Except for Pakistanis nobody says that and since Pakistan is the guilty party, it doesnt matter.
Except that none of those tens thousands of Kashmiris were massacred, tortured and raped before 1989. IA excess was not the casus belli. It was in fact the in the process of facing and dealing with the terrorism that the excesses happened and most of it only in the early 90s.
I disagree (but this is not the thread for it) and the point is irrelevant in any case since the point being made is that support for these terrorist/rebel groups, in East Pakistan or kashmir, but Indians or Pakistanis, comes about because the side supporting them sees the groups as fighting a legitimate cause - once of 'freeing the occupied and oppressed'.
On that count Indian support for what many Pakistanis would call 'terrorists' in East Pakistan is hypocritical given their opposition to Pakistan's support for what I would call 'freedom fighters' in Kashmir.
Very much relevant, if you want to compare Pakistans support of Kashmiri insurgents to Indias support of the Bengalis in 71. While one originated from a false sense of entitlement to a piece of land simply on the basis of majority religion, the other originated purely on humanitarian ground.
It is important to make that distinction because the underlying debate here is that of religious fundamentalism in Pakistan and the resultant fallout. Kashmir is one such fallout.
Hogwash - Indian support for terrorists in East Pakistan arose because of an Indian desire to damage Pakistan, and not out of any 'humanitarian desires' though you can keeping living on such poppycock if it makes you feel better about openly supporting terrorism - that Indian gentleman I was talking to earlier arguing such support for terrorism by Indians was a waning view should take note.
Not sure if he would be proud of Jihad Export Inc.
Just revolution in another guise - it is always the other side's cause that is 'wrong'.
The underlying argument remains valid. It is after all the social structure that makes a community, or a country for that matter, the way it is. The authors argument is that it is the ideology that had conceived Pakistan, has also contributed to how the evolution of Pakistan progressed. Today Pakistan is an isolated case not because of its Islamic identity, but because of how this Islamic identity has come to define Pakistan.
The underlying argument is invalid, since, as you agreed, nations without any Islamic identity have experienced similar patterns of behavior in society - the US and Indian people and society both supporting terrorists and terrorism (as you define Pakistan's support for insurgent groups). In the case of the US there is however a lot of introspection and definite regret, amongst non-conservatives at least, over support for rebels and insurgents in Latin America, Iran and elsewhere, whereas in India that sort of support for rebels/terrorists in East Pakistan continues to be glorified and championed by most.
Indonesia, Philippines, Russia are not running Jihad Export Inc. Are they?
The Russians and the CAR's are 'exporting' terrorists, to Pakistan in fact, given the large numbers of Chechens, Uzbeks and others who have flocked there to wage war against the Pakistani and Afghan States.
But you missed the point, that all the countries I mentioned have large homegrown terrorism problems, even the ones mentioned by S Dhume as not having them, which contradicts his canard that somehow Pakistan is unique in experiencing radicalization, and that the radicalization it does experience, is because of Pakistan's Islamic identity alone.
As with KS, the point is not whether he was radicalized in Pakistan. The point is that his radicalism eventually took him to Pakistan and not to Indonesia, Philippines or Russia. The authors point stands, at least for the time being, when he says, passage to jihadism passes through that (Pakistan) country.
The only thing KS's journey to Pakistan, for now seemingly AFTER his radicalization, illustrates is that the lack of State control over regions in the country has allowed militant groups to provide all sorts of 'services'. The GoP is trying to combat that very issue, and has significantly reduced the space available to militants in the last year or two. This points to the need for military/law enforcement action against militant groups (which is being taken) and not some sort of causal effect because of Pakistan's 'identity and DNA'.
So the authors point is in fact invalidated by the fact that people the majority of the people attacking the West, even if they do travel to Pakistan for training, are radicalized in the West, and not in Pakistan.
It is only you who is trying to make that distinction and it is me who is arguing that such distinction is self serving.
So it boils down to how well one can repackage terrorism into something which will be morally acceptable to the potential sympathizers. Hence that query of mine in that earlier post would they denounce terrorism, which they are not victim of and which they perceive as just cause.
The distinction is valid - what people perceive the cause they support to be cannot be ignored when evaluating their moral compass. has the LeT/JuD done an excellent job of 'packaging' their cause to Pakistanis? Yes, obviously so, not least because of the plethora of charitable services they offer and the lack of transparency, both in the UN and in Pakistan, in implicating them in terrorism.
I am still waiting for some pure doodh.
Not gonna get it from that poisoned chalice ...
