argument against every point u made but that would take away the fun for the rest of the posters.

1) Your quote "All is fair in love and war" is not true, there are RoE (rules of engagement) that every soldier must follow. If it was fair, there would never be a war crimes tribunal anywhere.

2) When you mentioned "Didn't one of our mukti bahini "steal" a Pakistani fighter? They didn't "voluntarily provide" it.", I think you are referring to Birshrestho Flight lieutenant Matiur Rahman ; he was not a mukti bahini guerilla fighter, he was a Flight Lieutenant of the Pakistan Air force. He used the fighter to defect the Pakistan Air force, not sure if the fighter was ever meant to be used on a combat against Pakistan.

Neel Here
June 1, 2011, 08:21 PM
but because every nuclear nation got their nuclear programs (barring probably the Soviets who relied on totally home-grown scientists) from people or information or institutions housed outside their borders. you really have no idea what you are talking about do you ? :lol:
google "klaus fuchs".

now, how is India's diverting fuel from the research reactor CIRUS canada's fault ? whether or not India did the right thing can be a matter of discussion but in no way can that be constructed as canada's fault. just like it's not toyota's fault that taliban uses their pick-up trucks.

Nuclear technology is, in the context of national industries, not that complex. The fact that impoverished nations like India and Pakistan can attain them should be testament to that fact. wrong again. today's media has started to put it out as if making a nuke is like changing car oil, nothing could be further from the truth. nuclear weapons require a reasonably robust domestic industry, academic institutions and well developed nuclear research facilities. pakistan had none of those things. even the nuclear bomb exploded by pakistan was provided by china because they were unable to design it properly (they had actually tested a domestic design on may 17th or 18th 1998 which failed). the one they finally tested was a chinese design called CHIC-4. (US in fact looked the other way while all this was happening, back in the 80's but that's a separate story). all the countries of P5+ nuclear powers boast considerable technical and scientific expertise (India, Israel, Iran), barring two, pakistan and north korea, both client states of china. does that indicate anything ?

without AQ khan's activities pakistan would have been delayed by 20 or more years in its quest for the bomb. that would have been a potentially game changing scenario.
without pakistan I firmly believe pakistan won't have deteriorated as much as it has. right now the bomb is used as a get out of jail card for any number of misdemeanors, there is no urgent need to reform itself or its society.
there is no change in economic, taxation, education or administration policies. every year pakistan's economy has to be bailed out after pakistan plays the nuclear blackmail card, while the country festers from within.
do you really think if there's a nuclear war between India and pakistan, BD will be immune from the fallout ? unless we do something and soon this whole situation is going to end very badly for all of us.

al Furqaan
June 1, 2011, 09:06 PM
You were being a bit disingenuous when you used Miraz's work on cancer biology as an analog to AQK stealing 'ideas'. What AQK steal was the blueprints for the Urenco centrifuge which are not only company secrets but also internationally regulated. If you do need to use an analogy then perhaps the analogy is an Indian engineer working for Honda stealing the blueprints for the hybrid-car design and selling it to Tata. At the very least it is an intellectual property theft which I personally take very seriously. But we are not talking about hybrid engine plans here are we?


It is intellectual property theft. And technically yes, it is stealing, and hence is a morally reprehensible act. I'm willing to accept he stole. But I disagree with DJ as to how its different from Mukti Bahini stealing Pakistani fighters and/or equipment. In a war, the objective is to win. Pakistan has always been at war with India. Just because there aren't any guns busting right now does not mean they are states at peace. Now the war itself may not be justified, but thats another question.

You do have a point that it didn't change things and just hastened it. You are partially correct about nuclear technology is not complex but it also cannot be reduced to Einstein's E = MC^2. The key to making a bomb is the availability of sufficient quantity of weapons grade uranium/plutonium.Throw in a few physicists and metallurgists and you are well on your way. In 1964, the US Army hhired two professors with physics PhDs but no experience with nuclear weapons or access to nuclear secrets. The two were given the task of designing an atomic bomb using only information available to the general public. It took them roughly two years, but in the end they designed an implosion style weapon one could make in a local machine shop.

Thats exactly my point vis a vis the discussion with Herewego. But I need to make a clarification.

Nuclear weapons technology, the basic and ancient bomb design a la Little Man or Fat Boy is not at all complex for a state to develop. States have apparatus, manpower, capital, labs, technicians, etc. The difficulty is in obtaining the purified heavy metal to critical mass. Most countries don't produce it, and even if you do, the raw ore is useless for a weapon.

However, for an individual(s), even a Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist to just steal a bomb and deliver it to a distant target is impossible, as you have illustrated. Herewego, I guess has agreed that only the Pak military has the capability to launch one, and now his arguement rests on AQ elements infiltrating the Pak military. I agree with that assessment, but I disagree on the volatility he sees. Even if a rogue general wanted to fire a nuke, I doubt he could do it. The keys, the password, etc cannot possibly be within the control of any one person, except perhaps whoever is PAK's commander in chief.


Now going back to your fascination with the Canadians you must be thinking of the CIRUS (Canada-India reactor US) that was built in the 50s. The agreement was that the reactor could only be used for 'peaceful' purposes and that is why the US gave Heavy Water for the reactor under the 'atoms for peace' program. This was way before more involved non-proliferation agreements or policies were in effect and India smartly refused to accept fuel from Canada and set up their own program to produce fuel indigenously. Again, like AQK's act, this probably hastened India's production but was not instrumental.

Yes, thats it. But I think everyone, India and Pakistan should be classified as "smart" or "chalaak" or whatever.


One thing I do agree with alF - that India decided to finally build the bomb accelerated Pakistan's effort to build it's own but Bhutto had already initiated plans in 1972, two years before India's detonation in Pokhran. 1974 just accelerated Pakistan's efforts.

al Furqaan
June 1, 2011, 10:04 PM
:D
Quote of the century!!! :clap::notworthy:
( Please dont teach stealing to your kids :P )


Couple small correction, just for the fun of it. I can literally give counter argument against every point u made but that would take away the fun for the rest of the posters.

1) Your quote "All is fair in love and war" is not true, there are RoE (rules of engagement) that every soldier must follow. If it was fair, there would never be a war crimes tribunal anywhere.

not my quote. but i wasn't talking about genocide and rape. i was talking about the act of war itself.

but speaking of war crimes tribunal. the war crimes tribunal in the Hague has never indicted any Pakistani/Jamaat individuals for their crimes. and the war crimes tribunal represents the World's collective opinion. this is why the world's view regarding various things cannot be trusted.


2) When you mentioned "Didn't one of our mukti bahini "steal" a Pakistani fighter? They didn't "voluntarily provide" it.", I think you are referring to Birshrestho Flight lieutenant Matiur Rahman ; he was not a mukti bahini guerilla fighter, he was a Flight Lieutenant of the Pakistan Air force. He used the fighter to defect the Pakistan Air force, not sure if the fighter was ever meant to be used on a combat against Pakistan.

fair enough.

al Furqaan
June 1, 2011, 10:57 PM
you really have no idea what you are talking about do you ? :lol:
google "klaus fuchs".


Still, the Soviets relied on largely Soviet domestic capital and manpower for everything. The United States attracted the brightest minds from all over the world. If I had to guess, I would guess that the most important members of the Manhattan Project were overwhelmingly not American by birth. Furthermore, a lot of the theoretical advancements made from Maxwell to Einstein were mostly not American. Thats one of the ways they lost the Cold War.

Never heard of Fuchs before and while my European history class covered obscure folks such as Richelieu, Engles, and Dreyfus, Fuchs never got a mention. Perhaps what wiki says to discredit the importance of Fuchs is true.

Most scholars have agreed with the assessment made by Hans Bethe in 1952, which concluded that by the time Fuchs left the thermonuclear program—the summer of 1946—there was too little known about the mechanism of the hydrogen bomb for his information to be of any necessary use to the Soviet Union (the successful Teller-Ulam design was not discovered until 1951).

now, how is India's diverting fuel from the research reactor CIRUS canada's fault ? whether or not India did the right thing can be a matter of discussion but in no way can that be constructed as canada's fault. just like it's not toyota's fault that taliban uses their pick-up trucks.

OK, I admit I'm wrong. Plain and simple. My apologies.

wrong again. today's media has started to put it out as if making a nuke is like changing car oil, nothing could be further from the truth. nuclear weapons require a reasonably robust domestic industry, academic institutions and well developed nuclear research facilities. pakistan had none of those things. even the nuclear bomb exploded by pakistan was provided by china because they were unable to design it properly (they had actually tested a domestic design on may 17th or 18th 1998 which failed). the one they finally tested was a chinese design called CHIC-4. (US in fact looked the other way while all this was happening, back in the 80's but that's a separate story). all the countries of P5+ nuclear powers boast considerable technical and scientific expertise (India, Israel, Iran), barring two, pakistan and north korea, both client states of china. does that indicate anything ?

Again goes back to my main point discussed with Herewego that if is difficult for a state to detonate a nuke, how will rag-tag subnational entities like AQ do it?

so China is to blame. so should we as Bangladeshis be prejudiced against the Chinese government and all chinese citizens?


without AQ khan's activities pakistan would have been delayed by 20 or more years in its quest for the bomb. that would have been a potentially game changing scenario.
without pakistan I firmly believe pakistan won't have deteriorated as much as it has. right now the bomb is used as a get out of jail card for any number of misdemeanors, there is no urgent need to reform itself or its society.
there is no change in economic, taxation, education or administration policies. every year pakistan's economy has to be bailed out after pakistan plays the nuclear blackmail card, while the country festers from within.


i disagree. Pakistan has many problems. nukes are their life saver and their "first strike" policy has effectively castrated anyone from attacking them in all out war. they were harboring OBL and the most right wing American still won't dare to say "lets bomb them back to the stoneage".

ever heard the business mantra "location, location, location"? Pakistan is in a terrible location. The only country in a worse location is Israel, but Israel's hostile neighbors have at least been steadily autocratic until very recently.

Pakistan is surrounded by flux. Iran had a wholesale revolution. Afghanistan has seen nothing but war for the past 30 years. They are at war with India. To top it off, they have internal issues led by their Punjabocracy. Hence things are anarchic and chaotic.

Now I know you will attempt to use this to talk about "normal" and "not normal" or abnormal states, but unfortunately troubled doesn't = abnormal, because even America as severe issues. There is no accepted or even theorized doctrine in poly sci of categorizing actors as "normal" and "not normal".


do you really think if there's a nuclear war between India and pakistan, BD will be immune from the fallout ? unless we do something and soon this whole situation is going to end very badly for all of us.

of course not. but herewego was attempting to illustrate a direct link between Pakistan and threats to Bangladesh.

I guess you've been getting your daily dose of Fox News paranoia reports. Paks nukes don't pose a threat to anyone. If they were gonna nuke India they woulda done it already. Not to mention they know India has the capacity to wipe them off even if they hit all the major Indian citizens. MAD is alive and kicking.

HereWeGo
June 1, 2011, 11:08 PM
http://www.dawn.com/2011/06/01/how-pakistans-nuclear-weapons-could-be-jeopardised.html


How Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could be jeopardised

ISLAMABAD: It’s a nightmare scenario: al Qaeda militants gain control of a Pakistani nuclear weapon, either through a base assault, theft or a rogue commander’s cooperation, possibly in the event of hostilities with nuclear-armed neighbour India.

While most experts believe Pakistan’s strategic nuclear arsenal is safe, items such as low-yield, mobile nuclear delivery systems — called “shoot and scoot” tactical nuclear weapons — could be highly vulnerable.

The Nasr (Hatf-9) system being developed is a short-range, surface-to-surface multi-tube ballistic missile system. With a range of 60 km (37.5 miles), it’s designed for battlefield use.

Deploying small, portable nuclear weapons onto a battlefield increases the risk of things going wrong, either through miscalculation, an accident or possible infiltration by militant groups, nuclear experts say.

Here are some scenarios of how Pakistan might lose control over some of its nuclear arsenal.

Fog of (Nuclear) War

In the event of hostilities between India and Pakistan, militants could seize control of a Hatf-9 system — essentially a rocket launcher on a truck. But could they use it?

It’s necessary to understand the circumstances. In case of war between Islamabad and New Delhi, India is developing a “Cold Start” doctrine, which envisions armored battle groups quickly pushing into Pakistani territory, holding key pockets and then forcing Islamabad to the negotiating table.

The plan is to avoid antagonizing Pakistan to the point that it would retaliate with ballistic missiles against Indian cities, but Pakistani doctrine — and the Hatf-9 system — appears to envision using tactical nuclear weapons, possibly on its own soil, against the invaders.

But deploying tactical weapons to the battlefield means command and control has to be dispersed to individual military units.

And while Pakistan normally separates warheads and delivery systems, in times of crisis, weapons would be armed and deployed, although still “locked” by authentication codes, says Professor Shaun Gregory, director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of Bradford.

“However in a fluid battlefield context such codes will likely be released to prevent the weapons being overrun before they can be used,” he told Reuters in an email. “In such a ‘release delegated’ state … it’s possible that terrorists could seize a functioning weapon.”

Pakistan says its weapons have indigenously developed safety systems to prevent misuse, but it has never allowed outsiders to inspect these systems, Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, senior fellow for South Asia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, told Reuters.

Rogue Commanders

Another scenario is the “rogue commander”. Militant groups have had varying degrees of success in infiltrating the Pakistani military, but it’s unclear how deeply they go.

In addition to mechanical safety systems, Pakistan says its nuclear weapons are secure because of rigorous background checks and continuous monitoring of personnel for extremist sympathies.

That monitoring appears insufficient.

As far back as 2006, the United States was reporting in diplomatic cables, recently published by Wikileaks, that Pakistani pilots and flight crew were engaging in “petty sabotage” of American F-16s to prevent them being used against Taliban militants in the northwest.

The bodyguards for Punjab governor Salman Taseer were also heavily screened, but he was killed by an extremist who managed to get assigned to his security detail.

Speculation is also rife that the Taliban assaults on the PNS Mehran naval base in Karachi this month and on the Army General Headquarters in Rawalpindi in 2009 were aided by sympathisers from within the military.

While a commander going rogue is unlikely, “this is an ongoing struggle,” Roy-Chaudhury said. “The expected increase in radicalisation, especially within the Pakistani army after the U.S. raid and killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad … raises additional concerns.”

Rogue commanders could, in a conflict with India, hand over codes and weapons to militants or cooperate with them. The more mercenary types might simply sell them.

Seizing A Tactical Weapon From A Base

Another possibility doesn’t require a fight with India. The PNS Mehran attack shows militants have developed the ability to attack and hold ground inside sensitive military bases. And while no nuclear facilities have been penetrated yet the possibility has caused great concern.

“I think the attack on PNS Mehran (and on the GHQ in 2009) show that terrorists are developing tactics which enable them to penetrate highly-secure bases and hold space within them for hours,” Gregory said. “This suggests nuclear weapons security is increasingly vulnerable.”

Because of their smaller size, tactical weapons are more portable. And while the warheads wouldn’t be armed, the fissile materials of the cores could conceivably be extracted and used with conventional explosives to create a “dirty bomb”.

Militants could attack a base, seize a warhead or its core materials and then escape. A Pakistani tactical nuclear weapon might contain as little as 15-20kg (33-44 lbs) of enriched uranium.

“Responsible Pakistani stewards of their nuclear assets have no choice but to re-evaluate their security requirements and procedures,” said Michael Krepon, director of the South Asia and Space Security programs for Stimson, a Washington-based think tank for international security.




The Actual source of the news is Reuters

nakedzero
June 1, 2011, 11:45 PM
বিজ্ঞানীর অভিলাষ
পাকিস্তানের পারমাণবিক গর্ব বনাম বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা

পাকিস্তানের পরমাণুবিজ্ঞানী আবদুল কাদির খান দাবি করেন, তিনিই পাকিস্তানের পারমাণবিক বোমার জনক। পাকিস্তানের সেনাবাহিনী বেশ কয়েক বছর তাঁকে একটি প্রাসাদোপম ভবনে গৃহবন্দী রেখেছে। সেখানে বসে সংবাদপত্রে কলাম লিখে তিনি দিন গুজরান করেন। এই বিজ্ঞানীর ধারণা, পারমাণবিক বোমাই পাকিস্তানের রক্ষক। হালে তিনি দাবি করেছেন: '১৯৭১ সালে পারমাণবিক সামর্থ্য থাকলে আমাদের আর দেশের অর্ধেকটা বর্তমানের বাংলাদেশ লজ্জাজনক পরাজয়ের মাধ্যমে হারাতে হতো না।'
৩০ হাজার পারমাণবিক বোমার ভান্ডার নিয়েও সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়ন তার বিলয় ও ভাঙন ঠেকাতে পারেনি। তাহলে কি সত্যিই বোমার গুণে পাকিস্তান ১৯৭১ সালে জিততে পারত? এখনো কি পারবে?
চলুন, আবার ১৯৭১ সাল ঘুরে আসি। আমরা যারা সে সময়টায় বড় হয়েছি, তারা অন্তর থেকে জানি, পূর্ব ও পশ্চিম পাকিস্তান এক দেশ হলেও কখনোই এক জাতি ছিল না। আজকের তরুণ পাকিস্তানিরা কল্পনাও করতে পারবে না সে সময় পশ্চিম পাকিস্তানিদের মনে কী পরিমাণ বাঙালি-বিদ্বেষ কিলবিল করত। আমি শরমিন্দা হয়ে স্বীকার করি, আমার মতো সামান্য এক বালকও আমাদের চেয়ে খাটো ও কালোমতো বাঙালিদের স্বজাতিভুক্ত ভাবতে বিরক্ত হতাম। আমরা ছিলাম এক বদ খোয়াবের শিকার। আমরা ভাবতাম, লম্বা, ফরসা আর চোস্ত উর্দু বলিয়েরাই সাচ্চা মুসলমান আর ভালো পাকিস্তানি। রেডিও পাকিস্তানের অদ্ভুত ভাষায় উচ্চারিত বাংলা খবর শুনে স্কুলের বন্ধুরা হাসাহাসি করত।
পশ্চিম পাকিস্তানিদের শাসনে বাঙালিরা অনেক ভুগেছে। জিন্নাহ সাহেবের চাওয়ামতো উর্দু জবানের পূর্ব পাকিস্তানি হয়ে ওঠা নয়, তারা বিশ্বাস করত, বাংলা জবানের বাঙালি জাতি হয়ে ওঠাই তাদের ঐতিহাসিক নিয়তি। অন্য সব ব্যাপারেও পুবের মানুষের মন বিষিয়ে উঠেছিল। পাকিস্তানের জনসংখ্যার ৫৪ শতাংশই ছিল তারা, রপ্তানি আয়ের বড় অংশই আসত তাদের অবদানে। অথচ পশ্চিম পাকিস্তানি জেনারেল, আমলা আর জুলফিকার আলী ভুট্টোর মতো রাজনীতিবিদদের ভয় ছিল, গণতান্ত্রিক ব্যবস্থা কায়েম হলে ক্ষমতা ও সম্পদ সব পুব দিকে চলে যাবে।
গণতন্ত্র ও ইনসাফ থেকে বঞ্চিত পূর্ব পাকিস্তানের জনগণ অসহায়ভাবে চেয়ে চেয়ে দেখত, পূর্ব পাকিস্তানের নগদ টাকা পশ্চিমে চলে যাচ্ছে। সেই টাকায় এখানকার সরকার চলছে, কলকারখানা চলছে, বানানো হচ্ছে বিদ্যালয় ও বাঁধ। ১৯৭০ সালের ঘূর্ণিঝড়ে ভোলার প্রায় পাঁচ লাখ মানুষ মরে গেল। কিন্তু প্রেসিডেন্ট ইয়াহিয়া খানসহ জেনারেলরা কিছুই করলেন না।
চূড়ান্ত বিচ্ছেদ স্পষ্ট হয়ে উঠল সত্তরের নির্বাচনে। পাকিস্তানের সংসদে সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠতা নিয়ে হাজির হলো আওয়ামী লীগ। ভুট্টো এবং জেনারেলরা কেউ-ই জনতার রায় মানতে চাইলেন না। অবশেষে স্বাধীনতার দাবিতে বাঙালিদের উঠে দাঁড়ানোর দিন এল। তাদের দমাতে পাঠানো হলো সেনাবাহিনী। গণহত্যার পিঠে এল আরও গণহত্যা। রাজনৈতিক কর্মী, বুদ্ধিজীবী, শ্রমিক সংগঠক ও ছাত্রদের কচুকাটা করা হলো। নালা দিয়ে বইতে লাগল মানুষের রক্ত, কোটি মানুষ সীমান্ত পেরিয়ে পালিয়ে বাঁচল। একপর্যায়ে পুবের সমর্থনে ভারত হস্তক্ষেপ করে বসলে পাকিস্তানি সেনারা আত্মসমর্পণ করল, জন্ম হলো বাংলাদেশের।
পাকিস্তানের কপাল ভালো, তখন আমাদের হাতে পারমাণবিক বোমা ছিল না। ভাবতে ভয় লাগে, কোন চিন্তা মনে রেখে কাদির খান বলেন যে পারমাণবিক বোমার জোরে পাকিস্তান বেঁচে যেত? এই বিজ্ঞানী কি তাহলে ঢাকার স্বাধীনতাকামী জনতার ওপর বোমা ফেলতেন? কিংবা কলকাতা ও দিল্লিকে ধ্বংস করার জন্য তা ব্যবহার করা হতো? এবং বিনিময়ে লাহোর ও করাচির ওপর ডেকে আনত ভারতীয় ধ্বংসলীলা? অথবা আমরা কি তখন পারমাণবিক হামলার হুমকি দিয়ে ভারতকে দূরে রাখতাম, যাতে বিনা বাধায় আমরা পূর্ব পাকিস্তানিদের হত্যা করে যেতে পারি? এমনকি সেই ভয়াবহ বোমা ছাড়াই লাখে লাখে বাঙালিকে আমরা হত্যা করতে পেরেছিলাম। পারমাণবিক বোমা দিয়ে আর কত বেশি বাঙালি মেরে কাদির খান পাকিস্তানের ভাঙন ঠেকাতেন?
কারও কারও মনে হতে পারে, পাকিস্তান এক থাকলে মৃত্যু ও ধ্বংস সত্ত্বেও দীর্ঘ মেয়াদে বাঙালিদের ভালোই হতো। যাঁরা এমন ভাবেন, কিছু পরিসংখ্যান তাঁদের সিদ্ধান্ত নিতে সাহায্য করবে। লন্ডনভিত্তিক স্বাধীন চিন্তাকেন্দ্র লেগাটাম ইনস্টিটিউট ২০১০ সালে বিশ্বের ১১০টি দেশের একটি সমৃদ্ধির তালিকা তৈরি করেছে। সুশাসন, শিক্ষা, স্বাস্থ্য, নিরাপত্তা, ব্যক্তিস্বাধীনতা এবং সামাজিক সম্পদের নিরিখে করা এই তালিকায় বাংলাদেশের অবস্থান ৯৬তম। আর পাকিস্তান হয়েছে ১০৯তম। পূর্ব পাকিস্তানের এই উন্নতি তাদের স্বাধীনতারই অবদান। অন্যদিকে, জাতিসংঘের মানব উন্নয়ন সূচকে বাংলাদেশ হয়েছে ১৪৬তম, আর পাকিস্তান রয়েছে সামান্য ওপরে, ১৪১তম। পাকিস্তানের সঙ্গে থাকলে বাংলাদেশ বড়জোর সামান্য এগোতে পারত।
কিন্তু পরিসংখ্যান সব সময় সত্যের পুরোটা দেখায় না। বাংলাদেশ আমাদের চেয়ে গরিব কিন্তু বেশি আশাবাদী আর বেশি সুখী। তাদের সংস্কৃতি প্রাণবন্ত, শিক্ষা এগোচ্ছে, জনসংখ্যা নিয়ন্ত্রণের চেষ্টাও পাকিস্তানের চেয়ে বেশি সফল। এবং দেশটি প্রতিদিন আত্মঘাতী বোমায় তছনছ হয় না। সেখানকার রাষ্ট্রীয় প্রতিষ্ঠান এবং সামরিক বাহিনীও নিয়মিত হামলার শিকার নয়।
তাহলে পাকিস্তানের এই মহান বোমা বর্তমানে কী ফল দিচ্ছে? এটা না থাকলে কি ভারত পাকিস্তানকে গিলে খেত, উল্টিয়ে দিত ৪৭-এর দেশভাগ? এ রকম চিন্তা এক শ ভাগ খামখেয়াল। প্রথমত, ভারত দ্রুতবেগে বর্ধমান একটি অর্থনীতি এবং ১০২ কোটি জনসংখ্যার ভার সামলাতে হিমশিম খাচ্ছে। ভারতের মোট জনসংখ্যার অর্ধেকই ভয়ানক গরিব। আরও ১৮ কোটি মানুষের ভার নেওয়া, তাদের খাওয়ানো-পরানোর দায় ভারত কেন নিতে যাবে? দ্বিতীয়ত, ভারত আগ্রাসী ও সম্প্রসারণবাদী হয়ে উঠলেও অসম যুদ্ধের কারণে কোনো এলাকা দখল ও তা ধরে রাখা তার পক্ষে অসম্ভব। ইরাক ও আফগানিস্তানে মার্কিন দখলদারি এবং কাশ্মীরে ভারতীয় দখলদারির দিকে তাকালেই এটা পরিষ্কার হয়ে যায়।
পাকিস্তান ১৯৯৮ সালে পারমাণবিক বোমার অধিকারী হওয়ার পর কমপক্ষে তিনবার ভারত আমাদের আক্রমণের ঝোঁক সামলে নিয়েছে। ১৯৯৯ সালে পাকিস্তানের কারগিল অনুপ্রবেশের পর পাকিস্তানে অবস্থিত জঙ্গিশিবিরে হামলার জন্য ভারতের ভেতরে ক্রুদ্ধ চাপ তৈরি হয়েছিল। ওই বছরেরই ১৩ ডিসেম্বরে ভারতীয় সংসদ ভবন আক্রান্ত হওয়ার পরও তেমন পরিস্থিতি সৃষ্টি হয়েছিল। শেষ আশঙ্কা তৈরি হয় মুম্বাইতে সন্ত্রাসী হামলার পর। কার্যত পাকিস্তানের পারমাণবিক বোমা এর জনগণকে নয়, এখানে অবস্থিত জঙ্গিগোষ্ঠীগুলোর ছত্রচ্ছায়া হিসেবেই ব্যবহূত হয়। দুনিয়ায় যে-ই ইসলামের নামে বা ইসলামের বিরুদ্ধে যুদ্ধে নামে, তার কাছেই পাকিস্তান হয়ে ওঠে এক লোভনীয় মিত্র। কারণটা সেই পারমাণবিক বোমা। আরব, চেচেন, উইঘুর, উজবেক এবং বিভিন্ন পশ্চিমা শক্তিও পাকিস্তানকে ব্যবহার করতে চায় এ কারণেই। যত দূর জানা গেছে, পাকিস্তানই ছিল লাদেনের শেষ আশ্রয়।
একসময় সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়ন এবং বর্ণবাদী দক্ষিণ আফ্রিকাকে যে বেদনাদায়ক শিক্ষা নিতে হয়েছিল, এখন তা শিখতে হচ্ছে পাকিস্তানকেও। পারমাণবিক বোমা জনগণকে রক্ষা করতে ব্যর্থ। বরং এর জন্যই পাকিস্তান আজ ভেতরে-বাইরে দুর্দশার কবলে পড়েছে। এ থেকে বেরিয়ে আসার কোনো পথ বোমা-দর্শন দিতে পারছে না।
আরও বেশি বোমা বানিয়ে আমরা আমাদের বাঁচাতে পারব না। আত্মরক্ষার খাতিরেই আমাদের দরকার জীবন্ত ও টেকসই গণতন্ত্র। যুদ্ধের অর্থনীতির বদলে দরকার শান্তির অর্থনীতি। দরকার এমন এক ফেডারেশন, যেখানে প্রদেশগুলোর বঞ্চনার ন্যায্য প্রতিকার করা হবে। সবচেয়ে জরুরি হলো পাকিস্তানের সামন্তশাসনের অবসান ঘটিয়ে এমন এক সহনশীল সমাজ গঠন করা, যে সমাজের মানুষ আইনকে শ্রদ্ধা করবে।

পাকিস্তানের দি এক্সপ্রেস ট্রিবিউন থেকে নেওয়া, ইংরেজি থেকে অনুবাদ ফারুক ওয়াসিফ।
পারভেজ হুডবয়: পাকিস্তানের পরমাণু পদার্থবিদ্যার অধ্যাপক।

source :
বিজ্ঞানীর অভিলাষ
পাকিস্তানের পারমাণবিক গর্ব বনাম বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা
প্রথম আলো
তারিখ: ০২-০৬-২০১১

Zeeshan
June 2, 2011, 12:46 AM
Why not decide to do away with the nukes altogether? Yes I am an optimist. I believe in World Peace. It'd be a huge achievement if Obama can ratify CTBT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty)--knock on wood.

Neel Here
June 2, 2011, 01:17 AM
Never heard of Fuchs before and while my European history class covered obscure folks such as Richelieu, Engles, and Dreyfus, Fuchs never got a mention. Perhaps what wiki says to discredit the importance of Fuchs is true.
that quote is about the H-bomb (or fusion device, the teller ulam model was US' first fusion device), fuchs supplied info about the A-bomb (or fission device), which the soviets exploded in 1949. initially fuchs supplied info only of the areas he personally worked on (he was involved in calculation of critical mass) but later on as he became disillusioned with the american system, esp. what he saw as needless genocide inflicted on japan, he provided his soviet handler with complete blueprints of the basic fission device.


Again goes back to my main point discussed with Herewego that if is difficult for a state to detonate a nuke, how will rag-tag subnational entities like AQ do it?
couple of problems here, AQ is no taliban, it's not a rag tag force per se but one led by reasonable well educated and connected people who can command the resources and intellect of capable well established people worldwide. in a similarity with militaries worldwide, it also uses young men with low education as foot soldiers. that does not make it a rag tag force. tahawur hussain rana or aafia siddiqui are not exactly uneducated tribals.

more importantly, as of now AQ, large sections of pakistan's military (including ISI) and ISI's pet terrorist group lashkar e toiba are pooling resources. that gives them potential access to people trained to handle nuclear weapons.
however, I don't believe the AQ nuclear threat is half as large as it is made out to be.
the threat, as always was from pakistan's army and stays so.

just a couple of days back a noted pakistani journalist, asiatimes online's pakistan bureau chief, syed saleem shahzad was abducted by ISI and bumped off. his crimes ?
he has in the past written widely about the increasing radicalisation of pakistan's military, it's links with AQ and groups like LeT and JuD and at the moment was writing a tell all article on the attack on PNS mehran.
this is the first part of that article. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME27Df06.html
this is in fact a far more important event than daniel pearl's murder, but not being a westerner shahzad does not get the same footage in global (read western press)

right now, there is a civil war going on in pakistan's military, and the navy, led by the moderate admiral noman bashir (brother of foreign secretary salman bashir and considered close to PM gilani) is at the receiving end of it. today a report says that PN has accused PAF (which is pakistan's most radicalised military service, surprisingly, even more so than the army) of facilitating the strike on PNS mehran.
so China is to blame. so should we as Bangladeshis be prejudiced against the Chinese government and all chinese citizens?
did I say so or are you just putting words in my mouth (as usual) ?
I just mentioned that pakistan did not have the wherewithal to develop a nuke on its own. it is a VERY FLAWED opinion that creating an working nuke is child's play. it's not.
that's all.

i disagree. Pakistan has many problems. nukes are their life saver and their "first strike" policy has effectively castrated anyone from attacking them in all out war. they were harboring OBL and the most right wing American still won't dare to say "lets bomb them back to the stoneage".
life saver in what way ? they could have just decided not to take their country the cuckoo way ! to not harbour OBL ! no one was stopping them.
you are wrong about right wing americans though. right now the rednecks might be angry at pakistan but they don't run policy. the cons that run policy have always considered oakistan their darling, right from the fullscale arming of pakistan as part of SEATO and CENTO to unconditional support for bangladesh genocide during henry kissinger/ richard nixon days, to full fledged arming of pakistan military and tacit acceptance of chinse supply of nukes and ballistic missiles.

ever heard the business mantra "location, location, location"? Pakistan is in a terrible location. The only country in a worse location is Israel, but Israel's hostile neighbors have at least been steadily autocratic until very recently.
pakistan is in a terrible situation ? :doh: the only thing terrible about pakistan is pakistan itself. neither Iran nor India ever initiated hostilities against pakistan, afghanistan was always too weak and when the soviets came along global support and funding poured into pakistan to support the mujahideen. much of said money was shiphoned off by pakistan. it lies alongside some of the busiest oil routes and in between a country with overflowing oil (Iran) and another with voracious demand for oil (India). even by just allowing a pipeline they could have gotten rich. in stead what did they do ?
destroy afghanistan in the quest for the harebrained idea of 'strategic depth', bringing home the enormous problems of taliban in the process, launch war after war with India and start terrorist attacks when that didn't work out, leaving India mistrustful of anything it does, p!ss off iran by supporting anti-iran insugents and taliban factions, not to mention the repression of the shia minority and last but not the least provide a home to the globe's terrorist organisations.
whose fault is that ? if pakistan did not have nukes, simple economic forces would have forced them to correct their path. the nuclear umbrella instead provided a breeding ground of everything that is wrong with pakistan, which in turn killed off everything that is good.

Pakistan is surrounded by flux. Iran had a wholesale revolution. Afghanistan has seen nothing but war for the past 30 years. They are at war with India. To top it off, they have internal issues led by their Punjabocracy. Hence things are anarchic and chaotic. please, iran is a million times more stable than pakistan, the people have basic necessities of life, modern education (yes you read that correctly) and do not have to live in a feudal society.
whose fault is that afghanistan is at war ? the soviets left way back in 1987 but pakistan continued its efforts to install a puppet govt with help of a civil war. even now the taliban continues to be funded and supplied by ISI.
US would not have attacked pakistan, remember, pakistan has no oil.

oh and btw, nobody forced them to be 'at war' with India, it's their own decision.

Now I know you will attempt to use this to talk about "normal" and "not normal" or abnormal states, but unfortunately troubled doesn't = abnormal, because even America as severe issues. There is no accepted or even theorized doctrine in poly sci of categorizing actors as "normal" and "not normal". sure, troubled != abnormal
abnormal is when a country believes that creating heavily armed power structures outside govt supervision is the path of progress. chew on that.


of course not. but herewego was attempting to illustrate a direct link between Pakistan and threats to Bangladesh. as for nuclear threat, other than a fallout or a stray nuke intended for someone else falling on BD in case of nuclear war, I don't think there's any such threat. internal elements in BD are a bigger threat than pakistan or funding from saudi arabia.

I guess you've been getting your daily dose of Fox News paranoia reports. Paks nukes don't pose a threat to anyone. If they were gonna nuke India they woulda done it already. Not to mention they know India has the capacity to wipe them off even if they hit all the major Indian citizens. MAD is alive and kicking. af, please do not try to sort people into neat little simplistic categories. you will only embarrass yourself.
I despise fox and all it stands for.

pakistan's ambition is not to nuke India, it is to defeat India (and raise the pakistani flag from delhi's red fort or lal qila, a sentiment often expressed by pakistani leaders and thinkers :lol: ) the nuclear bomb was seen as a guarantor that India will not even think of responding and pakistan will just walk in and grab Indian territories, conduct numerous terror attacks etc (the policy was called bleed by a thousand cuts) and at the end, pakistan's hope was India would just crush upon itself and disintegrate, leaving pakistan to pick up the pieces. not a terribly brilliant plan but then no one accused pakistan's military of subtlety. ;)

the first trial of this brilliant plan was the kargil invasion, pakistan would capture the peaks overlooking the vital NH1A highway and surely, because of the nuclear threat India won't respond ? that however ended as a gross miscalculation, as India responded in spite of the nuclear threat and nearly wiped out pakistan army's northern light infantry (NLI). typical of pakistan, they even refused to accept the bodies of their own soldiers. Indian army conducted the last rites of their bodies with in accordance with military and religious customs.
you can read a riveting account of the war(and blundering plans by the army) by retd Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail, pakistan air force who was Director of Operations at the time of kargil. http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.com/2009/01/kargil-conflict-and-pakistan-air-force.html

now, pakistan was in a fix, the nukes did not prove to be the salvation it seemed it would be and in a couple of years 9/11 happened and pakistan increasingly found itself out of control of its own frankenstein.
if heavens forbid, the radicalised faction does manage a coup and capture the reins of pakistan's military, as seems more likely by the day, everyone and their dog will descend on pakistan with military force, including china. the nukes are proving to be rather a curse for them.

Neel Here
June 2, 2011, 01:31 AM
Why not decide to do away with the nukes altogether? Yes I am an optimist. I believe in World Peace. It'd be a huge achievement if Obama can ratify CTBT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty)--knock on wood.

don't be, don't be an optimist, you will only be disappointed. it has been tried before with zero effect.
we tested nukes in 1974 but did not weaponize i.e create weapons until 1989 (benazir bhutto and her generals threatened us with nukes, forcing our hand but that's a separate story.)

for those 16 years, India unfailingly pushed for a global disarmament treaty, where all powers would give up nukes, from security council to bilateral talks, everywhere. and guess what happened, we became the laughing stock of the world, the sentiment was 'hey see this beggar is here lecturing us to give up our guns'.

the reality of world politics is that everyone is unfailingly selfish and mean minded. treaties like CTBT and NPT are overwhelmingly loaded in favour of established nuclear powers (read the documents if you have the time). in time, it will be expanded to include countries like India but it will still stay discriminatory towards newcomers.

and whichever way you look at it, there is no moral justification for one country to have nukes but not others, esp two adversaries are on the opposite sides of the divide, like iran and israel. of course, there are more practical considerations like safety and stability but that does not overcome the moral objections. the way out of this quandary is global disarmament, something no power is willing to do.
you know why ?
because, in spite of all the enmity between US and USSR or US and china, they still enormously enjoy the fact that they have the power to decide the fate of an egypt or a bangladesh or a serbia by discussing among themselves, without bothering to know what the stakeholders of the 'lesser' countries think about that 'fate'.

bujhee kom
June 2, 2011, 01:36 AM
Neel, tumi firey eshecho baba?

Ei koidiin ki korla, jokhon tumi lookaiye chila, kothai gela? Kothai ghapti maira boisha asila maih...hahahaha?

Beamer
June 2, 2011, 11:58 AM
What the world is worried about is not the Paki nukes being delivered by ballistic missiles across oceans, but loose nuclear material being transferred to wrong hands which in turn could be used as dirty bombs that does small scale but far more pscychological damage among the populace. Given the nature of the Paki intelligence's shady double dealing past and present, can that be ruled out? No, it can't be ruled out. Imagine a suitcase bomb detonated in the heart of D.C or London or Delhi or say even Dhaka. Just think about it. There is every reason to be fearful of that scenario with Pakistan Military and ISI. Their civilian govt. have no control whatsoever over the military. They run the country. They run the businesses.

cluster11
June 2, 2011, 04:37 PM
After all the long arguments Beamer has summed it up nicely. The threat is not Pakistan firing a Nuke at Bangladesh, nobody here is entertaining that idea. The govt. of Pakistan appears to be losing control of the country gradually which is a very dangerous prospect. There are many ways major violence can break out in that region i.e. U.S. limited strikes against Pakistan, Afghanistan engaging in limited warfare against Pakistan, India and Pakistan getting into armed conflicts, Civil War erupting in Pakistan. All of these can have adverse affect over Bangladesh. BD's trade is heavily depended on India and a conflict in that region can prompt India to reduce/regulate trade citing national security. A dirty bomb erupting anywhere in South Asia can have immediate or long-term affect. Overall economy in the region can suffer from conflicts too. None of these are pipe dreams given the situation Pakistan is in today. The threat is not the Pakistani govt. but the situation in that region itself. And unfortunately for the people of that nation they can't really blame it on any other country for it.

al Furqaan
June 2, 2011, 04:39 PM
that quote is about the H-bomb (or fusion device, the teller ulam model was US' first fusion device), fuchs supplied info about the A-bomb (or fission device), which the soviets exploded in 1949. initially fuchs supplied info only of the areas he personally worked on (he was involved in calculation of critical mass) but later on as he became disillusioned with the american system, esp. what he saw as needless genocide inflicted on japan, he provided his soviet handler with complete blueprints of the basic fission device.


my bad, you're right. but much nearly all of civilization's progress is built upon the findings of others. someone invented the wheel, and the whole world ran with it. so the Soviets "cheated" off the Americans on the nuclear exam. you can't say that they were incapable of technilogical prowess. if it weren't for other shortcomings they probably would have won the space race, as a famous American astronomer famously said that Americans, when they reach the moon, would discover cosmonauts.

So AQ Khan and the Russians cheated. If you dig deep enough you will find similar "dishonest" acts in the programs of all countries. Everyone has spy agencies, even America. It doesn't mean that there is anything "dishonest" going on.

couple of problems here, AQ is no taliban, it's not a rag tag force per se but one led by reasonable well educated and connected people who can command the resources and intellect of capable well established people worldwide. in a similarity with militaries worldwide, it also uses young men with low education as foot soldiers. that does not make it a rag tag force. tahawur hussain rana or aafia siddiqui are not exactly uneducated tribals.

disagree with that bolded statement. for such a powerfully established entity, AQ is suprisingly weak. in fact, take out 911, USS cole, and African embassy bombings AQ has a very bare resume. far smaller groups like the LTTE have had far greater success, especially when taken into proportion to their membership numbers, funding, and media attention. in the past 10 years, everything AQ has done has actually been "homegrown" amateur stuff requiring zero expertise. in fact, ALL, FBI/CIA authorities will agree that that homegrown stuff is by far the bigger threat.

i'm not saying that there aren't elements of ISI/pak gov/military that doesn't have certain goals in common with AQ. far from it. but to suggest that they are AQ stuges is a bit far fetched, IMO.

more importantly, as of now AQ, large sections of pakistan's military (including ISI) and ISI's pet terrorist group lashkar e toiba are pooling resources. that gives them potential access to people trained to handle nuclear weapons.

what do you mean by the term 'handle'? does it mean to fire at a target or does it mean build from scratch? there are probably not even 12 extremely high ranking people who have such access/information. remember you yourself stated that very few people if any at all had the information to build a bomb in pakistan. i hardly think AQ Khan shared his secrets with even half of Pakistan's 170 million people.

however, I don't believe the AQ nuclear threat is half as large as it is made out to be.
the threat, as always was from pakistan's army and stays so.

but army won't act. its stated policy is if ever it finds itself in a position in which it finds itself losing a full-scale convention war with India, it retains the "right" to strike first. which of course is the unstated rule of every nuclear nation. thats one of the reasons why they exist. the thing is that all nuclear nations know that they will never be in that situation because of MAD.

just a couple of days back a noted pakistani journalist, asiatimes online's pakistan bureau chief, syed saleem shahzad was abducted by ISI and bumped off. his crimes ?
he has in the past written widely about the increasing radicalisation of pakistan's military, it's links with AQ and groups like LeT and JuD and at the moment was writing a tell all article on the attack on PNS mehran.
this is the first part of that article. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME27Df06.html
this is in fact a far more important event than daniel pearl's murder, but not being a westerner shahzad does not get the same footage in global (read western press)

all armies are by their nature jingoists. the Israeli army will never have lovey dovey feelings about Palestinians. the milatary of Turkey is very secular, but that doesn't mean they are going to be any less harsh than expected against the Peshmerga.

even if pakistan's army was officially atheist like Turkey's it would not guarantee an iota of change vis a vis India. there is no reason to believe that.

right now, there is a civil war going on in pakistan's military, and the navy, led by the moderate admiral noman bashir (brother of foreign secretary salman bashir and considered close to PM gilani) is at the receiving end of it. today a report says that PN has accused PAF (which is pakistan's most radicalised military service, surprisingly, even more so than the army) of facilitating the strike on PNS mehran.

forget what this is a response too. but my statement immediately above stands.

did I say so or are you just putting words in my mouth (as usual) ?
I just mentioned that pakistan did not have the wherewithal to develop a nuke on its own. it is a VERY FLAWED opinion that creating an working nuke is child's play. it's not.
that's all.

Exactly. Launching a nuke is also not child's play. My guess is the password on the trigger is a bit harder to crack than simply typing in "boomboomghazni" or "tendulkarsux".

The only threat is, as Doc and Beamer have correctly stated, dirty bombs. But where i differ is in how dangerous that is to a similarly sized conventional weapon. If you're in the blast radius, you're effed. but it hardly affects ppl more than a few hundred yards away. my nuclear chemistry is a bit rusty, but if i recall correcty, if a dirty bomb gives off anything sized similar to an alpha particle, the radiation is not going very far. gamma rays would be a different matter if i recall correctly.

life saver in what way ? they could have just decided not to take their country the cuckoo way ! to not harbour OBL ! no one was stopping them.
you are wrong about right wing americans though. right now the rednecks might be angry at pakistan but they don't run policy. the cons that run policy have always considered oakistan their darling, right from the fullscale arming of pakistan as part of SEATO and CENTO to unconditional support for bangladesh genocide during henry kissinger/ richard nixon days, to full fledged arming of pakistan military and tacit acceptance of chinse supply of nukes and ballistic missiles.

define "cuckoo" way? or is that another academically established term from int'l relations along with "not normal countries"?

the idea is that any state, whether it is an evil state or a good one, will under threat produce nuclear weapons. look at Israel. They wouldn't even lose a conventional war, but they still produced a nuke because they could. Was that a cukoo move? I am not at all an Israel supporter, but their nukes were smart, even though unneccessary. And they don't have half their population living under the poverty line. Pakistan has actually gotten their butt handed to them in a conventional war and producing a nuke was the only logical result.

One could argue the same about India's chimeric pursuit of catching up to China in some delusional rivalry they have going on. But again, that is to be expected. I could raise the same questions as to why India, when they have a greater percentage of poor and starving people lacking basic necessities than Bangladesh (which was news to me), spent so much on trying to play catch up with China. Its like the poor folks who keep buying lottery tickets in teh hope to get rich instead of actually doing something with their limited resources. And just in case you think I'm picking on India, America does it too, just to a far smaller scale. And that too is wrong. Its idiotic to give tax breaks to the 1% of Americans who already own 80% of the GDP, when tens of millions of people (myself included) don't even have health insurance. And that says nothing about squander the Clinton era surplus on a wild goose chase war with no end in sight.

And speaking of war with no end in sight. Thats exactly what would happen if Pakistan didn't have nukes. A war with no end in sight. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan, and what will happen in Libya.


pakistan is in a terrible situation ? :doh: the only thing terrible about pakistan is pakistan itself. neither Iran nor India ever initiated hostilities against pakistan, afghanistan was always too weak and when the soviets came along global support and funding poured into pakistan to support the mujahideen. much of said money was shiphoned off by pakistan. it lies alongside some of the busiest oil routes and in between a country with overflowing oil (Iran) and another with voracious demand for oil (India). even by just allowing a pipeline they could have gotten rich. in stead what did they do ?
destroy afghanistan in the quest for the harebrained idea of 'strategic depth', bringing home the enormous problems of taliban in the process, launch war after war with India and start terrorist attacks when that didn't work out, leaving India mistrustful of anything it does, p!ss off iran by supporting anti-iran insugents and taliban factions, not to mention the repression of the shia minority and last but not the least provide a home to the globe's terrorist organisations.
whose fault is that ? if pakistan did not have nukes, simple economic forces would have forced them to correct their path. the nuclear umbrella instead provided a breeding ground of everything that is wrong with pakistan, which in turn killed off everything that is good.

thats a very existential question. are you actually advocating a unified India including Bangladesh and Pakistan? that might work well for you, but not for the majority of Bangladeshis or Pakistanis.

you can't get rich from pipelines alone. the entire Arab League with all their oil - actual oil, not pipelines, mind you - has a combined GDP less than Spain, a medium income country compared to other W European states.

please, iran is a million times more stable than pakistan, the people have basic necessities of life, modern education (yes you read that correctly) and do not have to live in a feudal society.

the same could be said of India, where according to a piece written by Amartya Sen, India ranks behind Bangladesh on such basic things as female literacy, child mortality, childhood vaccinations. that statistic blew my mind, and had it not been from an Indian himself, i wouldn't have believed it. so clearly something apart from national income is at play here.

as for Iran, i don't think Iran is very stable, what with all the talk of regime change, etc. the economy was doing well under the Khatami regime, but has gone to crap under Ahmedinijad. Iran has at least a few ethnic minorities creating successionist or potential successionist movements (Kurds, Azeris, etc).

whose fault is that afghanistan is at war ? the soviets left way back in 1987 but pakistan continued its efforts to install a puppet govt with help of a civil war. even now the taliban continues to be funded and supplied by ISI.
US would not have attacked pakistan, remember, pakistan has no oil.

that may be true, but Sovients invaded in 1980 leading to instability which still exists today. Pakistan did intervene, but lets not think that the Tajiks, Pashtuns, Hazaras, and Uzbeks would all get along without Paki involvement. And then pakistan would have to intervene anyways, just as India was forced to intervene in Bangladesh's independence war - at great national benefit too I might add.


oh and btw, nobody forced them to be 'at war' with India, it's their own decision.

agreed.

sure, troubled != abnormal
abnormal is when a country believes that creating heavily armed power structures outside govt supervision is the path of progress. chew on that.


it was still done with the intention of national self interest. it doesn't matter whether a country elects to stay neutral, Switzerland, or chooses to be the most militarized nation in the history of earth (America), all states follow what they perceive to be in their overall best interest. this counts for individuals as well.

The Third Reich may have fallen, but they didn't lose World War II on purpose. They pursued what they felt was their national interest (global or at least European conquest). The got effed because they were unable to implement their goal, not because the goal itself was counter-productive. Every nation seeks to dominate a specified sphere of the earth.


as for nuclear threat, other than a fallout or a stray nuke intended for someone else falling on BD in case of nuclear war, I don't think there's any such threat. internal elements in BD are a bigger threat than pakistan or funding from saudi arabia.

agreed.


af, please do not try to sort people into neat little simplistic categories. you will only embarrass yourself.
I despise fox and all it stands for.

fox news is a by-word for fear-mongering paranoia. it may not be a great term to describe you as you seem to espouse many beliefs counter to the prototypical neo-con. but regarding Pakistan, you are quite like Sean Hannity, in that your fear/skepticism/hared goes so far as to oppose humanitarian assistance during a flood.



the first trial of this brilliant plan was the kargil invasion, pakistan would capture the peaks overlooking the vital NH1A highway and surely, because of the nuclear threat India won't respond ? that however ended as a gross miscalculation, as India responded in spite of the nuclear threat and nearly wiped out pakistan army's northern light infantry (NLI). typical of pakistan, they even refused to accept the bodies of their own soldiers. Indian army conducted the last rites of their bodies with in accordance with military and religious customs.

this was not a full-scale war, in my opinion. if most established political scientist disagree, then i will defer to their expertise. but according to wiki, the troop strength for both sides combined was about 35,000. compared to their overall troop size, this was just a "large skirmish". had India launched a more massive and disproportionate attack - of the kind Israel launched in lebanon in 2006 - then we could say that yes India went in and Pak wussed out of dropping nukes. but then that would also imply that pakistan's nukes aren't a threat since they didnt use them.



now, pakistan was in a fix, the nukes did not prove to be the salvation it seemed it would be and in a couple of years 9/11 happened and pakistan increasingly found itself out of control of its own frankenstein.
if heavens forbid, the radicalised faction does manage a coup and capture the reins of pakistan's military, as seems more likely by the day, everyone and their dog will descend on pakistan with military force, including china. the nukes are proving to be rather a curse for them.

the nukes worked. the nukes cannot help PAK win a conventional war. i doubt the pakis are that foolish. it will only serve to deter india from launching a massive assault - which it did. the nukes a detterance as it is in all countries. MAD. again. 4,000 troop deaths in all out war, the upper estimate, is small considering the size of Pak's army.

Neel Here
June 2, 2011, 07:31 PM
Neel, tumi firey eshecho baba?

Ei koidiin ki korla, jokhon tumi lookaiye chila, kothai gela? Kothai ghapti maira boisha asila maih...hahahaha?

yay pagla dada ! ki khobor ?!

Neel Here
June 2, 2011, 07:41 PM
What the world is worried about is not the Paki nukes being delivered by ballistic missiles across oceans, but loose nuclear material being transferred to wrong hands which in turn could be used as dirty bombs that does small scale but far more pscychological damage among the populace. Given the nature of the Paki intelligence's shady double dealing past and present, can that be ruled out? No, it can't be ruled out. Imagine a suitcase bomb detonated in the heart of D.C or London or Delhi or say even Dhaka. Just think about it. There is every reason to be fearful of that scenario with Pakistan Military and ISI. Their civilian govt. have no control whatsoever over the military. They run the country. They run the businesses.
the threat of dirty nuke is highly overstated. it is more an weapon of fear than an actual weapon. if the fallout is tackled early and quickly a dirty nuke would affect less people than a hand grenade would and most likely not kill anyone. the only way it can do real damage is if people panic like headless chickens, a situation any half competent govt should be able to control. ask any person working with nuclear technology and he will tell you the same.
moreover, for such low pay-off, it is a far more difficult weapon to transport than a common car-bomb (say). nor only is it likely to set off radiation sensors at various transit points, the extra care that the terrorists would have to take would be very suspicious in itself.
all in all, not a particularly likely weapon to be used.
if anything, I think if AQ wanted they would have had access to all the materials needed for a dirty bomb by now. radioactive material is not that hard to get. it doesn't have to be uranium or plutonium, hospitals handle large quantities of radioactive material too. it's just that dirty bomb was never one of their targets, it was a scenario thought up by security analysts.

Neel Here
June 2, 2011, 08:03 PM
AF, why don't you try listening to what javed akhtar says about pakistan in the other thread, 'two nation theory'. we will carry on this discussion after you do so.

PoorFan
June 3, 2011, 02:02 AM
Any society ...

That kills 200+ human in a rally on the street of its Ex-president, by suicide bomber, and eventually get killed after repeated plea for security. Other Ex-president while in power get wipe out attack [least THRICE] on the way [even with presidential heavy security] by some heavenly ideologist. That society having Zanaza festival each Friday leaving hundreds of men, women, children paralyzed, orphan, support-ess for lifetime, for no ideology on universe can ever justify. That society that breed holy killers of law makers, journalists just because having different views, and their law sends human to the gallows in the name of blasphemy. That society knows nothing on worlds most wanted criminal and his family 20+ in numbers, gathers one by one in their heart taking 5+ years, but knows everything crystal clear that anything goes wrong, or their wrongdoing or their miserable fate is always proven enemy conspiracy....

When that society feeds own people that ideology nicely wrapped up with religious color and flavor is a grave threat to its own existence. When its starts to export that paranoid ideology to the brotherhood world is a threat to the globe no less than nuke. Denial but desperate mind of that society will always look for comfort in terms like "troubled != abnormal" when that state and standard in other society is "doomed != dead". Pak nuke threat from some part of the world we hear a lot, legitimate and reasoning [more or less], but brotherhood world remain mum on that freaking ideology threat, which to them definitely should matter most.

Banglatiger84
June 3, 2011, 06:33 AM
Well said PoorFan Bhai

The same people who will lament Pakistanis being killed in terrorism will be

1) Cheering murder of journalists who may expose the army
2) Cheers killing of a minister for not agreeing with blasphemy law
3) Wants all Ahmadis to be killed
4) Cheers when Afghan civilians are killed by Taliban saying gthe civilians are fair game

Many

cluster11
June 3, 2011, 08:39 AM
Pakistan's current situation is somewhat similar to the Arthur Conan Doyle story "The Speckled Band". Holmes was investigating some death by an unknown creature and nobody could figure out who or what was responsible. They had suspicion of the man behind it but no proof. When they had to defend themselves against the unknown threat they struck fiercely not knowing the outcome. The outcome was the animal going back to it's owner and biting the hand that fed it.

Zeeshan
June 3, 2011, 08:44 AM
You are kinda spoiling the ending away for those who haven't read it, cluster.

Zunaid
June 3, 2011, 08:54 AM
You are kinda spoiling the ending away for those who haven't read it, cluster.

Only for those who can solve Schroedinger's equation from first principles. I knew I had recovered 99% when I was able to do that.

al Furqaan
June 3, 2011, 09:14 AM
AF, why don't you try listening to what javed akhtar says about pakistan in the other thread, 'two nation theory'. we will carry on this discussion after you do so.

i'll do it when i have the time. right now my speakers don't work, so if i watch it, it will have to be on my ipod. is it very long?

Beamer
June 3, 2011, 11:39 AM
the threat of dirty nuke is highly overstated. it is more an weapon of fear than an actual weapon. if the fallout is tackled early and quickly a dirty nuke would affect less people than a hand grenade would and most likely not kill anyone. the only way it can do real damage is if people panic like headless chickens, a situation any half competent govt should be able to control. ask any person working with nuclear technology and he will tell you the same.
moreover, for such low pay-off, it is a far more difficult weapon to transport than a common car-bomb (say). nor only is it likely to set off radiation sensors at various transit points, the extra care that the terrorists would have to take would be very suspicious in itself.
all in all, not a particularly likely weapon to be used.
if anything, I think if AQ wanted they would have had access to all the materials needed for a dirty bomb by now. radioactive material is not that hard to get. it doesn't have to be uranium or plutonium, hospitals handle large quantities of radioactive material too. it's just that dirty bomb was never one of their targets, it was a scenario thought up by security analysts.

It is overstated, but I mentioned psychological fear as the main problem in this case. You don't need to be informed, but just a mention of the word 'nuclear' will create havoc among the masses. Particularly true if done in a sub-continental city. How many thousand people have died from stampedes over the years at a village or outside a temple, or at a game? Plus, the lingering contamination within a radius of any city will persist for years, unlike a conventional weapon that can be cleaned up afterwards. Plus, who knows what evil minds can do with it? The can put it in the water supply, or in the food chain. So, the threat is real..

DJ Sahastra
June 3, 2011, 03:41 PM
The whole "unification" theory is a bullshit. Thanks in part to current and perceived future state of Pakistan - Indians are more interested in securing their borders, preserving their way of life and trying to improve their standards of living than thinking of "unification". The generation of those with nostalgia and cross-border affiliations is long gone. LONG LONG GONE. We have followed two different paths for more than half a decade - each of our own choice and each with its own results, and whether those paths were for good or for bad, they are non-convergent.

As far back as in 1948, Nehru was asked about "Unification" and he had commented "I have enough headache of my own". Why will i want an additional headache. Thanks but no thanks". And it can't be more truer anyday.

In past 20 years, i haven't heard a single commentator or a politician say "Ah, it would've been so good if India and pakistan were one country". But million voices that say "good Riddance". Only that it is not a riddance yet.

DJ Sahastra
June 3, 2011, 03:56 PM
I am definitely interested in seeing a combined team of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh take on the World XI in a Test series. That is as much unification as i support.

Neel Here
June 3, 2011, 08:53 PM
i'll do it when i have the time. right now my speakers don't work, so if i watch it, it will have to be on my ipod. is it very long?
first one is 10 min and the other is 6. but eminently watchable IMO.

beamer bhai, you know I have doubts about the amount of nuclear induced panic in a developing country's city. last year there was a dirty bomb scare in delhi which for quite a few hours looked like a genuine one. only later was it discovered that a hospital had dumped radioactive material without permission. now, while all the news channels went to town with the story, the general public was curiously unaffected. those who heard the news actually gathered near the garbage dump to watch the tamasha !
I have a theory about this, given how tough life in these parts can be, folk are far less prone to panic than in the developed world unless they see instant identifiable danger in front of them.

Neel Here
June 3, 2011, 09:02 PM
I am definitely interested in seeing a combined team of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh take on the World XI in a Test series. That is as much unification as i support.

and hockey, don't forget hockey. it still rankles how much the very game of hockey was completely changed unfairly by the europeans to prevent the sub continentals from dominating the game with their skill based style of play.
as an aside, we would have seen the same in cricket (spinners and spinning pitches would have been banned or handicapped and cricket administration was already loaded against us) had not bcci become a moving force. not that they don't try now. greentops fit for cows and sheep are called 'sporting pitches' while spinning pitches are called 'minefields', unsporting and numerous other pejoratives.

Neel Here
June 6, 2011, 09:35 AM
Nadeem Paracha's biting satire in the dawn newspaper.

http://www.dawn.com/2011/06/03/freedom-from-darkness.html

I have with me pages from Ayub’s book, ‘Friends, Not Masters,’ that were not allowed to go into final print by Bhutto. I shall reproduce a paragraph from one such censored page.

‘For hours my office did not have any light. I called a minister and told him I am sitting in an office in the dark, I mean I am the president! The minister told me that my foreign minister, Z A. Bhutto, was on a state visit to the US for this very reason. I was floored. No one told me Bhutto had gone to Christen America. So when he came back I called him in my still darkened room and asked for an explanation. He stumbled and fell over a chair and said that had we been America’s friend, this room would have had light. I was furious. I told him how can we make fraaanship with Christian America! I told him we should make fraaaandship only with other Islamic countries. Like China.’ :lol:

Neel Here
June 7, 2011, 04:25 AM
in af's 'normal' country. :D

In Punjab, a Christian can’t present the provincial budget

LAHORE:

Several provincial legislators in Punjab belonging to the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) have objected to Punjab cabinet member Kamran Michael presenting the budget on grounds that he is Christian, sources within the party told The Express Tribune.


http://tribune.com.pk/story/183896/in-punjab-a-christian-cant-present-the-provincial-budget/

Kabir
June 7, 2011, 11:05 AM
133 posts to discuss AQ Khan and what he said.

Wow.

Nafi
June 7, 2011, 01:13 PM
133 posts to discuss AQ Khan and what he said.

Wow.

Anything Pakistan - Bangladesh related, touches a few sensitive areas for posters here.

Banglatiger84
June 7, 2011, 01:49 PM
Nadeem Paracha's biting satire in the dawn newspaper.

http://www.dawn.com/2011/06/03/freedom-from-darkness.html

:lol:

Well, many Pakistanis consider him a traitor and will be glad if he is killed for pointing out the truth.

TBH what cracked me up were the numerous comments failing to catch his satire and accusing him of lying !

al Furqaan
June 8, 2011, 02:08 AM
in af's 'normal' country. :D



http://tribune.com.pk/story/183896/in-punjab-a-christian-cant-present-the-provincial-budget/

According to the academically acclaimed Neel Here criteria of International Relations:

US is an abnormal country (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/12/protesters-arrested-for-disrupting-first-hindu-senate-prayer/)

India is an abnormal country (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-12-26-india-churches-attacks_N.htm)

Switzerland is an abnormal country (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8385069.stm)

And thats after ignoring theocratic countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia. US/India/Switzerland are all secular countries...or are they???

You have still to cite any reasonable academic sources on categorizing political actors along "normal" and "abnormal" grounds. And assuming you are the novel brain behind this innovative model, what is your criteria for classification of countries? Is it anything based on accepted principles of IR? Or are you merely drawing names out of a hat?

Neel Here
June 8, 2011, 08:25 AM
sigh ! if you think those are similar incidents then no one can help you.
all you are able to do is mock me like a kid.

there's a difference between isolated incidents of violence subsequently taken care of by authorities and lawmakers arguing against a fellow lawmaker, a person born and brought up in their country simply because of his religion.
put things in context, pakistan's minority population decreased from around 30% during independence to around 3% now. that is of course 'estimated' because pakistan's census is erratically held. the actual numbers could be lower.
google asia bibi and you should find your answers.

p.s. last I heard israel allows people other than of jewish faith to freely practice their religion, which KSA does not. KSA is definitely odd (or abnormal if you prefer that word) in some respects because of the peculiar social policing laws and other aspects of personal freedom. however, it does have rule of law, unlike pakistan.
one or two isolated incidents does not make a country 'not normal', but a slew of them all at the same time definitely does. which makes somalia an abnormal or failed state and pakistan not too far behind, albeit with nuclear weapons.

p.p.s I take it you still haven't managed to listen to javed akhtar's interview ?

Neel Here
June 8, 2011, 08:28 AM
Well, many Pakistanis consider him a traitor and will be glad if he is killed for pointing out the truth.

TBH what cracked me up were the numerous comments failing to catch his satire and accusing him of lying !

had there been a few more like him and that back in the 80's, pakistan would have fared much better. right now it seems they are over the hump and hurtling downhill.

bujhee kom
June 8, 2011, 12:56 PM
AQ Khan to GQ Khan and then to GQ magazine and guess what I found Aamir Khan!!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_036yF3LHHa0/STV3NhIAilI/AAAAAAAAA5g/pPW7wlWfJ4E/s400/aamir_gq.jpg

bujhee kom
June 8, 2011, 12:58 PM
And then booom here it is...the other Khan in GQ....And look what he is sayin bhais...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OGNDIejLnEE/S3GYaR_WsEI/AAAAAAAALFI/NzKeyuyfZnE/s512/Shahrukh-Khan-GQ-India-February-1.jpg

al Furqaan
June 10, 2011, 10:49 AM
sigh ! if you think those are similar incidents then no one can help you.
all you are able to do is mock me like a kid.


no mockery, i'm being serious. you used the terms normal and abnormal, which are not academically accepted classifications. thats all i'm saying.


there's a difference between isolated incidents of violence subsequently taken care of by authorities and lawmakers arguing against a fellow lawmaker, a person born and brought up in their country simply because of his religion.

1) the examples I cited are not "isolated" by an stretch of the imagination any more than the your pakistan citation is not "isolated".

The American fellows from that link represent the vast majority, if not all, of the Evangelical movement in the US - which is numbered at 40 million. 40 million people is not isolated in my book.

As for the Swiss, the perpetrators where the "authorities and lawmakers" so no there was no question of it being "taken care of" by anyone.

We'll leave France's burqa ban out of the equation since its not mandated in Islam and actually does pose a potential security threat - unlike Swiss minarets.

India has seen multiple actions against multiple minority communities in recent times. Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians have all come under fire multiple times. That plus casualty counts in the hundreds to thousands cannot be termed "isolated".

We won't get into Uganda's treatment of gays or Chinese repression of ethnic and religious minorities, but it should suffice for now.

put things in context, pakistan's minority population decreased from around 30% during independence to around 3% now. that is of course 'estimated' because pakistan's census is erratically held. the actual numbers could be lower.

Bangladesh's minority pop decreased from 35% to 10%. Is Bangladesh an "abnormal" country whose natural disaster victims shouldn't be helped because its an "abnormal" country?

India's minority pop decreased from 30% to 15%, does that make India "abnormal"?

What differentiates abnormal from normal?



p.s. last I heard israel allows people other than of jewish faith to freely practice their religion, which KSA does not. KSA is definitely odd (or abnormal if you prefer that word) in some respects because of the peculiar social policing laws and other aspects of personal freedom. however, it does have rule of law, unlike pakistan.

so is it a rule of law issue?

But bear in mind that Pakistan was originally founded as a "secular" country by Jinnah and associates. Even today, Pakistan's constitution is probably just as minority friendly as Israel's constitution.

one or two isolated incidents does not make a country 'not normal', but a slew of them all at the same time definitely does. which makes somalia an abnormal or failed state and pakistan not too far behind, albeit with nuclear weapons.

Somalia is a total basket case. They don't even have an office to issue Somali passports from, if I have heard correctly. Pakistan may be disheveled at the moment, and things will most certainly get worse, but its nowhere near the level of Somalia.

As I have shown with my three examples, the USA, India, and Switzerland are not "isolated". USA has cases every day ranging from quran burnings, to lynchings of blacks, to abortion clinic bombings, to intentionally killing Sikhs because they're "the same as Arabs", etc, etc, etc. Even Jews get victimized in this day an age. India you already now about.

Only the Swiss is an "isolated" incident, and there is prolly minor things we dont hear about. But the magnitude of the Swiss case negates that "isolated" nature of it.

You see, in my opinion, minority intolerance is actually a marker of "normalcy" because it happens everywhere. As Muslim Americans post-911, my parents expect and even condone minor acts of bigotry against them by saying "this is their country, they have every right to be angry at us, if this was Bangladesh and we were minorities, we'd be far worse off...American manush amader che onek bhodro".

I do not accept or condone such bigotry, although I understand it.

In fact, you will see that states that are tolerant of minorities are "abnormal" in the sense that it is totally unheard of. That and perhaps apartheid South Africa where the minority oppressed the majority.

p.p.s I take it you still haven't managed to listen to javed akhtar's interview ?

no i haven't. but the good news is my speakers are working at the moment, and i will try to check it out tonight.

Neel Here
December 21, 2011, 04:32 AM
sorry for a bit of necro.


India's minority pop decreased from 30% to 15%, does that make India "abnormal"? really ?
making things up as usual ?

Tintin
December 21, 2011, 05:24 AM
sorry for a bit of necro.

really ?
making things up as usual ?


2.6.3. India: Based on census data, the Muslim
population in current India excluding the Punjab and Bengal
provinces, increased from 11,388,498 (7.57%) in 1871, to
16,587,555 (10.50%) in 1881, to 18,275,850 (10.36%) in
1891, to 19,271,609 (11.05%) in 1901, to 24,271,500
(10.80%) in 1911, to 24,711,511 (11.63%) in 1921. After
independence censuses show that the Muslim population
increased from 35,400,117 or 9.93% in 1951, to 46,939,592
or 10.70% in 1961, to 75,571,514 or 11.36% in 1981, to
101,596,057 or 12.16% in 1991, to 138,188,240 or 13.43%
in 2001.



Source - http://www.pupr.edu/hkettani/papers/WMP.pdf

Neel Here
December 21, 2011, 09:16 AM
thank you. :)

India's minority population increased from somewhere around 17% in 1951 to about 20%.

al Furqaan
December 21, 2011, 02:36 PM
thank you. :)

India's minority population increased from somewhere around 17% in 1951 to about 20%.

I was talking about "India" including Pakistani Punjab and present day Bangladesh. if Pakistan decided to leave out East Pakistan, Punjabi and Kashmir out of the Calculations, I'm sure they'd have more favorable stats as well. 3% growth rate is not terribly surprising given 95% of the minorities are Muslims who have higher birth rates. there is also the case of conversions to Islam and Christianity particularily in Kerala and other parts of south India. If i recall correctly, the conversions have reached such endemic proportions that some right wing politicians (i think BJP) have argued for forcible reconversions to newly converted Malayali Christians and Muslims.

furthermore, Bangladesh's minority population has also decreased, are we also an "abnormal" country? you never answered that question.

mufi_02
December 21, 2011, 03:00 PM
Bangladesh's minority pop has also decreased dramatically. Somewhere I read that in 1971, 30-35% of our population was Hindu. At present, I don't think it's more than 10-15%. Obviously, most of them emigrated to West Bengal due to the persecution during the war and ill treatment even after the war. A lot of people in West Bengal traces their roots in Bangladesh.

I am curious to know how these people are doing West Bengal nowadays? Maybe Neel can some shed light into this matter. Also was there any significant Muslim pop exodus into Bangladesh similar to Hindu exodus out of Bangladesh?

al Furqaan
December 21, 2011, 08:14 PM
Bangladesh's minority pop has also decreased dramatically. Somewhere I read that in 1971, 30-35% of our population was Hindu. At present, I don't think it's more than 10-15%. Obviously, most of them emigrated to West Bengal due to the persecution during the war and ill treatment even after the war. A lot of people in West Bengal traces their roots in Bangladesh.

I am curious to know how these people are doing West Bengal nowadays? Maybe Neel can some shed light into this matter. Also was there any significant Muslim pop exodus into Bangladesh similar to Hindu exodus out of Bangladesh?

To my [limited] knowledge some Muslims have come to Bangladesh. I have a few family friends who have West Bengali origins. One of my friend's just married a girl who has family in Kolkata.

As far as hindus go, I think the majority of Bangladeshi hindus who went to India were the high caste Hindus. You will hardly see any Chatterjees/Banerjees/Mukherjees/Gangulys in Bangladesh, but loads in WB. I think those who had the assets and means to leave, whether Hindu or Muslim left.

Neel Here
December 21, 2011, 09:48 PM
I was talking about "India" including Pakistani Punjab and present day Bangladesh.

AF, that's a really disingenuous argument. pakistan's minority population WITHOUT taking into account present day India or BD saw a fall of minority population (hindu christian and sikh) from around 30% at 1947 to 3 % now. a like to like comparison for India shows a increase in minority population, as I mentioned.

if Pakistan decided to leave out East Pakistan, Punjabi and Kashmir out of the Calculations, I'm sure they'd have more favorable stats as well. it won't. see above.
in stead of arguing on opinion alone why don't you check the stats for yourself ?


furthermore, Bangladesh's minority population has also decreased, are we also an "abnormal" country? you never answered that question. most of that decrease happened during east pakistan era. do you consider what happened back then normal ? :rolleyes:
a trickling of minority immigration continued under ershad due to mistreatment of minorities even after BD independence. that too is unfortunate and unbecoming of a country that projects itself as a modern pluralist country. still, the problems are nothing when compared to a virulently bigoted country like pakistan.

3% growth rate is not terribly surprising given 95% of the minorities are Muslims who have higher birth rates.
wrong again. it's about 70%.
in any case, the cause for increase in % share of population is not the issue, the issue is that India provides a level playing field for all its communities, as any 'normal' country should.

there is also the case of conversions to Islam and Christianity particularily in Kerala and other parts of south India. If i recall correctly, the conversions have reached such endemic proportions that some right wing politicians (i think BJP) have argued for forcible reconversions to newly converted Malayali Christians and Muslims. dude, you should really stop pulling things out of your wazoo. one would think you would have learned by now.

-------------------------
Bangladesh's minority pop has also decreased dramatically. Somewhere I read that in 1971, 30-35% of our population was Hindu. At present, I don't think it's more than 10-15%. Obviously, most of them emigrated to West Bengal due to the persecution during the war and ill treatment even after the war. A lot of people in West Bengal traces their roots in Bangladesh.

I am curious to know how these people are doing West Bengal nowadays? Maybe Neel can some shed light into this matter. Also was there any significant Muslim pop exodus into Bangladesh similar to Hindu exodus out of Bangladesh?

most are doing pretty well. it was a very difficult time, living in refugee camps on govt dole, many lost initiative and interest in life, having lost loved ones or belongings or both.
my GF's dad saw his two elder sisters get gangraped and their breasts cut-off in front of his eyes. he was 8 years old at the time. his sisters were 14 and 16 at the time. many had such traumatic experiences that never really go away.
the first generation did whatever job/small business they could. those who were educated were given govt jobs even when more people were not needed, which is why WB has rather bloated manpower levels in factories and govt offices. farmers were given land whenever possible, some outside bengal in madhya pradesh and andaman islands. the next generation worked hard and has been able to stand on its feet.
people went from nothing but the clothes on their back living on govt handouts to fully self sufficient, even affluent in the space of a generation. the erstwhile refugee colonies are the new boom areas of kolkata suburbs !

my own grandparents came over during 1947. my paternal grandfather came from a zamindari family but he came over with nothing but his wits. survived on a relative's generousity and a scholarship as an university topper, studied engineering and recreated his life on this side of the border. his story is typical of that generation, the same cycle was repeated in 1971.

----------------------------------------


To my [limited] knowledge some Muslims have come to Bangladesh. I have a few family friends who have West Bengali origins. One of my friend's just married a girl who has family in Kolkata.

As far as hindus go, I think the majority of Bangladeshi hindus who went to India were the high caste Hindus. You will hardly see any Chatterjees/Banerjees/Mukherjees/Gangulys in Bangladesh, but loads in WB. I think those who had the assets and means to leave, whether Hindu or Muslim left. that was true for 1947.
my maternal grandmother's family exchanged property with a muslim family who emigrated to then east pakistan. not sure your caste assertion stands, my surname for example is not one of those. so called high caste won't constitute even a very significant minority.
but that is only a small part of the exodus. a very large number of poor hindus and those with property but deprived of it (thus in effect poor) made it to this side.
the flood continued till 1971 after which it reduced to a trickle.
some of my muslim friends have relatives in dhaka (perhaps the same family AF is talking about ? :D ). some affluent muslims left in 1947 but there was never any mass exodus from bengal to BD AFAIK. some in fact came back to India after spending a few years in (west) pakistan.

mufi_02
December 22, 2011, 09:44 AM
The persecution and treatment of Hindu pop was really tragic. I heard it from my uncles and older people that there used to a lot of them in my ancestral village in North Bengal. You can still find some empty houses waiting to be collapsed. The cycle still continues.

It's sad to see so many ethinically Bengalis leaving Bangladesh and now after few generations they are Indians now.

al Furqaan
December 22, 2011, 04:35 PM
AF, that's a really disingenuous argument. pakistan's minority population WITHOUT taking into account present day India or BD saw a fall of minority population (hindu christian and sikh) from around 30% at 1947 to 3 % now. a like to like comparison for India shows a increase in minority population, as I mentioned.


Please compare with Pakistan after 1951 if you want a like-for-like comparison.

still, the problems are nothing when compared to a virulently bigoted country like pakistan.

ALL countries are more or less the same. Are you aware of how "normal" Bangladesh seizes the land of indegenious people?

wrong again. it's about 70%.

Need to fix your calculator.

Muslim pop in 1951 according to Tintin's post was 9.93% (35M), and in 2001 it was 13.43% which is 138M. If you are calculating on the percent, it is 35% increase in the proportion of muslims. If you are calculating on absolute numbers it would be a 294% increase.

Now, according to wikipedia, the 10 year growth % from 1991-2001 for Indian Hindus is 20.6%. For Muslims its at 36.0%. My guess would be this discrepancy would hold through the period of Indian independence and such a decent gap, when taken over 60 years will probably explain the increase in minority population from 10% to 13%. I don't have time to run the exact calculations. But we can give it a shot:

1951 : Muslims 35M, Hindus 315M

assuming the 20% and 36% growth rates, by 1961 the relative numbers should be:

Muslims: 47.6M, Hindus 380M

Muslim % increases from 9.93 to 11.1%.

This is what wikipedia has to say on the matter:

Muslims in India have a much higher total fertility rate (TFR) compared to that of other religious communities in the country.[14] Because of higher birthrates and an influx of migrants from neighboring Bangladesh, the percentage of Muslims in India has risen from about 10% in 1991 to 13% in 2001.[15] The Muslim population growth rate is higher by more than 10% of the total growth compared to that of Hindus.[16] However, since 1991, the largest decline in fertility rates among all religious groups in India has occurred among Muslims.[17]
Demographers have put forward several factors behind high birthrates among Muslims in India. According to sociologists Roger and Patricia Jeffery, socio-economic conditions rather than religious determinism is the main reason for higher Muslim birthrates. Indian Muslims are poorer and less educated compared to their Hindu counterparts.[18] Noted Indian sociologist, B.K. Prasad, argues that since India's Muslim population is more urban compared to their Hindu counterparts, infant mortality rates among Muslims is about 12% lower than those among Hindus.

Fertility rates and infant mortality don't speak a whole lot of the favorability of a population towards a minority. Thats like saying "6 million Pakistani minorities still live in pakistan, therefore things must be rosy because 6 million is a huge number!"

in any case, the cause for increase in % share of population is not the issue, the issue is that India provides a level playing field for all its communities, as any 'normal' country should.

Nots quite not true. India probably has the largest incidence rate of communal issues of any country not in Africa. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs are almost always at odds with each other. I would imagine the number of minorities who have been pogromed in India in the last 20 years is probably 10x great than Bangladesh and Pakistan combined. Part of the reason is there are various minority countries and the territory is vast so there is almost always someone who is doing something.

Zeeshan
December 22, 2011, 11:31 PM
Neel babu kotheke udoy holen etodin por.

Neel Here
December 24, 2011, 12:36 PM
Please compare with Pakistan after 1951 if you want a like-for-like comparison.
once you learn to read and comprehend you would understand that I did, as did a number of commentators, both pakistani and non-pakistani.

ALL countries are more or less the same. ah, the brilliant political theory, copyright AF.
also by the same author
* all bombs are same, nuclear bomb = cracker
* space rocket = firework rocket

it's a matter of quantity my dear genius. if the difference is too great, it becomes a separate category. that is why a nuke is not 'more or less the same' as a hand grenade.

Need to fix your calculator. I don't. but you need to learn to read (and also use a calculator). you said muslims constitute 95% of India's minorities. the figure is 70%.
Fertility rates and infant mortality don't speak a whole lot of the favorability of a population towards a minority. Thats like saying "6 million Pakistani minorities still live in pakistan, therefore things must be rosy because 6 million is a huge number!" who said anything about favourability or whatever you are yak-yaking about. (although lower infant mortality rate do point to better health standards)
I said everyone gets a level playing field. if muslims are not favoured, then neither are hindus sikhs or christians.

Nots quite not true. India probably has the largest incidence rate of communal issues of any country not in Africa. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs are almost always at odds with each other. I would imagine the number of minorities who have been pogromed in India in the last 20 years is probably 10x great than Bangladesh and Pakistan combined. Part of the reason is there are various minority countries and the territory is vast so there is almost always someone who is doing something. :notworthy:
keep imagining things, it's very entertaining.
but go easy on the weed, it's bad for your brain. ;)

al Furqaan
December 24, 2011, 02:25 PM
once you learn to read and comprehend you would understand that I did, as did a number of commentators, both pakistani and non-pakistani.


Umm, not quite. Unless by 1947, you meant 1951. You stated exactly this:

"AF, that's a really disingenuous argument. pakistan's minority population WITHOUT taking into account present day India or BD saw a fall of minority population (hindu christian and sikh) from around 30% at 1947 to 3 % now. a like to like comparison for India shows a increase in minority population, as I mentioned."

Nice try, better luck next time.

ah, the brilliant political theory, copyright AF.
also by the same author
* all bombs are same, nuclear bomb = cracker
* space rocket = firework rocket

it's a matter of quantity my dear genius. if the difference is too great, it becomes a separate category. that is why a nuke is not 'more or less the same' as a hand grenade.

All part of the propaganda machine. Nuclear weapons in Pakistan didn't really change anything at all. Same will happen in Iran. The only thing that changes is the balance of power, but we all know that the balance of power is something that will inevitably shift with the sands of time. You don't see any Roman legions around do you?

I don't. but you need to learn to read (and also use a calculator). you said muslims constitute 95% of India's minorities. the figure is 70%.

Honest mistake. Apologies. Since the hindutva goon are always talking about their muslim fetish and since pre-partition India did have 95% of the minorities as Muslims, its easy to think that the only minorities in India are muslims. its an easy thing to miss. Very similar to the western media propaganda which leads one to believe anyone with a beard must be a muslim terrorist.

However, at least I wasn't comparing 1947 stats to 1951 stats. Hard to see how that can be an honest mistake.

who said anything about favourability or whatever you are yak-yaking about. (although lower infant mortality rate do point to better health standards)
I said everyone gets a level playing field. if muslims are not favoured, then neither are hindus sikhs or christians.

Of course there would be slightly better health standards between a city dwelling Muslim and a rural Hindu. You have to compare between all city dwellers, and all rural dwellers. The article implies that Muslims only have lower mortality because they dwell in cities in greater proportions.

Everyone may get a level playing field, in theory. But thats not how it goes in practice. Theories are great, but rarely every practiced. Lots of things hold, in theory. I highly doubt the constitution of Pakistan denies anyone's rights on the basis of religion. But hey, even Muslim Bengalis were discriminated against, and Muslim Balochis are discriminated against even now. Hows does the theory work now?


:notworthy:
keep imagining things, it's very entertaining.
but go easy on the weed, it's bad for your brain. ;)

Actually, according to Kumar, Abbas, Fausto, and Aster, as recently as 2008, there is no conclusive evidence of any long term harm associated with the use of marijuana/cannibus. At least in moderate amounts. But even water intoxication is deadly.