how to read the new york times editorial on indo pak talks. translation attached.

mar 4th, 2010

the nyt does its usual thing: lecturing to their vassal, india.

i am not sure who died and made the nyt king, but they sure believe it. (probably the slew of adoring JNU morons gave them that impression. or maybe the ease with which they can buy up people in india for chump change).

i thought a translation would be helpful. in that spirit, i offer it gratis below. anybody remember the movie 'airplane' where they had subtitles for black lingo? (eg dude says 'shiiiiiit!', subtitle: 'golly!'). turns out white dudes speaking with forked tongue need translation too.

and don't you like the bright green highlighting, too?

i especially like the part where the nyt are honest enough to admit this failed talk just won't do. for the united states, that is. who cares about whether it will do for india?

               India and Pakistan (Barely) Talk

Published: February 26, 2010

Low expectations for the first talks between India and Pakistan since the 2008 bombings in Mumbai were disappointingly on the mark. After the two sides met Thursday, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao of India said that she agreed only to "keep in touch" with her Pakistani counterpart, Salman Bashir. No future discussions were scheduled.

That is not enough. Not for the United States, which needs tensions eased so Pakistan can focus more on fighting the Taliban and other extremists. And especially not for India and Pakistan.

Translation: Hey, why aren't you worrying about *our* national interest? we americans need you indians to completely cave in to whatever the paks want so that we can do our 'surge, bribe, outsource afpak to the ISI, declare victory, and run like hell' act. We are in deep doo-doo in afghanistan, and we want you indians to save our asses.

India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, showed remarkable restraint when he decided not to lash back at Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks. But the situation is too dangerous to depend on one man's restraint. For the sake of both countries' security, they need a sustained dialogue and a sincere common effort to build trust.

Translation: manmohan singh in our pal, but that doesn't seem to be enough. We want more of you indians to toe the american line. We know a lot of your leaders can be bought for chump change, but unfortunately we don't have enough money, what with saving goldman sachs and bribing the taliban, to buy all the UPA big shots (the going rates seem to have gone up with inflation). So will you darn indians just roll over and die, goddammit!

The two have much to talk about, including terrorism, their nuclear rivalry, Kashmir and their counterproductive competition for influence in Afghanistan.

Translation: if only you Indians would give kashmir to the pakistanis, that would solve half our problems. pakistanis have us by the short and curlies now, and Uncle Sam needs you to get them out of his underwear.

As Thursday proved, progress won't be easy. India is focused solely on Pakistan's support for extremist groups trying to force India out of Muslim-majority Kashmir. Pakistan, which certainly must do more to rein in extremists, wants a broader dialogue, with the priority being Kashmir's future. Neither nation is showing interest in adding Afghanistan to the agenda. They should.

Translation: see, we did it. We said airily that pakistan must rein in its 'extremists'. We've done our bit. Now about you indians in return getting out of kashmir... and as for afghanistan, why aren't you darn indians sending some 50,000 of your cannon-fodder soldiers so we can take our precious white asses out of there and slow down the arrival of body-bags, eh? After all 1 white ass = 35 indian asses.

While the Afghan Taliban — nurtured by Pakistani intelligence as a hedge against India — is battling American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, the Pakistan Taliban is fighting to bring down the Pakistan state. Lashkar-e-Taiba — founded with help from Pakistani intelligence to fight Indian rule in Kashmir — has been held responsible for the Mumbai bombings and is attacking other Indian targets.

Translation: we know the ISI s.o.bs are doing all this, but they are our sobs, ok? We know the ISI is the lashkar, but so long as they don't kill too many americans, we don't care.

In 2007, after three years of secret negotiations, the two sides were reportedly close to a deal to create an autonomous, demilitarized region in Kashmir. That ended when President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan resigned in 2008. The initiative should be revived. Meanwhile, the two governments should share information on troop movements in Kashmir and encourage trade and people-to-people exchanges. Talks on water and environmental issues are another way to seek common ground.

Translation: darn! We almost had the deed done between tricky mush and manmohan, both of whom are/were our friends (at least until we threw mushy to the wolves when he ceased to be useful). We almost had you indians walk out of kashmir. So near and so far! We will try again – no skin off our nose. In the meantime, india should tell the ISI where its soldiers are so that it makes it easy for the stone-throwers and IED experts to attack them. Oh, and also india should give pakistan as much water as it wants, while china is putting up dams on the brahmaputra in tibet.

The administration knows how important it is for India and Pakistan to lower tensions. At India's insistence, it has decided to take a low profile role, nudging the two sides discreetly back to the table. It should nudge harder.

Translation: obama hates india's guts, but it's clearly not yet time to push india really hard. Give manmohan time, and the UPA will move things along so that it will be easy to sell the 'india has to walk away from kashmir' line (aka 'we have peace in our time'). We and the UPA are working hard, along with the media, to manufacture consent for this. Just ask the editors of china's national paper, the guy who promised to get the bjp out of power, the brain-dead TV channel-meisters, et al.