Xi, Putin back India on UN terror charter against Pak

[TankMan]

It seems in haste towards reading and trying to prove my post wrong, fellow Pakistani members on the board did not manage to do their due diligence. Due diligence would have been looking up the pew surveys annually or decadaly. I merely posted the last one and said Pakistani opinion was changing.

You were the one using surveys to make an argument. You are supposed to provide them. It is your argument, you need to back it.

As I said, Pakistanis have LOVED suicide bombings(jihad) as long as it was the non-Muslims who were dying. Their opinion on suicide bombing only changed to 'terrorism' when the bombs started killing other Muslim Pakistanis.

In an attempt to say 'you were wrong' on my post, your [sic] forgot the most essential ingredient - reading the post first.

In the first graph, 83% of Pakistanis said terrorism and attacks against civilians were 'NEVER' justified. Never.
Saying that they were fine with others being attacked is a false accusation.

It doesn't say ''oh it's all good as long as it only kills non-Muslims''. It says never against civilians.
You are using a false premise to back your argument.

They most likely just didn't care until it affected them. At those times, the basic idea in peoples' minds would have been about Afghans defending themselves from an invasion - same as it was in the 80s. Most uneducated Pakistanis either didn't hear about incidents like 9/11, didn't care enough about them or believed some conspiracy theory.

Either way, they were wrong to support terrorism and I'm glad that it's changed - you should be glad too, or at least satisfied about it.

It's human nature to not be hostile towards those who aren't hostile towards you, and the political theory being used nowadays is ''the enemy of my enemy is my friend''. When you are targeted, that's when you react. Most normal (especially uneducated) people don't go around thinking about stuff that doesn't affect them

Besides, isn't it a good thing that support for terrorists reduced over time? I'd say it's a very good thing, so what's the problem here? You are arguing as if it was a bad thing.

Oh and @TankMan , I could have posted the dictionary meaning of 'justified' along with "civilians", the word as is used in the image for you and be condescending.

You could have, sure. Would it have changed anything? Not at all. You can be as condescending as you want to, but I won't use that condescension to disregard any valid arguments you present.

suicide bombings(jihad)

infatuation with jihad

Military exporting their jihad all over the world.

'Exporting Jihad'? How do you export struggle? You mean like UN missions - nothing wrong with those.
On a more serious note, you mean 'terrorism'. Just use that word instead of supporting the terrorist narrative that jihad means terrorism. You seriously just said that suicide bombings are Jihad. You are a propagator of terrorist narratives.

Terrorist narrative = ''Islam encourages Jihad, our terrorism is Jihad, so Islam supports our terrorism''.
It does not, actually, so please do not help terrorists in the same way that you accuse us of doing.

Till the time it was the others(non-Muslims) who were dying, Pakistanis had a high approval rate of civilians and others dying "to save Islam"

There is nothing in your statistics to back that assertion. The criteria of support is not Muslims or non-Muslims. It's 'civilian'. They approved of civilians dying, in the same way people nowadays approve of 'collateral damage'. They don't anymore.

I don't vehemently disagree with the above but I would like to deconstruct the premise of this argument. Lets look at the jibe under the freedom fighters veil. I assume the reference is to Mukti Bahini in 1971, the question is did the MB forces conduct bombings i pakistani markets, hotels, bus stations, kidnapping of tourists, hijacking of aircrafts? Are those mukti bahini fighters today being declared as terrorists by the UN? What happened to the Mukti bahini after pakistani surrender?

The freedom fighters example wasn't a specific reference to MB, but to general proxy warfare. Nowadays it's the Baloch militants, a while ago it was MB. That's unfortunately how modern conflicts work. The Baloch militants are, in fact, being declared terrorists.

Action:
Role against USSR; Communist government of afghanistan invited support from USSR, what was Pakistan's strategic interest in interfering in Afghan matters, If the justification was for human rights and genocide against afghans then why complain the premise of India in east pakistan.

Pakistan's strategic interest was countering soviet influence and supporting the US as part of a cold war era geopolitical strategy. I don't agree with what the US and Pakistan did, but I am not a fan of the USSR's expansionism either.

Type of action; Viet cong was supported by the soviets, but today there are no vietnamese terror organisation working in the region fighting till date. Why weren't the mujhahideen groups armed by pakistan, completely disarmed and dismantled after soviet withdrawal.

The Vietcong weren't left with a power vacuum to fill, unlike the Mujahideen groups which were well armed and had very little opposition - all that was needed was a few extremists hijacking the whole country, it was wide open for them. The Vietcong had very, very much resistance to deal with even without US forces.

Intent : After the soviet withdrawal, pakistan's intent became clearer with it's unilateral support to specific groups and empowering of pashtun ethinicity under the post 1993 mullah omar brand taliban backed by Gulbudeen hekmatyaar.

It had nothing to do with the Pashtun ethnicity, more to do with political leverage in Afghanistan. That was the intent - gaining influence over Afghanistan and simultaneously countering Indian influence. Needless to say, it didn't work too well, but that's an entirely different topic.

I don't buy the Islam argument that and neither do subscribe to that, but Pakistan has been reckless when it comes to international security paradigm. It has nothing to do with Islam, pakistan deliberately aided, promoted and armed the mullah omar afghan emirate, which became a training ground for terrorists from chechnya to nigeria. Pakistan has also proliferated nuclear technology to mad nation like North Korea, which in turn today holds South Korea as a hostage purely due to pakistans effort in empowering NoKo.

Pakistan's aggression conventional or assymetric against India is understandable, kashmir or no kashmir, that will remain. But when pakistan is blamed for irrigating global jihad forest, there is some serious introspection that is needed from pakistans side.

Many nations are reckless - I agree with introspection (we're already working on it, a lot) and with careful, considerate foreign policy. No argument there. The argument is that it's not just Pakistan, it's the global game that's responsible for it. Many, many nations are involved in it, the most prominent of them being the US. Pakistan can change all it wants, terrorism and proxy warfare will remain.

The problem is that none of these arguments are being held in any legitimate manner - internationally, I mean. It's more about making the other guys look bad than it is about actually solving anything. The same people blaming Pakistan for irrigating a 'global Jihad forest' are themselves throwing fertilizer on that forest.

 

[Echo_419]

Really twisted journalism from ToI. China did not support the proposed UN convention as a favor to India - it did so because it has it's own concerns about terrorism in Xinjiang.

Anyway, I can't see how this charter would be targeted at Pakistan. There's no credible evidence to suggest that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terror. On the contrary, Pakistan is one of the many victims of the terrorism in the region. If this charter rallies international support against the most nefarious terrorist groups like TTP, IMU, ETIM, then all the better.

1st part -India Media
2nd part- Exactly what we are hoping for

 

[mehul sharma]

Its a general resolution against coumtries supporting terrorism.
I would love to see how its implimented
India also uses its land to support terrorism against Pakistan. So does Afghanistan and also USA supporting ISIS.

when and how can you accuse India.India never used its land for terrorism

 

[Tshering22]

Even the Chinese are smart when it comes to seeing what I'd a long term threat & what benefits them.

ETIM in Pakistan isn't really doing any justice by killing Chinese engineers or civilians. What makes it worse is Pakistan's helplessness to solve this problem and its ideological thinking of "good" terorrisrs & "bad" terrorists

That's dangerous.

 

[waz]

Its not a question of faith. Its a question of what Pakistanis are taught in schools and their surroundings from a young age.
The Turks or Bangladeshis being Muslim but dont agree with suicide bombings or support jihad globally like Pakistan has done for decades.


Your sir, are an exception. And you would be wrong to extrapolate your views on to Pakistani population.
Note how the first table is the most recent and goes backwards chronologically from there. How Pakistanis were comfortable in violence against civilians as long as it was not their people. And how their views changed when it started affecting their people.

The key word is were.
As the surveys show people's views have changed a great deal.