Srinagar: Fidayeen Return to the heart of Kashmir | PKKH.tv

[ZYXW]

@ZYXW
Pakistan already did violate the human rights of the Kashmiri populace by training, arming and launching armed extremists of the ****** flavor into the Indian portion of Kashmir. The Kashmiri pandits who are just as indigenous to Kashmir as any "Lone" were pushed out of Kasmir by these very same extremists- today they form one of the largest internally displaced populations the world over. Our record is not spotless, in fact its rather muddied, but the people on the ground who are found to be in violation are held accountable and tried by the law. Wonder how Pakistan holds the fidayeen they train accountable when these same fidayeen kill their innocent Kashmiri brothers?

Actually this is an understatement. Pakistan has violated their rights much more trust me, but then again so has india.
It's not another territory that's going to be divided just because Pakistan and India can't get along. It was always meant to be neutral and should be left alone.

 

[newdelhinsa]

Is that a threat?
Spare me.

Threat ?

I wish you have got your citizenship.

I thought you were a good poster. Don't be stupid and that carried away like others of you mates. A personal advice.

Promoting attack on security forces is terrorism by all definitions, If you need I can post you the visa application you might have undersigned to immigration.

 

[Developereo]

so who were those who attacked pak airbase ? were they not terrorists ?

If they belong to a terrorist organization and agree with its charter of terrorism, then they are terrorists.
Attacking an army base in peacetime will usually kill civilians also, so it becomes terrorism.

However, in a war zone, I don't think attacking an army base itself can be called an act of terrorism.

Threat ?

I wish you have got your citizenship.

I thought you were a good poster. Don't be stupid and that carried away like others of you mates. A personal advice.

Promoting attack on security forces is terrorism by all definitions, If you need I can post you the visa application you might have undersigned to immigration.

This whole discussion is in the context of a war zone. Kashmir is a disputed territory so, technically, it can be called a war zone.

 

[newdelhinsa]

Stop threatening... and stay within your bounds.

You and others need to learn to be withing your digital limits during a discourse.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

If they belong to a terrorist organization and agree with its charter of terrorism, then they are terrorists.
Attacking an army base in peacetime will usually kill civilians also, so it becomes terrorism.

However, in a war zone, I don't think attacking an army base itself can be called an act of terrorism.



You are right. I was talking in the context of a war zone. Kashmir is a disputed territory so, technically, it can be called a war zone.

today's attack was not at a war zone either.

 

[newdelhinsa]

This whole discussion is in the context of a war zone. Kashmir is a disputed territory so, technically, it can be called a war zone.

The discussion is about today's attack.

Kashmir is not a war Zone because there is no involvement of Pakistan army ?

 

[arp2041]

My definition of terrorism is straightforward: targeting civilians is terrorism, targeting uniformed army is not terrorism.

I am not sure where police fall into this categorization.

What's the difference b/w the TWO???

I thought both are HUMANS first.

+ Are you saying that attacks such as Kamra Base one doesn't come in the definition of Terrorism??

 

[laiqs@mi]

The discussion is about today's attack.

Kashmir is not a war Zone because there is no involvement of Pakistan army ?

Lolzzzz

then afghanistan also is not a warzone???

 

[Developereo]

today's attack was not at a war zone either.

It is officially designated as a disputed territory by the UN, which means it is a conflict zone and the right of the local population to resist military imposition is recognized.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

If they belong to a terrorist organization and agree with its charter of terrorism, then they are terrorists.
Attacking an army base in peacetime will usually kill civilians also, so it becomes terrorism.

However, in a war zone, I don't think attacking an army base itself can be called an act of terrorism.



This whole discussion is in the context of a war zone. Kashmir is a disputed territory so, technically, it can be called a war zone.

Kashmir is not a war zone, Kashmir is international dispute (only because it involves two countries other than some of the local population ), where as you have internal territory dispute(local population vs pak state ) as well where militants carry out attack on army posts and air cases. either both are terrorists or they are not.

 

[newdelhinsa]

Lolzzzz

then afghanistan also is not a warzone???

What it has to do with topic in hand or may be you can type more words than wasting ulnar and Palmar nerve on lolzzz.

 

[ZYXW]

What's the difference b/w the TWO???

I thought both are HUMANS first.

+ Are you saying that attacks such as Kamra Base one doesn't come in the definition of Terrorism??

actually for me attacking the state or any agent of it (army) is terrorism lol

attacking innocent people is just illegal and wrong

 

[kurup]

My definition of terrorism is straightforward: targeting civilians is terrorism, targeting uniformed army is not terrorism.

I am not sure where police fall into this categorization.

So TTP killing pakistani soldiers is not terrorism .

 

[Developereo]

What's the difference b/w the TWO???

I thought both are HUMANS first.

+ Are you saying that attacks such as Kamra Base one doesn't come in the definition of Terrorism??

In a war zone, uniformed soldiers accept the risk that they will be targeted. Civilians do not, in a war zone or elsewhere.

 

[Spring Onion]

Kashmir is not a war zone, Kashmir is international dispute (only because it involves two countries other than some of the local population ), where as you have internal territory dispute(local population vs pak state ) as well where militants carry out attack on army posts and air cases. either both are terrorists or they are not.

internal dispute Vs International dispute. funny funnier.

please include bhagat singh as well if he was a terrorist or not.