Pakistan's rhetoric on Kashmir does not match reality and has Illusions

[karan.1970]

But Indians do ignore that part of history. Their history starts from tribal invasion.

By the way Indians say India existed for thousands of years and all that. Glad to see an Indian who don't accept this BS.

Yes.. Since J&K became a part of India post that invasion only. As a matter of fact that foolishness by Jinnah of invadin Kashmir using militants and terrorists, cost Pakistan the valley and the most inhabited parts of J&K.

India that I am a citizen of, came into being in 1947. Just like Pakistan that you are a citizen of came into being in 1971. People may believe what they want. The Indian culture under different names though can be traced back for many centuries though.

 

[Areesh]

Ok lets believe your narrative for a minute

You do realize..those were partition days..riots were happening throughout India, Pakistan and the princely states or wherever Hindu and Sikh population were in contact.with Muslims population
There were riots happening in Pakistan too, Hindus and sikhs were being killed, yet India did not invade you to stop these, so how come you decided to invade the independent nation of Kashmir?

Just because they were smaller state, you thought you could get away with an invasion on the pretext 'riots'? Taught you a lesson didn't it.

There is a difference between riots and state sponsored massacre. Guess you can't differentiate between them since being an Indian Muslim blood comes cheap for you.

As for teaching a lesson. No actually it worked pretty well for us. Got more than 85000 sq km of territory. Without that action we might lose this one too.

Yes.. Since J&K became a part of India post that invasion only. As a matter of fact that foolishness by Jinnah of invadin Kashmir using militants and terrorists, cost Pakistan the valley and the most inhabited parts of J&K.

Well it is you who think it was foolishness. Looking at the character of the hindu ruler of Kashmir, we are cannot trust a nutcase like him. It is better to gain something then lose everything you know.

India that I am a citizen of, came into being in 1947. Just like Pakistan that you are a citizen of came into being in 1971. People may believe what they want. The Indian culture under different names though can be traced back for many centuries though.

That's a more sensible definition. I hope other of your countrymen stop being a lunatic and accept this interpretation.

 

[ares]

Independent Kashmir or annexed Kashmir by india.

Go read a book(preferably on subcontinental history and a one which is not a part of Pakistani curriculum) and come back when you can make an intelligent contribution to the discussion.

 

[Areesh]

Rationale explained above, for those simple minded who need spoonfeeding.

Your logic is stupid and baseless. First of all Syria case is far different from Jammu of 1947. There is a civil war in Syria with both groups being Muslim. You are just comparing oranges with apples like always.

I am happy that you admitted the massacre very quickly after denying it at first.

 

[Pakistani shaheens]

There are millions more muslims across India - in fact, several times more than Kashmiris. The state of Uttar Pradesh itself has three times as many muslims as Kashmir does. So don't play the religion card, or pretend that muslims are India's "other". Muslims are not our nemesis, nobody is except those who pick arms against the nation.

I mentioned Syria because @KingMamba pretended that Pakistan's ignoble invasion of Kashmir was due to a massacre of muslims - then explain to me why Pakistani tribals are not invading Syria or countless other places where muslims have slaughtered muslims en masse.




Rationale explained above, for those simple minded who need spoonfeeding.

Syria is independent country and their situation is totally different from Kashmir. They have been attacked by terrorists just like Pakistan. And they have their own army and they can defend them selves. But situation of Kashmir is different. Kashmir has been annexed by india and india is killing their population and their freedom movement by force. And Kashmiris don't have any force which can protect themselves from indian terrorism.

And we all know how muslims especially Kashmiris being treated in india. Few days ago I was hearing news that a Kashmiri student was beaten for supporting Pakistan.

 

[janon]

Your logic is stupid and baseless. First of all Syria case is far different from Jammu of 1947. There is a civil war in Syria with both groups being Muslim. You are just comparing oranges with apples like always.

I am happy that you admitted the massacre very quickly after denying it at first.

Ah I see, so its OK if its muslims who do the massacre of muslims. Just don't let kafirs do it.

And no, I did not admit anything of the sort. I replied to kingmamba, asking him to explain that if that was the reason, why the same enthusiasm is not shown for all other massacres.

The only massacres that took place in Kashmir at that time was by Pakistani pashtun plunderers who invaded and pillaged a small, independent nation.

Syria is independent country and their situation is totally different from Kashmir. They have been attacked by terrorists just like Pakistan. And they have their own army and they can defend them selves. But situation of Kashmir is different. Kashmir has been annexed by india and india is killing their population and their freedom movement by force. And Kashmiris don't have any force which can protect themselves from indian terrorism.

And we all know how muslims especially Kashmiris being treated in india. Few days ago I was hearing news that a Kashmiri student was beaten for supporting Pakistan.

Kashmir was ALSO an independent country when Pak invaded it in 1948. It was after the Pakistani invasion that they acceeded to India, to stop the rest of Kashmir from falling to the barbarians. So that is precisely why I made the comparison - just as Syria is an independent nation, so was Kashmir - before Pak invaded it.

And Kashmir was not annexed by India, it was legally acceeded to India by the ruler, to prevent annexation by Pakistani tribals.

 

[ares]

There is a difference between riots and state sponsored massacre. Guess you can't differentiate between them since being an Indian Muslim blood comes cheap for you.

As for teaching a lesson. No actually it worked pretty well for us. Got more than 85000 sq km of territory. Without that action we might lose this one too.

No, tell us what difference is there to the dead. Do people killed in riots, any less dead than those killed in state sponsored massacres(and be a doll and give us a link to these massacres, preferably a neutral one too).

A state unable or unwilling to stop a riot is equally culpable as those indulging in massacres(but you are not unfamiliar with state sponsored massacres cough:1971: cough)

Well if you are happy with outcome your Kashmir invasion..then we are too, but then stop being so needy about Indian Kashmir.

 

[Areesh]

Ah I see, so its OK if its muslims who do the massacre of muslims. Just don't let kafirs do it.

Well again you fail to differentiate between civil wars and massacres sponsored by the state ruler. Not surprised.

And no, I did not admit anything of the sort..

Then there is no point of bringing Syria crap here.

The only massacres that took place in Kashmir at that time was by Pakistani pashtun plunderers who invaded and pillaged a small, independent nation.

Then it is your poor history that you were taught at your school. I cannot help you except ask you to spend more time on internet reading accurate history instead of wasting time on this forum.

No, tell us what difference is there to the dead. Do people killed in riots, any less dead than those killed in state sponsored massacres(and be a doll and give us a link to these massacres, preferably a neutral one too).
.

Nope there is no difference but still they are different. A state ruler killing people and random people killing each other. Well there is huge difference.

A state unable or unwilling to stop a riot is equally culpable as those indulging in massacres(but you are not unfamiliar with state sponsored massacres cough:1971: cough)

Now since you have brought 1971 here I think Pakistani actions are further justified just like Indian actions were justified in 1971. Thanks for pointing this important point for me,.

Well if you are happy with outcome your Kashmir invasion..then we are too, but then stop being so needy about Indian Kashmir.

We are not needy about anything. It is a struggle for the correcting a historic mistake(Indian's occupation of Kashmir). And this struggle will continue.

 

[Pakistani shaheens]

Ah I see, so its OK if its muslims who do the massacre of muslims. Just don't let kafirs do it.

And no, I did not admit anything of the sort. I replied to kingmamba, asking him to explain that if that was the reason, why the same enthusiasm is not shown for all other massacres.

The only massacres that took place in Kashmir at that time was by Pakistani pashtun plunderers who invaded and pillaged a small, independent nation.



Kashmir was ALSO an independent country when Pak invaded it in 1948. It was after the Pakistani invasion that they acceeded to India, to stop the rest of Kashmir from falling to the barbarians. So that is precisely why I made the comparison - just as Syria is an independent nation, so was Kashmir - before Pak invaded it.

And Kashmir was not annexed by India, it was legally acceeded to India by the ruler, to prevent annexation by Pakistani tribals.

Ok if Pakistan attacked Kashmir and tried to took control over there and india came for rescue then why India is not giving indepandace to their controlled Kashmir and why Kashmiris are against india. And why has india deployed it's 700000 army in Kashmir. And why india is not conducting fair referendum in Kashmir to decide wether Kashmiri wants to join Pakistan, india or wants independance.

 

[janon]

Well again you fail to differentiate between civil wars and massacres sponsored by the state ruler. Not surprised. .

How about Halabja massacre in Iraq? Homs massacre in Syria? Kurdish massacre? And thousands of other examples of ruler sponsored massacres of muslims that I can give you? How come you didnt send your tribals to any of those places? Because obviously you don't expect to get their land.

Then there is no point of bringing Syria crap here.

There is - to point out our hypocrisy, in pretending that you wre doing it for altruistic reasons, when thee fact is that you invaded a sovereing natin of Kashmir to annex it.

 

[Patriots]

Pakistan is not an integral part of India not any more.You guys want your own nation and you got that.Now you must satisfy with that

I am talking about Hindu mentality before partition ... Hindus was against partition ................

 

[janon]

We are not needy about anything. It is a struggle for the correcting a historic mistake(Indian's occupation of Kashmir). And this struggle will continue.

India was invited by the legitimate ruler, to stop his land being pillaged by barbarians from Pak.

 

[Areesh]

How about Halabja massacre in Iraq? Homs massacre in Syria? Kurdish massacre? And thousands of other examples of ruler sponsored massacres of muslims that I can give you? How come you didnt send your tribals to any of those places? Because obviously you don't expect to get their land.

You are running in circles kid. I think this part has already been answered. You are comparing apples with oranges and this isn't going to help you. Seriously. Worst logic I have seen from a bharati on this forum.

India was invited by the legitimate ruler, to stop his land being pillaged by barbarians from Pak.

As I always say to you. Keep telling that to yourself.

 

[janon]

I am talking about Hindu mentality before partition ... Hindus was against partition ................

Yea, hindus were of the opinion that everybody should live together as one.

You are running in circles kid. I think this part has already been answered. You are comparing apples with oranges and this isn't going to help you. Seriously. Worst logic I have seen from a bharati on this forum.

Nope. The only person grasping at straws is you. My point has been made. End of story. Adieu.

 

[Areesh]

Nope. The only person grasping at straws is you. My point has been made. End of story. Adieu.

If that makes you feel comfortable. Okay.

Syria, Iraq, Kurdistan