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

[arp2041]

I had answered it earlier for another poster.

Now, the question comes, who will DECIDE as to which organization is a terrorist or not terrorist organization??

Since, you have brought UN earlier, UN have declared LET as an International Terrorist organization & as per some news sources this very attack was carried by LET.

+ Pakistan is giving shelter to the Head of LET, so does that mean Pakistan support Terrorism??

 

[newdelhinsa]

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 ....

Blah blah,

Taliban was a legitimate Government recognized by Pakistan and SA and Americans are legitimate state fighting with them. America declared a war against them by UN mandate openly.

Now if you get more into it this comparing with situation in J&K it will go against Pakistan, so trade with caution.

Today I am not in my Punjabi mode so lets talk in angrezee.

 

[ares]

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.

Do you make these definitions up as you go along?
A War zone has nothing to technical legalities of owner ship of the land. It just the place where combat or a war is taking place.

So technically your NWFP areas where civilians have bee evacuated and full scale operations against militants are underway is a war zone.

And as per your understanding any attack on military base in war zone is not terrorism.

Clearly we will see a marked shift in your definition of terrorism very soon, as soon as there is another attack on your security forces in your war zone!!

However important and more pertinent question is, why terrorism in Kashmir becomes a pure freedom struggle...where as terrorism in other parts of Pakistan remains a tainted subject?

Is a Kashmiri or Pakistani Punjabi pretending to be Kashmiri attempting a suicide attack more committed to his cause that say Pashtun Taliban or a Baloch fighter carrying out a suicide attack?

Or is their cause become less just, just because they are not fighting in an area , which is recognized by UN as "a disputed territory b/w two nations, pending resolution"?

 

[mastaan]

If I could make a request to this forum, it would be to stop calling Terrorists and Millitants as Fidayeens!!! It just demeans the word fidayeen....

No terrorism can be justified and one that includes attacking a School (even if it is in a cantonement) merits our disdain and anger. Those who attacked, were the animals of worst kind and them & their ilks belong to Jehannum (Hell)!!!

 

[Developereo]

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

It is one and the same. Recognition as a disputed or occupied territory means the separatist struggle is accepted as having some legitimacy.

Recogonised where .

IMEU: UNGA Resolution 2649 on the right of populations to resist occupation

Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;

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

Wrong. This is what you wrote:

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.

By your own logic, WW2 resistance fighters against the Nazis were terrorists.

you can't classify a internal armed struggle as terrorism just because UN failed to recognise it

Countries do it all the time. That's why separatist movements seek recognition by the UN to legitimize their armed struggle.

 

[Developereo]

Now, the question comes, who will DECIDE as to which organization is a terrorist or not terrorist organization??

Since, you have brought UN earlier, UN have declared LET as an International Terrorist organization & as per some news sources this very attack was carried by LET.

If India can prove that this was done by LeT, then it would become a terrorist act. If it is local, then it wouldn't be.

+ Pakistan is giving shelter to the Head of LET, so does that mean Pakistan support Terrorism??

In India can prove that he was involved in directing a terrorist act, then India can make that charge.

Do you make these definitions up as you go along?

Try reading before posting. UN recognizes the right to resist occupation in a disputed or occupied territory.

 

[RazPaK]

Long live the freedom fighters.

 

[ares]

It is one and the same. Recognition as a disputed or occupied territory means the separatist struggle is accepted as having some legitimacy.



IMEU: UNGA Resolution 2649 on the right of populations to resist occupation

Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;



Wrong. This is what you wrote:



By your own logic, WW2 resistance fighters against the Nazis were terrorists.



Countries do it all the time. That's why separatist movements seek recognition by the UN to legitimize their armed struggle.

That is bullshit!!

As per UN the dispute is b/w two nations..as to legality of the land. It is not a dispute b/w people and state!!Hence is not a freedom struggle.
No where UN defines Kashmir as an occupied territory!!


And more so Pakistani administrated part of Kashmir has the exact same legal status as Indian administrated part..so any terrorist activity there should also be viewed as freedom struggle.

 

[GoodBoy]

It is one and the same. Recognition as a disputed or occupied territory means the separatist struggle is accepted as having some legitimacy.

IMEU: UNGA Resolution 2649 on the right of populations to resist occupation

Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;
Wrong. This is what you wrote:

By your own logic, WW2 resistance fighters against the Nazis were terrorists.

Countries do it all the time. That's why separatist movements seek recognition by the UN to legitimize their armed struggle.

You need to understand just one small sentence ie. MISSION KASHMIR IS FAILED so the more you try to rejuvenate it the more you get deeper in the pit.

You havent learned even a zilch that "what you give is what you get"... because of Kashmir you lost Bangladesh, FATA was never in your control and Baluchistan and SindhuDesh are gradually asking for freedom.Now even after losing 45,000 of your own countrymen you are following the path of terrorism.

But I expect that you would not learn so... keep up and believe in the good/bad terrorist theory and taste your own medicine in a much harder way.

 

[arp2041]

In India can prove that he was involved in directing a terrorist act, then India can make that charge.

I din't wanted to go further, but it is really surprising that you bring UN at times when it serves your INTERESTS but completely ignore it when it don't.

As You say that UN had passed a resolution to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir (which required vacating all military personnel & Pakistan din't oblige).

This very same UN had passed a resolution to Declare Hafiz Saeed as an International Terrorist + LET as an International Terrorist organization.

So where does the question of proof & all comes??

 

[jaunty]

That is bullshit!!

As per UN the dispute is b/w two nations..as to legality of the land. It is not a dispute b/w people and state!!Hence is not a freedom struggle.
No where UN defines Kashmir as an occupied territory!!


And more so Pakistani administrated part of Kashmir has the exact same legal status as Indian administrated part..so any terrorist activity there should also be viewed as freedom struggle.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Mirage2000]

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

I am an ethnic Kashmiri and you know what i call my self as Pakistani first you know what times do not remain same Pakistan is in problems but this will not remain as it is.Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris but it can never be Independent without Pakistan's support so Kashimiris will ultimately have to be a part of Pakistan if they're to go away from India.
I never support Independent Kashmir without being part of Pakistan it can never be one if someone thinks i can they're living in fool's paradise.

There were times when Pakistan was progressing and was way ahead of India in development now India is just because the times changed some people have changed opinions.

Pakistan always helped Kashmiris many migrated here and prospered and were never considered aliens and if you think not supporting the militants that were damaging Kashmir cause and a misery to people is mistreatment than you support bloodshed and loss of many innocent lives.

To me Kashmir issue can only be resolved through dialogue and change of India's attitude if not by a war.

Yet if you still think Kashmir is first then get your flags right. If one is to show himself as Pakistani it should come before any ethnic loyalties.

 

[Albatross]

Kill the bastards well done Kashmiries...

 

[GoodBoy]

Kill the bastards well done Kashmiries...

Can you say same to Talibunnies who regularly kill and even behead Pak soldiers and put videos as well?

 

[Developereo]

It is not a dispute b/w people and state!!

The UN has recognized the right of Kashmiri people to decide their own fate through a plebiscite which recognizes that the people themselves do not accept of the current setup.

If it was merely a matter between the states themselves, the UN would not give the people any say in the matter.

And more so Pakistani administrated part of Kashmir has the exact same legal status as Indian administrated part..so any terrorist activity there should also be viewed as freedom struggle.

If Azad Kashmiris started a separatist struggle then it would have the same legitimacy as in Indian Kashmir.

This very same UN had passed a resolution to Declare Hafiz Saeed as an International Terrorist + LET as an International Terrorist organization.

So where does the question of proof & all comes??

The UN made no mention of his involvement in Mumbai or any specific terrorist act.

It's like Rupert Murdoch was the head of News Corp. but managed to escape all legal ramifications of the recent scandals.