Indian Origin Material Used in IEDs Found In South Waziristan

[SMC]

So are you ready to admit that your version of truth also is not THE Truth?

I never said what I think is the truth is necessarily the actual truth. karan admits it too. You're the one not willing to admit it.

 

[jagjitnatt]

I never said what I think is the truth is necessarily the actual truth. karan admits it too. You're the one not willing to admit it.

Then why this argument?
If you are certain that your version of truth might NOT be THE truth, then why argue with Indians that their version of truth is false.
How can you be so certain that their truth is not THE truth?

There is the whole world out there that believes in what Indians believe in. If you are uncertain about your version, then why rubbish their claim?

 

[SMC]

Now we are going into realms of Philosophy a bit.. but what the heck..
Who defines truth..?? Who defines what's really happening?? no matter whoever it is, he will still define his perception of truth and not the truth.. So even if there is something called truth, no one can know it with full certainity and hence the concept of truth does not hold water.. Its your version of truth vs my version of truth...

Give me an example of truth and I will show you how it is a perception of truth and not the real truth...

I am talking about truth in terms of physical sense, not mental sense. i.e. an event happened - it happened in a certain way, certain actors participated in it (maybe), it had a certain outcome, etc. The truth associated with that event is what happened and how it happened, etc. Now no one may know what happened, but what happened there happened. And what happened there was the truth.

Just an application of this philosophy:

9/11 happened in a certain way, certain actors were involved in it, it had a certain outcome, etc. Now what REALLY happened might elude us. Very few people (if any) know what really happened. But what happened with 9/11 happened. And what happened there was the truth.

 

[karan.1970]

Terrorists are criminals..

Moreover, it is an implication from your post. You're saying:

there are terrorists somewhere in Pakistan => someone from GoP/army/ISI is helping them.

Replace somewhere with in most parts and replace from GoP/army/ISI with from Pakistan

and you have what I want to say

By the same logic, there are terrorists somewhere in US or India => someone from GoI/GoA is helping them.

if the previous statement holds true.....

The problem is with your premise, i.e. there are terrorists in country X implies someone from the state of government X must be helping them.

No.. read previous 2 comments

ISI and army sources are more than credible. And the world is not as black and white and simplified as you're making it out to be. I don't care if you think they are not credible - I have stated that again and again. I gave you reason why I think we should support Afghan Taliban. If you don't agree then great, I don't care.

If you cant back up that reason, then its like not giving a reason and thats fine too.. Just dont give a reason without backing it up. In this case say that you think you should support AT and that's it.. Dont create an illusion of a credible reason..

 

[SMC]

Then why this argument?
If you are certain that your version of truth might NOT be THE truth, then why argue with Indians that their version of truth is false.
How can you be so certain that their truth is not THE truth?

There is the whole world out there that believes in what Indians believe in. If you are uncertain about your version, then why rubbish their claim?

I am more than certain about my claim. It's what I think is the truth. You think the truth is different, ok, fine. But do not use the term "the truth". It means you know exactly what happened, how it happened, who was involved, etc. What I am trying to get at here is that it's not a very good argument. It allows for no room of discussion and questioning.

 

[karan.1970]

Apples and oranges comparison, yet again. The methology of their attacks is very different.

So their tactical commanders are different.. but the methodology of establishing their writ is same....violance...

We never targetted civilians. Moreover, Taliban never "came back and wrecked havoc". We never supported the Taliban you're talking about. We had no positive connection with them. You're going in circles now.

Yes you did

and Taliban did come back and wrecked havoc..TTP is Tehrike Taliban Pakistan. You can keep fooling yourself that its different from AT like you did last time when you thought that festering terrorism in Afg and India will have no impact on you...

 

[jagjitnatt]

I am more than certain about my claim. It's what I think is the truth. You think the truth is different, ok, fine. But do not use the term "the truth". It means you know exactly what happened, how it happened, who was involved, etc. What I am trying to get at here is that it's not a very good argument. It allows for no room of discussion and questioning.

Nobody's gonna change his/her opinion based on your/my version of truth then why this argument?

Close this thread

 

[SMC]

Replace somewhere with in most parts and replace from GoP/army/ISI with from Pakistan

and you have what I want to say



if the previous statement holds true.....


No.. read previous 2 comments

So in other words you're not suggesting that the state is helping these people but individuals or groups are helping them. I never questioned that much. That's true, I believe that too.

If you cant back up that reason, then its like not giving a reason and thats fine too.. Just dont give a reason without backing it up. In this case say that you think you should support AT and that's it.. Dont create an illusion of a credible reason..

It's only an illusion to you. As far as I am concerned, several multiple sources from within army and ISI (not just me) have stated that indians are supporting terrorism. Not if that doesn't work for you, fine. You can perhaps use your intuition a little bit and realize that these guys are paying their fighters billions of rupees, getting sophisticated weapons which are not available in the market, and that too in brand new condition. That should at least tell you that a state is involved. From thereon in you can deduce which state is involved here.

 

[SMC]

So their tactical commanders are different.. but the methodology of establishing their writ is same....violance...

Again, no. TTP primarily attack civilians, Afghan Taliban primarily attack NATO. And there's nothing wrong with attacking foreign soldiers. It's when you attack civilians who have nothing to do with the conflict is when it becomes problematic. It's not even much of a debate this.

Yes you did

We never attacked civilians in India or Afghanistan.

and Taliban did come back and wrecked havoc..TTP is Tehrike Taliban Pakistan. You can keep fooling yourself that its different from AT like you did last time when you thought that festering terrorism in Afg and India will have no impact on you...

So big deal they use the same name. They are not even close to being the same group. Btw, if anyone is fooling themselves, it's you. It's not much of a debate - those attacking Pakistan were never helped or supported by Pakistan.

 

[karan.1970]

9/11 happened in a certain way, certain actors were involved in it, it had a certain outcome, etc. Now what REALLY happened might elude us. Very few people (if any) know what really happened. But what happened with 9/11 happened. And what happened there was the truth.

Here's where it gets interesting..

So the actual truth of 9/11 is that some 3500 people died.. Do we really know what happened with these 3500 people? Death itself is a perception which different people see differently..Isnt it??

So the truth here is what we understand with our limited knowledge of physical world and its rules...Like till a few 100 years back it was a truth that if you sail far enough, you will fall down from the face of the earth since world was perceived to be flat...

 

[SMC]

Nobody's gonna change his/her opinion based on your/my version of truth then why this argument?

Close this thread

It's for discussion among Pakistanis as to what to do with indian terrorism support.

 

[SMC]

Here's where it gets interesting..

So the actual truth of 9/11 is that some 3500 people died.. Do we really know what happened with these 3500 people? Death itself is a perception which different people see differently..Isnt it??

The question becomes of who did it, how they were carried out, etc, and more importantly whom we are being TOLD carried it out was actually the one that carried it out.

So the truth here is what we understand with our limited knowledge of physical world and its rules...Like till a few 100 years back it was a truth that if you sail far enough, you will fall down from the face of the earth since world was perceived to be flat...

Right, well in that case we know the truth. The truth here is not up for grabs. It's sort of like saying grass is green, or sky is blue. Those things are obvious. Using "the truth" for referring to things which are not obvious or scientifically proven is where it becomes problematic.

 

[karan.1970]

So in other words you're not suggesting that the state is helping these people but individuals or groups are helping them. I never questioned that much. That's true, I believe that too.

So we agree here...

It's only an illusion to you. As far as I am concerned, several multiple sources from within army and ISI (not just me) have stated that indians are supporting terrorism. Not if that doesn't work for you, fine. You can perhaps use your intuition a little bit and realize that these guys are paying their fighters billions of rupees, getting sophisticated weapons which are not available in the market, and that too in brand new condition. That should at least tell you that a state is involved. From thereon in you can deduce which state is involved here.

A whole lot of deduction. By this logic you are agreeing that the state of Pakistan is already supporting AT and LeT and the likes..

Why cant these people be funded by the forces within your own country from past and present separatist movements.??

 

[karan.1970]

Again, no. TTP primarily attack civilians, Afghan Taliban primarily attack NATO.

Not really. Its only now since the time NATO is hitting AT and is standing like a wall between the populated parts of Afg and AT that AT are fighting NATO. Prior to 9/11, AT's atrocities on civilians of Afg are pretty well known and publicized.

We never attacked civilians in India or Afghanistan.

your proxies like LeT and AT(as stated above) did...

Those attacking Pakistan were never helped or supported by Pakistan.

But they are an offshoot of the same group. There were no 2 different taliban before Pakistan started helping out in WOT.

 

[SMC]

A whole lot of deduction. By this logic you are agreeing that the state of Pakistan is already supporting AT and LeT and the likes..

Why cant these people be funded by the forces within your own country from past and present separatist movements.??

Afghan Taliban have access to drug money. TTP have access to no such thing. And yes, the old argument that TTP get drug money too. And to that, I will say TTP and Afghan Taliban are not such close friends.

Why they cannot have support from within country? They never had any serious support. These groups (TTP) have been around for a while. Moreover their self-funding becomes problematic.