What's new

It’s time to be patriotic citizens

Jana,

I am glad you are aware of the plans to dismember Pakistan! ;) :)

How do you know it that India is behind it?

Conjecture or are you with the ...............? ;)
 
Jana,

I am glad you are aware of the plans to dismember Pakistan! ;) :)

How do you know it that India is behind it?

Conjecture or are you with the ...............? ;)


i Hope your eyesight is not affected by too much wine these days and can read my post again carefully ;)
 
Jana,

I gave up drinking.


Be it wine or any alcohol and no vinegar either. ;)

Eyesight and health is, by the Grace of God, till this very moment, quite perfect.

Can't say what can happen in the next second!

It is all up to the Creator!
 
Jana,

I gave up drinking.


Be it wine or any alcohol and no vinegar either. ;)

Eyesight and health is, by the Grace of God, till this very moment, quite perfect.

Can't say what can happen in the next second!

It is all up to the Creator!


I Doubt that your health is quite perfect or even fine at the moment ;) Guess why ? :)

:azn:
 
The article is good, but it does lack one integral point IMO which is trying to point out the urgent need for a paradigm shift in the perception of Islamist terrorism.

The radical elements are portrayed as some renegade force of evil comprising of deviants and miscreants that are threatening the sanctity of the state by committing brutal acts of violence against Pakistani citizens and military personnel. What the author fails to mention is that the same people were once embraced with open arms and lauded for being heroes because they committed these very atrocities against citizens and military personnel of other states deemed enemies. Furthermore, they were aided and abetted by the very armed forces of Pakistan whose soldiers are now found being beheaded on grainy internet videos.

What the people of Pakistan (and the Islamic world at large) need to understand is that Islamist terrorism is evil regardless of the recipients of its underhanded violent acts. The dangers posed by this fetid and virulent entity isn’t limited to Fazulla’s goal of imposing Sharia in Swat and the Malakand region, or the confrontation and humiliation of the security forces of Pakistan… no, the danger it poses is to the very core of Pakistani society and every corner of the earth where Muslims chose to make a life for themselves. Likewise, the need to confront this problem shouldn’t be because of the fear that “the enemies of the state may declare Pakistan as unstable or ungovernable”; not only has that ship long sailed, but it is also a non sequitur.

By merely pointing out the immediate dangers radicalism poses to Pakistan’s sanctity is akin to treating the symptoms instead of the disease. This issue is far more complex and requires a comprehensive analysis combined with a serious dose of introspection. Unfortunately, I don’t think the article addresses these issues in an appropriate manner.
 
The article is good, but it does lack one integral point IMO which is trying to point out the urgent need for a paradigm shift in the perception of Islamist terrorism.

What the people of Pakistan (and the Islamic world at large) need to understand is that Islamist terrorism is evil regardless of the recipients of its underhanded violent acts.

Wasnt there actually a rule made on this forum not to engage terrorism with islam and instead use the word radical? Why is it that every now and then radical terrorist and terrorism which happens everywhere in the world and in every religion, somehow only this time when its related to muslims the word islamic and islam terrorism is used. Please mods take notice of it. Its just going on and on and on.
 
Wasnt there actually a rule made on this forum not to engage terrorism with islam and instead use the word radical? Why is it that every now and then radical terrorist and terrorism which happens everywhere in the world and in every religion, somehow only this time when its related to muslims the word islamic and islam terrorism is used. Please mods take notice of it. Its just going on and on and on.

Islam and Islamism are two very different things. And I am usually very careful when it comes to distinguishing between the two.
 
The article is good, but it does lack one integral point IMO which is trying to point out the urgent need for a paradigm shift in the perception of Islamist terrorism.

The radical elements are portrayed as some renegade force of evil comprising of deviants and miscreants that are threatening the sanctity of the state by committing brutal acts of violence against Pakistani citizens and military personnel. What the author fails to mention is that the same people were once embraced with open arms and lauded for being heroes because they committed these very atrocities against citizens and military personnel of other states deemed enemies. Furthermore, they were aided and abetted by the very armed forces of Pakistan whose soldiers are now found being beheaded on grainy internet videos.

No, this isn't true. There's two things here. First if you're classing all radicals as the same, there must be the acknowledgement that Pakistan supported the Afghan mujahideen, AND the US supported them. Like citizens, not all radicals have the same cause. What you've done here is to equate all Muslim rebellions under the umbrella of one united "radical front". This is far from the truth. The rebellion in Kashmir is by Kashmiri people themselves, some of them radicals, but not all. The fighting in Pakistan is by foreign fighters that were pushed out of Afghanistan following on from the American invasion of 2001. They are two different groups with 2 different causes. The Kashmiri movement is aimed at liberating Kashmir, the foreigners in the tribal areas are aimed at global domination and a Caliphate. They're two different ideologies driving these two groups.

The Pakistani military never supported Bin Laden and his fellows in the IMU who are the main cause of the suicide attacks and bombings that have occured in Pakistan. If you want to go back to the Afghan war, then you'll be dragging the US into it as well. Since the Afghan war, Pakistan and the US have not had anything to do with Bin Laden. So it (the Pakistani Army) has never supported the current crop of terrorists currently coming from abroad into the tribal areas.

What the people of Pakistan (and the Islamic world at large) need to understand is that Islamist terrorism is evil regardless of the recipients of its underhanded violent acts. The dangers posed by this fetid and virulent entity isn’t limited to Fazulla’s goal of imposing Sharia in Swat and the Malakand region, or the confrontation and humiliation of the security forces of Pakistan… no, the danger it poses is to the very core of Pakistani society and every corner of the earth where Muslims chose to make a life for themselves. Likewise, the need to confront this problem shouldn’t be because of the fear that “the enemies of the state may declare Pakistan as unstable or ungovernable”; not only has that ship long sailed, but it is also a non sequitur.

You're generalizing too much. "Islamist terrorism" is bad, as is ANY form of terrorism. Everybody knows this and acknowledges it. Kashmiri terrorism (including the Indian Army terrorism) is bad.

By merely pointing out the immediate dangers radicalism poses to Pakistan’s sanctity is akin to treating the symptoms instead of the disease. This issue is far more complex and requires a comprehensive analysis combined with a serious dose of introspection. Unfortunately, I don’t think the article addresses these issues in an appropriate manner.

Radicalism is a threat to Pakistani society, and that is why it is being fought off. But your post stinks of personal bias, namely two..that only "Islamist terrorism" is bad and not all forms of terrorism, and second that all Islamists (in this case militant radicals) have the same ideology. Al Q has one ideology, and it has to be stopped. The Kashmiri militants (and most I believe are not radicals) have a different ideology.
 
This is an article from Council of Foreign Relations of USA on the issue of foreign terrorists in Kashmir:



Kashmir Militant Extremists

Updated: July 12, 2006

* Are there terrorists in Kashmir?
* Do Islamist terrorists in Kashmir have ties to al-Qaeda?
* Has the nature of Kashmiri terrorism changed since September 11?
* Who controls Kashmir?
* What makes Kashmir a flashpoint?
* Which Islamist terrorist groups have been active in Kashmir?

Are there terrorists in Kashmir?


Yes. The disputed majority Muslim region has its own local terrorist groups, but most of the recent terrorism there has been conducted by Islamist outsiders who seek to claim Kashmir for Pakistan. A spate of Islamist cross-border attacks into Indian-held territory and the December 2001 storming of the Indian parliament in New Delhi have reinforced Kashmir’s standing as the key bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Both states have nuclear weapons, making Kashmir one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints.

Do Islamist terrorists in Kashmir have ties to al-Qaeda?


Yes. Many terrorists active in Kashmir received training in the same madrasas, or Muslim seminaries, where Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters studied, and some received military training at camps in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Moreover, the Kashmiri terrorists’ leadership has al-Qaeda connections. The leader of the Harakat-ul-Mujahedeen group, Farooq Kashmiri Khalil, signed al-Qaeda’s 1998 declaration of holy war, which called on Muslims to attack all Americans and their allies. Maulana Masood Azhar, who founded the Jaish-e-Muhammad organization, traveled to Afghanistan several times to meet Osama bin Laden. Azhar's group is suspected of receiving funding from al-Qaeda, U.S. and Indian officials say.

Has the nature of Kashmiri terrorism changed since September 11?

Yes, experts say. Pakistan, which used to back Islamist militants in Kashmir, changed course after September 11. After the December 2001 attack on India’s parliament, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf promised to crack down on terrorist groups active in Kashmir. In response, members of these extremist groups have gone underground, taken other names, and formed new, ad hoc configurations. Experts say some of these militants have branched out into attacks on Shiite and Christian minorities, American facilities, and other Western targets in Pakistan.

After Delhi and Islamabad agreed to launch a landmark bus service in February 2005 across the ceasefire line dividing Kashmir, militants vowed to target the service. In April of the same year, one bus survived a grenade attack.

Who controls Kashmir?


India now holds about two-thirds of the disputed territory, which it calls Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan controls about one-third, which it calls Azad (meaning “free”) Kashmir. China also controls two small sections of northern Kashmir.

What makes Kashmir a flashpoint?

Kashmir been a constant source of tension since 1947, when the British partitioned their imperial holdings in South Asia into two new states, India and Pakistan. For Pakistan, incorporating the majority Muslim province of Kashmir is a basic national aspiration bound up in its identity as a Muslim state. Meanwhile, India sees the province as key to its identity as a secular, multiethnic state. India and Pakistan fought three wars over the region in 1947, 1965, and 1971. At least 35,000 people have died in political violence in Kashmir since 1990.

Which Islamist terrorist groups have been active in Kashmir?

The State Department lists three Islamist groups active in Kashmir as foreign terrorist organizations: Harakat ul-Mujahedeen, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Jaish-e-Muhammad. The first group has been listed for years, and the other two were added after the December 2001 Indian parliament attack. All three groups have attracted Pakistani members as well as Afghan and Arab veterans who fought the 1980s Soviet occupation of nearby Afghanistan.

* Harakat ul-Mujahedeen (“Islamic Freedom Fighters’ Group”) was established in the mid-1980s. Based first in Pakistan and then in Afghanistan, it has several thousand armed supporters in Pakistan and Kashmir. Harakat members have participated in insurgent and terrorist operations in Burma, Tajikistan, and Bosnia.

* Jaish-e-Muhammad (“Army of Muhammad”) was established in 2000 by Maulana Masood Azhar, a Pakistani cleric. Jaish, which attracted Harakat members, has several hundred armed supporters in Kashmir and Pakistan.

* Lashkar-e-Taiba (“Army of the Pure”), active since 1993, is the military wing of the well-funded Pakistani Islamist organization Markaz-ad-Dawa-wal-Irshad, which recruited volunteers to fight alongside the Taliban. India says that over the last several years, the group has split into two factions, al-Mansurin and al-Nasirin. There is wide speculation that Lashkar-e-Taiba was responsible for the July 11, 2006 string of bombings on Mumbai's commuter railroad, though a spokesman for the group denied any involvement.

Since Pakistan outlawed these groups, attacks in Kashmir and Pakistan have been carried out under other guises. One group calling itself al-Qanoon or Lashkar-e-Omar is thought to be a coalition of members of Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and other Pakistan-based Islamist groups, including the anti-Shiite Lashkar-e-Jhangvi organization. Another new militant group reported to have emerged is the Save Kashmir Movement (SKM).

Kashmir Militant Extremists - Council on Foreign Relations
 
This is an article from Council of Foreign Relations of USA on the issue of foreign terrorists in Kashmir:

So who wrote that article? For all we know it could be Atal Vajpayee himself. Anyway, the stuff that's written is incorrect as per the Indian government.

"Even Farooq Abdullah forgetting his demand for autonomy stated that Hizbul Mujahideen’s were sons of the soil, and his government welcomed dialogue with them and other like minded militants. Farooq Abdullah said that the Indian government was ready for talks with seven other militant organizations, whose fighters he said were sons of the soil. He pleaded with them to ceasefire, and start negotiations. Mr Vajpayee responded positively to the Hizb offer of ceasefire and dialogue by saying that the only conditionality is “Insaniyat” i.e. humanism and civility and not the Indian constitution. Vajpayee invited all militant groups to talks. The recognition by India that all militant outfits except Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Harkat-al-Mujahideen are indigenous Kashmiris is a moral victory for the Hizbul Mujahideen and Kashmiri youths fighting for freedom since 1989."
Hizb Ceasefire a moral victory

The Hizb is the biggest rebel group in Kashmir, with support all over the Kashmir Valley. They are Kashmiris, not foreigners, and that is why they are successful, they have the support of the people. The ideology of the indigenous Kashmiri militants is more local, the liberation of Kashmir, that of the foreigners in the tribal areas is much more global, which makes them more dangerous. As far as I know, the people of the Kashmir Valley don't support attacks by foreign radicals, but do support the local militias. There was an article on this, will see if i can find it.
 
Hi Salim,

Paul Bremer was an idiot and people who were on the advisory board of conquest of iraq were not too far behind and clueless what to expect.

You should have listened to the interview of Ehud Barak that he gave to CNN years ago----even israel was against disbanding the iraqi army and a few other things that the americans did.

The U S of A had already lost the war even before Paul Bremer set his foot in iraq. The iraq war was lost by the americans on the day of the take over----they disowned iraq on that day---when the american soldiers were standing outside the banks and people were looting the banks, when the u s soldiers were standing outside the iraqi mueseum and hospitals and libraries and govt offices and any where and every where and people were looting and there was no contingency plan in place for stopping the looters. The u s was taken back with its pants down----the tradey was that those pants stayed down and nobody pulled them up---or rather nobody had the moral to stand up and protect iraq. Afterwards the stories of rapes and sodomy and torture and **** movies of iraqis came into picture---the congress was shocked, the senate in disbelief and Rummy stated that these pictures cannot be showed to the public---there would be a worldwide repulsion of the u s.

The iraqis have paid back the u s for disowning iraq after conquering it. A heritage less nation like the u s has no concept of what it is like protecting a nations historical treasures.

Don't nobody tell me that u s had already planned it. Paul Bremer, that imbecile let the iraqi army disband----and made them walk for hundreds of miles to their homes----Paul Bremer the guy who eats, breathes and smells millitary---the man who wears millitary combat boots with his suits---man these ceo's are so corrupt and deceptive to the bone---it is unbelievable----they would claim that God talks to them, just to make their money.

The problem I have is that--the general who was put incharge before Paul Bremer had openly made the statement of using ex iraqi army to re-build iraq---that interview was on the tv-----but then he was suddenly removed from his job.

The u s has in-advertantly created a giant SHIA crescent by removing Sunni Saddam from the scenario---it wasn't pre-planned---it was a part of a royal screw up---and everything that has happened since then is a cover up---and you know what happens with cover ups---.
 
No, this isn't true. There's two things here. First if you're classing all radicals as the same, there must be the acknowledgement that Pakistan supported the Afghan mujahideen, AND the US supported them. Like citizens, not all radicals have the same cause. What you've done here is to equate all Muslim rebellions under the umbrella of one united "radical front". This is far from the truth. The rebellion in Kashmir is by Kashmiri people themselves, some of them radicals, but not all. The fighting in Pakistan is by foreign fighters that were pushed out of Afghanistan following on from the American invasion of 2001. They are two different groups with 2 different causes. The Kashmiri movement is aimed at liberating Kashmir, the foreigners in the tribal areas are aimed at global domination and a Caliphate. They're two different ideologies driving these two groups.
Nowhere have i divulged into the varying objectives of different terrorist groups. My arguments are limited to Islamist terrorism in the Pakistani context (which is what the original post is about). Stop going on tangents

But yes, I do maintain that the core element of Islamist radicalization remains the same and needs to be eliminated altogether. Your disinformation on the Kashmiri insurgency and the problems of radicalization vis a vis Afghanistan and Pakistan is intellectual dishonesty at its best. The fact remains that Pakistan has developed into a logistical center and a hub of sunni radicalism. And it doesn't matter what the nationality of the terrorists themselves happens to be. As long as there is a concerted movement to support, nurture and promote radicalism in any shape or form it remains a grave problem; and this is real issue that is plaguing Pakistan.

The Pakistani military never supported Bin Laden and his fellows in the IMU who are the main cause of the suicide attacks and bombings that have occured in Pakistan. If you want to go back to the Afghan war, then you'll be dragging the US into it as well. Since the Afghan war, Pakistan and the US have not had anything to do with Bin Laden. So it (the Pakistani Army) has never supported the current crop of terrorists currently coming from abroad into the tribal areas.
There are a vast array of groups and tribes involved in terrorism who have now turned on Pakistan; but these very groups were nurtured and supported through a national policy for many years including OBL... who isn't the only bogeyman. There are also many others including tribal Pashtuns who have on multiple occasions been mobilized by Pakistan alongside its own forces for geopolitical purposes. Which is why I refuse to buy into the notion that radical terrorism is somehow an alien imposition upon Pakistan. There was certainly a foreign influence, but also a vast local acceptance and endorsement. As I've told Agnostic, the best and the most comprehensive resource I've come across on this matter has been Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars". Please read it.

You're generalizing too much. "Islamist terrorism" is bad, as is ANY form of terrorism. Everybody knows this and acknowledges it. Kashmiri terrorism (including the Indian Army terrorism) is bad.
Again, given that this argument is based around Islamist terrorism, that is what my posts are based on. If you want to discuss other forms of terrorism or predetorial atrocities (which more aptly characterizes the actions of Indian soldiers) please open up another thread and I'll be more than glad to contribute.

The fact that you support certain groups whose objectives you agree with clearly indicates that not everybody acknowledges that Islamist terrorism is bad. What it does show is that people have a selective bias when it comes to this phenomenon. Love it as long as its being done to somebody else.

Radicalism is a threat to Pakistani society, and that is why it is being fought off. But your post stinks of personal bias, namely two..that only "Islamist terrorism" is bad and not all forms of terrorism, and second that all Islamists (in this case militant radicals) have the same ideology. Al Q has one ideology, and it has to be stopped. The Kashmiri militants (and most I believe are not radicals) have a different ideology.
Kashmiri militants are radicals, most of whom are, or have been supported by Pakistan based on changing objectives. This support comes/has come in the form of manpower, material, training, finances, and indoctrination among other things. There are copious amounts of objective position papers and books regarding the issue and if you want a reading list please PM me. Nonetheless the details of the Kashmir insurgency other than its direct link to Islamist radical militants is also beyond the scope of this argument.
 
Nowhere have i divulged into the varying objectives of different terrorist groups. My arguments are limited to Islamist terrorism in the Pakistani context (which is what the original post is about). Stop going on tangents

But yes, I do maintain that the core element of Islamist radicalization remains the same and needs to be eliminated altogether. Your disinformation on the Kashmiri insurgency and the problems of radicalization vis a vis Afghanistan and Pakistan is intellectual dishonesty at its best. The fact remains that Pakistan has developed into a logistical center and a hub of sunni radicalism. And it doesn't matter what the nationality of the terrorists themselves happens to be. As long as there is a concerted movement to support, nurture and promote radicalism in any shape or form it remains a grave problem; and this is real issue that is plaguing Pakistan.

Yes, yes, the "nationality of the terrorists don't matter". That's good logic to suit a very half-brained notion that Pakistan is an indigenous "logistical hub of sunni radicalism". If you can't see the contradiction in this so absurd a statement, then logic is not your forte. You should have seen the number of votes the JUI and other Islamic groups traditionally poll in elections. It's around 2-3% of the votes, if that. Last elections, the MMA were only voted in on an anti-US basis, but there's not traditional support for them in the "logistical terrorism hub" :cheesy:

Moreover, how is it intellectual dishonesty to say that Kashmir is a different set of circumstances to those of the foreign invasion of the tribal areas? More still, who is terrorising who in Kashmir? I would say the Indian Army are doing so, as are the radicals. The separatists such as the Hizb have been recognized as "sons of the soil" even by the Indian government, whilst the IMU in the tribal areas, the Arabs etc, are terrorists from abroad that were pushed in the tribal lands after the invasion of Afghanistan. Is it being "intellectually dishonest" to say that the Kashmiri insurgency have different and more legitimate goals compared with Al Qaeda that seeks world domination?

What drives the foreign terrorists in the tribal areas, and what drives the Kashmir insurgency against India. Two very different causes.
  • The drive for the foreign terrorists in the tribal lands is to cause global destruction, a unified Muslim land, and an end to American domination. These imo aren't noble causes (there's ways to be no.1, many of them are achieveable through other means).
  • What fans the Kashmir insurgency is totally different, and this is where you're the one that's being intellectually dishonest. There is a certain matter of the forced annexation of their lands by India in the 60s that led to resistance and an uprising in the 70s. If violence in Bangladesh against the Army was justifiable on the grounds that there it was a matter of self-determination, then the fight in Kashmir would be even more justified. Because Kashmiris did not get the referendum prior to their inclusion with India that Bangladesh got.

There are a vast array of groups and tribes involved in terrorism who have now turned on Pakistan; but these very groups were nurtured and supported through a national policy for many years including OBL... who isn't the only bogeyman.

And this is assumed nonsense. The tribes supported by Pakistan during the Afghan war were the same as those supported by the US. They have not turned on Pakistan. There is a subtle message put out by these tribes leaders, that I know you would be incapable or just not interested in picking up on. Even some of the most radical Pakistani tribes do not seek a fight with Pakistan. They do want the removal of foreign troops from Afghanistan who are seen as colonialists. Even if they were Tibetan troops on a mission to build lots of houses in Afghanistan they would still be being attacked on account of some non Afghan being in charge. What has come to bite Pakistan are the foreigners, the Arabs and Uzbeks and Tajiks etc, who have paid mercenaries in Pakistan to shelter them. These same groups have not been supported by Pakistan for any particular cause.

There are also many others including tribal Pashtuns who have on multiple occasions been mobilized by Pakistan alongside its own forces for geopolitical purposes. Which is why I refuse to buy into the notion that radical terrorism is somehow an alien imposition upon Pakistan. There was certainly a foreign influence, but also a vast local acceptance and endorsement. As I've told Agnostic, the best and the most comprehensive resource I've come across on this matter has been Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars". Please read it.

Not interested in books when I more or less know the situation anyway. You obviously rely too much on books, which perhaps explains your lack of understanding or excessive "intellectual dishonesty".

If you read what you've just quoted again, it makes no sense. Tribal Pashtuns have been mobilized by Pakistan to fight alongside the Army, tribal Pashtuns form a fairly sizeable component of the Pakistan Army! DUH. How does this show that radical terrorism is not an alien imposition on Pakistan? If anything this shows that tribal Pashtuns are willing to fight alongside a generally moderate national army, and in many cases against radical militias. Like I said, your evidence that it is not an alien imposition is built of lacklustre logic. Everyone with the slightest clue about Pakistan, and the frontier regions, knows that the deobandi/wahhabist brand of Islam was not introduced until the 80s to school the Afghan resistance.

Again, given that this argument is based around Islamist terrorism, that is what my posts are based on. If you want to discuss other forms of terrorism or predetorial atrocities (which more aptly characterizes the actions of Indian soldiers) please open up another thread and I'll be more than glad to contribute.

LOL! "predetorial atrocities", that's a good one. Rather than "Indian terrorism" and "Islamist terrorism" you would choose "predetorial atrocities" Oh, how balanced of you! :enjoy: You need to look up the definition of terrorism and see that it is applicable to both a foreign state-sponsored army that kills, tortures, or steals a land by force such as in Kashmir, as it is to foreign rag tag individuals trying to take over another land. I'll quote Mencius and the Oxford dictionary

""When one by force subdues men, they do not submit to him in heart. They submit, because their strength is not adequate to resist."

"(a) Policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; (b) the employment of methods of intimidation; (c) the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized."

How does this not apply to Indian forces in Kashmir?

The fact that you support certain groups whose objectives you agree with clearly indicates that not everybody acknowledges that Islamist terrorism is bad. What it does show is that people have a selective bias when it comes to this phenomenon. Love it as long as its being done to somebody else.

Rubbish. What it shows is that you are a fascist nit too blinded by all-encompassing religious hatred to see past your own (very long) nose. If you go and harrass someone in the street now, most likely they would flatten you, for every action there is a reaction. For the action of stealing someone's country, there is a reaction. That has caused the Kashmir revolt. If the Indian Army marched into the US tomorrow hypothetically, I'm sure most of the US would revolt. There would be radicals fighting alongside non radicals, the binding cause would be the injustice perpetrated against them. That is what gives impetus to the Kashmir revolt..Injustice NOT Islamic radicalism, and this is what distinguishes it from the foreign maniacs in the tribal areas, who are bringing something of their own issues (that have nothing to do with Pakistan) into the area.

Kashmiri militants are radicals, most of whom are, or have been supported by Pakistan based on changing objectives.

Well that's bs. Kashmir militants are sons of the soil, some radical, some not. Pakistan has supported them in the past, and so have many western countries in fact.

This support comes/has come in the form of manpower, material, training, finances, and indoctrination among other things. There are copious amounts of objective position papers and books regarding the issue and if you want a reading list please PM me. Nonetheless the details of the Kashmir insurgency other than its direct link to Islamist radical militants is also beyond the scope of this argument.

Pakistan has supported the militant groups in Kashmir, just as India had supported the militant groups in Bangladesh. What was the difference? One was terrorism, the other was "predetorial atrocities?" :crazy:
 
Moreover, how is it intellectual dishonesty to say that Kashmir is a different set of circumstances to those of the foreign invasion of the tribal areas? More still, who is terrorising who in Kashmir? I would say the Indian Army are doing so, as are the radicals.

The universal complaint wherever terrorism manifests itself.

Depends on which side one backs.


Not interested in books when I more or less know the situation anyway.

I am interested in books and articles on the issue since it is only a wise man who learns from others' mistakes.

Ego that one knows all, has no place when tackling terrorism.

And, lastly, I have more experience on the subject.
 
The universal complaint wherever terrorism manifests itself.

Depends on which side one backs.




I am interested in books and articles on the issue since it is only a wise man who learns from others' mistakes.

Ego that one knows all, has no place when tackling terrorism.

And, lastly, I have more experience on the subject.

Then you to your books with an agenda, me to my knowledge of the country.

But since you're so interested in books and so on, tell it to Sandra Jordan who made this recent report on Indian Army atrocities in Kashmir (it's a long video, but worth the watch).

Islam Killing of Kashmir - Kashmir Muslims Human Rights Indian Army

Forget about the land grab, no, no terrorism there, just "predetorial atrocities" :crazy:. Two very different situations. Will check back later.
 
Back
Top Bottom