Is tide turning finally ? Angry mob sets ablaze house of Lashkar operative in Kashmir

[Developereo]

You will have to pardon me, I had to edit my previous post, apparently ashing all over one's self due to a sneeze can make one absent minded and force one to lose track of the argument. Do re-read the post and then direct a reply towards me.

My statement stands.

The local security forces engage in brutality and psychological harassment and the larger army (all half a million of them) serve as backup. As such, by serving in a backup capacity, they are an integral part of the psychological warfare.

 

[Areesh]

Well we have seen this type of paid news BS several times followed by massive freedom marches. Same would happen here. So no. No tide is turning.

 

[Dillinger]

My statement stands.

The local security forces engage in brutality and psychological harassment and the larger army (all half a million of them) serve as backup. As such, by serving in a backup capacity, they are an integral part of the psychological warfare.

Good.

So you first state that the forces at the AGPL are part of a doctrine of psychological warfare.

Then you follow the first assertion with another assertion which you have either formulated yourself based on your logic or lifted from some article expressing an opinion. The second assertion being the part quoted in this particular post of yours'.

That does not constitute as validating one's assertion. Which is exactly what I stated previously that a previous assertion cannot be validated by a following assertion.

That would be akin to me doing the following-

Assertion 1: Raman is a liar.

Assertion 2: In fact Raman has lied to me many times so he must be a liar.

As such both assertions must be substantiated with proof. The first one cannot simply be taken to be valid because a second was made. This is the exact reason I mentioned the practice of dialectics, an important attribute to say the least.

Ergo my statement that you have simply followed your first assertion with another assertion rather than independently substantiating the first. Furthermore in your own post you stated that you cannot substantiate it with accuracy but can only base your argument on your own analysis of the matter at hand.

So then, as tiring as it is, we must go back to your original claim and start the exercise again. This time understand the term "substantiate" and thus indeed substantiate your claim rather than following it up with another similar claim.

 

[Vinod2070]

I like their optimism. Pakistanis can be happy with the "protest marches" while India keep Kashmir.

If this was all they needed in the first place, we could have arranged that.

There was no need to destroy their whole country just to achieve these "protest marches"!

 

[Developereo]

Good.

So you first state that the forces at the AGPL are part of a doctrine of psychological warfare.

Then you follow the first assertion with another assertion which you have either formulated yourself based on your logic or lifted from some article expressing an opinion. The second assertion being the part quoted in this particular post of yours'.

That does not constitute as validating one's assertion. Which is exactly what I stated previously that a previous assertion cannot be validated by a following assertion.

That would be akin to me doing the following-

Assertion 1: Raman is a liar.

Assertion 2: In fact Raman has lied to me many times so he must be a liar.

As such both assertions must be substantiated with proof. The first one cannot simply be taken to be valid because a second was made. This is the exact reason I mentioned the practice of dialectics, an important attribute to say the least.

Ergo my statement that you have simply followed your first assertion with another assertion rather than independently substantiating the first. Furthermore in your own post you stated that you cannot substantiate it with accuracy but can only base your argument on your own analysis of the matter at hand.

So then, as tiring as it is, we must go back to your original claim and start the exercise again. This time understand the term "substantiate" and thus indeed substantiate your claim rather than following it up with another similar claim.

I see your difficulties with English extend to logic as well.

I made two statements:

1-- the behavior pattern of Indian security forces is similar to that of other occupation forces and constitutes psychological warfare. I substantiated that with links to documented behavior of mass rapes, mass executions, etc.

2-- the role of the statewide army is to provide backup to above security forces.

Which part of that constitutes circular logic according to you?

 

[Dillinger]

I like their optimism. Pakistanis can be happy with the "protest marches" while India keep Kashmir.

If this was all they needed in the first place, we could have arranged that.

There was no need to destroy their whole country just to achieve these "protest marches"!

If they hadn't been so sectarian in nature, a defect which led to a fundamental mistake in 65, specifically in the conduct of Op. Gibraltar then they might have held more of Kashmir than they do today.

I see your difficulties with English extend to logic as well.

I made two statements:

1-- the behavior pattern of Indian security forces is similar to that of other occupation forces and constitutes psychological warfare. I substantiated that with links to documented behavior of mass rapes, mass executions, etc.

2-- the role of the statewide army is to provide backup to above security forces.

Which part of that constitutes circular logic according to you?

The part where you've made two statements and wish for said statements to serve as substantiations for one another or perhaps you do not even feel the need to provide substantive proof.



The point is to now provide substantive proof in support of said two statements, which is exactly what I have been asking you to do to the point where it has become positively tedious. But never let it be said that I am not magnanimous and considerate, so yet again, instead of following the first statement with another substantiate the first statement with hard data. Failing this your statements would be confined to being opinions.

 

[Vinod2070]

If they hadn't been so sectarian in nature, a defect which led to a fundamental mistake in 65, specifically in the conduct of Op. Gibraltar then they might have held more of Kashmir than they do today.

Well the sectarianism has been on display in the "AJK" as well. So the fate of the "more of Kashmir" won't be any different if that was the case.

You can go a few more years earlier in 1984 when General Zia sent his notorious lashkar led and supervised by no other than Brigadier Musharraf aka General Musharraf, the enlightened, the moderate. This proto-Talibanic lashkar not just burnt alive hundreds of the Shias of Gilgit, it burnt alive the animals too owned by the Shias. Of course, this can be justified because those animals were not human, Muslim, or Pakistani.

Talibanization of the heart | Pak Tea House

 

[Developereo]

The point is to now provide substantive proof in support of said two statements, which is exactly what I have been asking you to do to the point where it has become positively tedious. But never let it be said that I am not magnanimous and considerate, so yet again, instead of following the first statement with another substantiate the first statement with hard data. Failing this your statements would be confined to being opinions.

So, like I wrote above, your entire tantrum essentially boils down to "la la la I don't believe".

You don't believe the documented cases of mass rapes, executions and torture detailed in the link I provided? I copied relevant parts of that article which list their sources.

You don't believe that mass rapes constitute psychological warfare?

You don't believe Indian army will be used if there is large scale violence that exceeds the capacity of local security forces to handle?

 

[Dillinger]

Well the sectarianism has been on display in the "AJK" as well. So the fate of the "more of Kashmir" won't be any different if that was the case.

You can go a few more years earlier in 1984 when General Zia sent his notorious lashkar led and supervised by no other than Brigadier Musharraf aka General Musharraf, the enlightened, the moderate. This proto-Talibanic lashkar not just burnt alive hundreds of the Shias of Gilgit, it burnt alive the animals too owned by the Shias. Of course, this can be justified because those animals were not human, Muslim, or Pakistani.

Talibanization of the heart | Pak Tea House

Lies from the pit of hell!

 

[Vinod2070]

Lies from the pit of hell!

It is a Pakistani source and there are several documented cases of persecution of the Shia in the Northern areas.

 

[Dillinger]

So, like I wrote above, your entire tantrum essentially boils down to "la la la I don't believe".

You don't believe the documented cases of mass rapes, executions and torture detailed in the link I provided?
You don't believe that mass rapes constitute psychological warfare?
You don't believe Indian army will be used if there is large scale violence that exceeds the capacity of local security forces to handle?

Oh I believe that documented missteps have occurred, I would not have expressed our sense of loss as a people arising from said missteps if I hadn't.

I do believe that said missteps can lead to psychological trauma.

The problem lies in the fact that while the above two statements are facts which have been documented independently even by our own media your last statement is an assertion made by you- as pertaining to the role of the forces at the AGPL.

It is this last assertion* that YOU need to substantiate, the preceding statements obviously do not prove the veracity of the last statement.

So, for your statement, which is a product of your opinion I demanded hard data. Hardly an unheard of and/or unfair demand. Truly I am known to be a very fair fellow, I don't expect people to perform miracles. I am simply asking you to provide proof rather than adding your individual assertion to a list of factual statements thereby trying to borrow the veracity of said statements for your own assertion. Come on, I am not demanding the moon and the stars.

*"The larger army is there to make it clear that the local security forces have plenty of backup in case of trouble."- this being the last assertion which is not a documented fact unlike in the case of the occurrence of missteps which are indeed documented not by news stories but by records of court cases and FIRs.

Oh and the local security forces are more than capable of handling "large scale violence" ranging from the purisrar bandeys to our own citizens who take the law into their hands.

It is a Pakistani source and there are several documented cases of persecution of the Shia in the Northern areas.

Lies from the pit of hell!

 

[he-man]

Oh I believe that documented missteps have occurred, I would not have expressed our sense of loss as a people arising from said missteps if I hadn't.

I do believe that said missteps can lead to psychological trauma.

The problem lies in the fact that while the above two statements are facts which have been documented independently even by our own media your last statement is an assertion made by you- as pertaining to the role of the forces at the AGPL.

It is this last assertion* that YOU need to substantiate, the preceding statements obviously do not prove the veracity of the last statement.

So, for your statement, which is a product of your opinion I demanded hard data. Hardly an unheard of and/or unfair demand. Truly I am known to be a very fair fellow, I don't expect people to perform miracles. I am simply asking you to provide proof rather than adding your individual assertion to a list of factual statements thereby trying to borrow the veracity of said statements for your own assertion. Come on, I am not demanding the moon and the stars.

*"The larger army is there to make it clear that the local security forces have plenty of backup in case of trouble."- this being the last assertion which is not a documented fact unlike in the case of the occurrence of missteps which are indeed documented not by news stories but by records of court cases and FIRs.

Oh and the local security forces are more than capable of handling "large scale violence" ranging from the purisrar bandeys to our own citizens who take the law into their hands.





Lies from the pit of hell!

Whats the peak power of bars radar?
I know its offtopic,still.:p

 

[Dillinger]

Whats the peak power of bars radar?
I know its offtopic,still.:p

I am tired bhai. I'll try and answer tomorrow. As it is I fear that Devo sahib will get the best of me since I must now sleep. Lots of work came by me at the desk today, pardon this tired munshi.

 

[Developereo]

It is this last assertion* that YOU need to substantiate, the preceding statements obviously do not prove the veracity of the last statement.

So, for your statement, which is a product of your opinion I demanded hard data. Hardly an unheard of and/or unfair demand. Truly I am known to be a very fair fellow, I don't expect people to perform miracles. I am simply asking you to provide proof rather than adding your individual assertion to a list of factual statements thereby trying to borrow the veracity of said statements for your own assertion. Come on, I am not demanding the moon and the stars.

*"The larger army is there to make it clear that the local security forces have plenty of backup in case of trouble."- this being the last assertion which is not a documented act unlike in the case of the occurrence of missteps which are indeed documented.

Sure, I can walk you through the steps since you have trouble making the connections.

Q1: Is the Kashmir insurgency fueled by foreigners? (you guys claim yes).
Q2: Is the army's job to guard against foreign threats? (yes)
Q3: If authorities declare that trouble in the valley is being fomented by foreigners, will it become the army's role to intervene?

Note that it doesn't matter whether foreigners are actually involved or not. All it takes is an assertion by the Indian authorities that foreigners are involved.

 

[he-man]

I am tired bhai. I'll try and answer tomorrow. As it is I fear that Devo sahib will get the best of me since I must now sleep. Lots of work came by me at the desk today, pardon this tired munshi.

U must tend to new mission from ur superiors in bd