afriend
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,501
- Reaction score
- 0
And how so?
What are the charges against Pakistan?
1. Support for the Kashmiri freedom movement in internationally recognized disputed territory, which you call terrorism.
No we dont call freedom movement terrorism. But using AK-47's and bombing innocent civilians in the name of freedom is terrorism. You might also note that we dont call syed gilani and all other separatists who protest in peaceful ways terrorists...we call them "SEPARATISTS"!!! We have seen lot of armed militants killed at LOC. How come they come from a country who merely supports freedom struggle. The agenda is not limited to the support and that is there for everyone to see.
But the support continued well after the fight against the soviets were flushed out, which you may see now have resulted in 9/11 and the problems you face in swat which now you are rightfully recitifing your selves.2. Support for the Taliban regime in attempting to have a favorable dispensation in Afghanistan.
Apart from that, Nuclear proliferation happened under a military regime in your country which is also a serious threat and have armed the rougue states like north korea.
You are taking away the conduct of pakistani military at East pakistan, and india intervend only upon request from the people of bangladesh. And there was a full scale war going out on that country when india intervened. And i havent heard from any news of india sowing the seeds of freedom struggle or watering it for the purpouse of breaking up pakistan. So there is no comparison between kashmir and bangladesh. And you equating kashmir and bangladesh would be just out of the anymosity that has been generated from bangladeshi independence and you have a convinient scape goat in india.What are the charges against India?
1. Support for the East Pakistan separatists, which I consider terrorism, reciprocating your charge against the Kashmiri freedom fighters.
2. Creation and support of the LTTE against a sovereign Sri Lankan government - the repercussions from that spot of adventurism are for everyone to see.
I agree that india supported the LTTE cause when it was founded. But you are also merely forgetting that india distanced itself when LTTE took terrorism as its tool to push forward its policy. You may note that India had sent IPKF which fought a bloody war with LTTE. So you cant point this out for your case.
3. Support for the Northern Alliance warlords, to stop Pakistan from gaining a favorable regime in Afghanistan and increase Indian influence.
In the war against terror, which you are also a part of now, you might note that entire world supported Northern Alliance to over throw taliban. But i dont know how indian support amounts to support of terrosim while the support of WOT allies does not.
I clearly see India using 'terrorism as an instrument of state policy here' - if not, then I fail to see how you can make that charge against Pakistan.
The problem is that belief you have that India's sht doesn't stink. As I suggested to Malay, get off your self-righteous high horse and accept the fact that India has its own skeletons and 'employment of terrorism as an instrument of state policy' - that has been clearly illustrated. no matter how much you attempt to obfuscate the issue by pontificating over minutiae in each instance of Indian adventurism so as to make it appear 'not terrorism', distinct from the policies pursued by Pakistan.
Kindly note that irrespective of the skeltons in the closet, state policy of india is always governed by masses, but state policy of pakistan have been always influenced by military dictators. Hence you cannot compare india and pakistan as both of them are brought up in an entirely different scenarios.
The evidence is clear, I am not sure what significantly lower LoC infiltration, and no more assitance by the PA (in terms of the alleged covering fire) and reduced attacks mean other than the fact that Pakistan has helped to almost eliminate the insurgency.
The difference in the insurgency - pre 2002 compared to post 2002 - is remarkable.
And these changes coincide with the new direction Pakistan's Kashmir policy took after 2002, and is bolstered by the fact that the military establishment (through Musharraf) and the political leadership have all supported the general position espoused by Musharraf - dialog and compromise over Kashmir.
It really can't get any clearer then this - changes in both the political rhetoric and significant changes on the ground in the actual insurgency. I think there is an inability to deal with Pakistan without a sense of moral superiority, and acknowledging Pakistan's contributions to peace and India's flaws denies that sense of moral superiority.
I am very happy to see the change in Pakistan. The strong action against taliban, creation of an independent judiciary, a strong government. However these should be backed up by sustainable action. And not mere two instances of good work.