Pakistan in Peril

[Vinod2070]

OK, you may rest assured my intent was not that.

They would be Pakistanis of course. That still doesn't make it less scary, does it?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

OK, you may rest assured my intent was not that.

They would be Pakistanis of course. That still doesn't make it less scary, does it?

1. If true

2. Freedom vs Casualties - freedom wins.

 

[Flintlock]

Both Ahmed Rashid and Shuja Nawaz participated in the US review of its polices in Afghanistan and the region.

I am not certain how appreciative of their suggestions India would be, given that they both point to Kashmir Dispute as a major contributor towards instability in the region, as well as a primary cause behind a lackluster commitment form the Pak Mil.

Well, he's right - Pakistan's "aspirations" for Kashmir are a major contributor for terrorism, so naturally he'd want to "solve" the problem by making India compromise.
However, I'm pretty sure India is not going to give up any territory. If solving the Kashmir issue means converting LOC into the border, then it will probably be acceptable. Any further concession would be politically impossible to do in India - especially in the current era of coalition governments. Any govt. which goes too far will get toppled immediately.

Pakistan will have to learn to accept the fact that Kashmir is a part of India. I think that if given the choice between its own existence and its kashmiri goals, it will choose existence. No?

 

[Flintlock]

1. If true

2. Freedom vs Casualties - freedom wins.

I think beyond a certain point, even the state become a criminal if it bombs its own civilians.
What is the point of freedom if you're dead. Rite? A nuclear contaminated Pakistan is not a free Pakistan.
That freedom will be confined to the drawing rooms of the elite and the expat Pakistanis.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, he's right - Pakistan's "aspirations" for Kashmir are a major contributor for terrorism, so naturally he'd want to "solve" the problem by making India compromise.

Our 'aspirations' are endorsed by the UNSC and the instrument of partition.

And an insurgency fighting against an occupation is not terrorism, so your point is invalid on several levels.

However, I'm pretty sure India is not going to give up any territory. If solving the Kashmir issue means converting LOC into the border, then it will probably be acceptable. Any further concession would be politically impossible to do in India - especially in the current era of coalition governments. Any govt. which goes too far will get toppled immediately.

Pakistan will have to learn to accept the fact that Kashmir is a part of India. I think that if given the choice between its own existence and its kashmiri goals, it will choose existence. No?

We do not have to learn to accept the fact that countries like India can go around flouting their international and bilateral commitments. You may want to raise your future generations with that wonderful example of treachery and dishonesty, I do not.

But in any case, no need to start another kashmir argument - I was merely pointing out the positions both Shuja Nawaz and Ahmed Rashid have articulated towards solving the regional impasse, since you were so effusive in your praise for them.

 

[Vinod2070]

1. If true

2. Freedom vs Casualties - freedom wins.

Don't tell me you support this suicidal policy!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think beyond a certain point, even the state become a criminal if it bombs its own civilians.
What is the point of freedom if you're dead. Rite? A nuclear contaminated Pakistan is not a free Pakistan.
That freedom will be confined to the drawing rooms of the elite and the expat Pakistanis.

I reiterate, if Rashid's comment is true.

The state would be bombing the Indian armor, not its population.

Any impact on the population, if there was any, would be collateral damage. The bombing would also be on relatively small area, against a specific target - Indian armor formations. Just enough destruction to prevent their advance, and the rest get mopped up by conventional means.

You would have collateral damage even if conventional bombing was used.

 

[Flintlock]

Our 'aspirations' are endorsed by the UNSC and the instrument of partition.

And an insurgency fighting against an occupation is not terrorism, so your point is invalid on several levels.

Really. Please do tell us how an Islamist mujahideen is not terrorism! We sure as hell would like to know.
Lets see the UN endorse Pakistan's "freedom fighters". Laughable.

We do not have to learn to accept the fact that countries like India can go around flouting their international and bilateral commitments. You may want to raise your future generations with that wonderful example of treachery and dishonesty, I do not.

Fine by me. In the meanwhile, your state weakens and your people suffer. Its your call (well not yours exactly, but the powers that be in your country of origin)

But in any case, no need to start another kashmir argument - I was merely pointing out the positions both Shuja Nawaz and Ahmed Rashid have articulated towards solving the regional impasse, since you were so effusive in your praise for them.

I am fully aware of them. And I agree with them as well, though I don't agree fully on his idea of a solution.

 

[Flintlock]

I reiterate, if Rashid's comment is true.
.

Hey - he used the term "negotiating by putting a gun to one's head", not me!

If you're willing to drop a nuke on your own territory, for whatever reason, I think you've lost the right to govern your people.

Sorry, but that's my opinion. Take it or leave it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Really. Please do tell us how an Islamist mujahideen is not terrorism! We sure as hell would like to know.
Lets see the UN endorse Pakistan's "freedom fighters". Laughable.

I believe the international community has, by supporting the right of a people to struggle against occupation, so long as innocents are not targetted.

And just becasue someone is a Mulsim and fighting does not make him an "islamist Mujahid', nor is an Islamist a terrorist, nor an Islamist Mujahid a terrorist, based on the international communities endorsement of struggle against occupation - your hatred for Islam is getting a bit out of hand. Many of the insurgents fighting in Kashmir are neither Islamist, nor do they attack innocents, they are not therefore terrorists.

The only thing laughable and pathetic is India's attempt to jump on the GWoT bandwagon by labeling them all as you have.

Fine by me. In the meanwhile, your state weakens and your people suffer. Its your call (well not yours exactly, but the powers that be in your country of origin)

No it doesn't. The State has only weakened form the aftermath of the intervention of the Soviets and US in Afghanistan. Kashmir itself has posed no major issue to us.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hey - he used the term "negotiating by putting a gun to one's head", not me!

If you're willing to drop a nuke on your own territory, for whatever reason, I think you've lost the right to govern your people.

Sorry, but that's my opinion. Take it or leave it.

Its his term, and I am questioning the validity of the information he has offered, but at the same time I do not agree that freedom should be sacrificed for fear of a few casualties.

I have not seen any argument from you except the one liner you had above. Nor have you countered my argument above on how a nuclear weapon might be used on an advancing Indian Armor formation. As such your opinion is not very well reasoned at all, though you are welcome to it.

 

[Flintlock]

I believe the international community has, by supporting the right of a people to struggle against occupation, so long as innocents are not targetted.

And just becasue someone is a Mulsim and fighting does not make him an "islamist Mujahid', nor is an Islamist a terrorist, nor an Islamist Mujahid a terrorist, based on the international communities endorsement of struggle against occupation - your hatred for Islam is getting a bit out of hand. Many of the insurgents fighting in Kashmir are neither Islamist, nor do they attack innocents, they are not therefore terrorists.

This is neither my opinon, nor the opinon of the GOI, but the opinion of most neutral commentators on the conflict. If you can't accept the fact that the vast majority of kashmiri fighters are trained as Jehadis, then too bad.

No it doesn't. The State has only weakened form the aftermath of the intervention of the Soviets and US in Afghanistan. Kashmir itself has posed no major issue to us.

Rrright. Of course not. I guess you didn't watch the Ahmed Rashid video then.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This is neither my opinon, nor the opinon of the GOI, but the opinion of most neutral commentators on the conflict. If you can't accept the fact that the vast majority of kashmiri fighters are trained as Jehadis, then too bad.

Again, Jihadis does not equal terrorist.

Technically any Muslim fighting an occupation anywhere woudl be a 'Jihadi'.

Rrright. Of course not. I guess you didn't watch the Ahmed Rashid video then.

Oh I did, and I have read both his books. I just disagree with the statement you made.

 

[Flintlock]

Again, Jihadis does not equal terrorist.

Technically any Muslim fighting an occupation anywhere woudl be a 'Jihadi'.

Yes it does. Using religious extremism (Jehad = holy war) to further a political agenda is terrorism.

 

[Vinod2070]

Its his term, and I am questioning the validity of the information he has offered, but at the same time I do not agree that freedom should be sacrificed for fear of a few casualties.

What kind of freedom will be protected by dropping a bomb in your own territory?

The freedom from life!