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

[Developereo]

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.

What part of 'internationally recognized disputed zone by UN' do you guys not understand?

So TTP killing pakistani soldiers is not terrorism .

The places where TTP targets Pak soldiers are not internationally recognized disputed territories, i.e. conflict zones.

 

[laiqs@mi]

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.

uncle he said kashmir is not war zone. i said then afghanistan also is not war zone becuse no armies are at fight there. you people dont count freedom fighters so afghanistan aslo is not a war zone. pehly pura comment par lia karo jis ka reply kia hai ....

 

[Dillinger]

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

attacking innocent people is just illegal and wrong

@ZYXW Getting into the semantics of it is anyway useless..the fight is between the armed forces personnel who are stationed there under the request of the legitimately elected J&K government and irregular terrorists who have turned their "independence" struggle into a religious war and have resorted to jih@#.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

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.

UN recognised many things, including jud as terrorist org, but pak seems to have no awareness about it. UN realisation of dispute simply means that they recognise that there is a dispute, it's no green signal or justification for armed struggle, or cross border terrorism, if UN did not recognised some dispute yet doesn't mean there is no dispute, kalat is such one case.. same as Kashmir.

 

[arp2041]

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

You din't answer my question - Are Attacks on Kamra air Base & other military installations in Pakistan not an act of Terrorism??

 

[kurup]

What part of 'internationally recognized disputed zone by UN' do you guys not understand?

The places where TTP targets Pak soldiers are not internationally recognized disputed territories, i.e. conflict zones.

Doesnot matter whether it is a internationally recognized disputed territories or not , any non-uniformed person who takes up arm to harm innocents and security personnal are terrorists.

 

[Armstrong]

It's funny because I had a similar attitude. But I have a indian friend. She is sindhi and she told me the story about the dispute over them and stuff, and then she goes see when the people in the middle give up, then it's over, you shoudl identify yourself with those that need you more. ---> applies for you too. kashmir needs you more than pakistan. pakistan can't even take care of itself, it has already and will further destroy it. I am not against Pakistan, you of all the people should know that, but when it comes to kashmir, kashmir comes first and it should for you too in my opinion

Kiddo your opinion is duly noted & subsequently chuckled at for its idealistic, if myopic, cuteness !

For me the promise that Pakistan holds, what it meant when we fought for this country & the realization of the dream that was 'Pakistan' more than trumps my ethnicity as a Kashmiri ! Therefore to think of me as anything but a Pakistani, first, second or last would be erroneous !

 

[Developereo]

UN recognised many things, including jud as terrorist org, but pak seems to have no awareness about it. UN realisation of dispute simply means that they recognise that there is a dispute, it's no green signal or justification for armed struggle, or cross border terrorism, if UN did not recognised some dispute yet doesn't mean there is no dispute, kalat is such one case.. same as Kashmir.

UN (international) recognition of a separatist struggle is a big factor for precisely the reason I mentioned.

If the region is not internationally recognized as disputed, then the separatist struggle is classified as an internal matter of terrorism. However, as soon as the UN designation kicks in, then the right of the separatists to take up arms against the army is recognized.

 

[Armstrong]

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.

How exactly ?

And please don't quote me opinion pieces or news excerpts from some newspaper or a UN report that even it gives a disclaimer over !

 

[Developereo]

Doesnot matter whether it is a internationally recognized disputed territories or not , any non-uniformed person who takes up arm to harm innocents and security personnal are terrorists.

Set innocents aside.

By your logic, the resistance movement during WW2 against Nazi soldiers was terrorism?

 

[airmarshal]

But, you have to realize that not all of the people asking for independence are terrorists. They are many people there who are not terrorist and are just fighting to free and unite their homeland.

Why so defensive? His assertion that everything happening in Kashmir is because of Pakistan has to be dismissed without consideration. Kashmir is under Indian occupation. If it was part of India, there would not have been so many troops there.

Pakistan stopped supporting freedom fighters way back in 2001/2002. Although I disagree with policy, but as the things stand right now, Kashmir insurgency is local. It was local in 1989 too.

India has to account for its atrocities. And that day will come inshallah.

 

[kurup]

UN (international) recognition of a separatist struggle is a big factor for precisely the reason I mentioned.

How come recognition as Internationally disputed becomes recognition of a separatist struggle ??

If the region is not internationally recognized as disputed, then the separatist struggle is classified as an internal matter of terrorism. However, as soon as the UN designation kicks in, then the right of the separatists to take up arms against the army is recognized.

Recogonised where .

Does any UN charter says that anybody can wage terrorism in a place designated by UN as internationally disputed ???

 

[Developereo]

You din't answer my question - Are Attacks on Kamra air Base & other military installations in Pakistan not an act of Terrorism??

I had answered it earlier for another poster.

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.

 

[kurup]

Set innocents aside.

By your logic, the resistance movement during WW2 against Nazi soldiers was terrorism?

Only if Nazi soldiers were the one who were the victims of persecution.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

UN (international) recognition of a separatist struggle is a big factor for precisely the reason I mentioned.

If the region is not internationally recognized as disputed, then the separatist struggle is classified as an internal matter of terrorism. However, as soon as the UN designation kicks in, then the right of the separatists to take up arms against the army is recognized.

you can't classify a internal armed struggle as terrorism just because UN failed to recognise it, you need to look at the history and merit of each case. YOU can't hide behind UN when ever it suites you and your govt and ignore UN recognition and resolutions when they are against your interest. case in point is recognition JUD as terrorist org and UN resolutions on Kashmir which called for withdrawal of pak troops from Kashmir.btw UN recognisition of Kashmir as disputed territory was " between India and Pakistan " thanks @kurup for reminding me that.