Search results

Talk of (non)sense of entitlement. Now wait and watch how certain members start crying 'discrimination' when Aussies deny Uranium to Pak. O btw, before I forget......:lol:

There is a word for this misplaced sense of entitlement. It's called irredentism. Look it up.

Your desperation has now reached epic heights. The UN resolutions, that you swear by, also ask for cease-fire along the LoC (CFL then). Pakistan accepted that cease-fire agreement, making it obligatory for Pakistan to 'refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential...

Because you copied a LoLcat caption. Without the image it makes no sense. Here is something similar: @ Topic. My first one is supposed to reflect the snobbery of that comes naturally to us, anonymous internet warriors. The second one is, well, slightly philosophical.

The East Bengalis never wanted to secede from Pakistan until the massacre on 26th March, 1971. Before that, they first demanded their legitimate constitutional right, and then partial autonomy. The evil 'Bhartis' didn't turn them secessionist. Your people did. The language of Lahore...

You mean to say that the evil Bharatis somehow convinced Yahya Khan and his sidekick, Bhutto, to deny Mujib his constitutional right to be the head of Pakistan, and then, even in spite of severe provocation, when that bloody Mujib, like a pansy, ended up demanding a mere autonomy, not secession...

So basically it is the fault of those evil Bengalis because they refused to be kicked around like you kick others around. Got it. They should have enjoyed the rape, not prevent it. Those bloody Bengalis. Btw, thanks for acknowledging that, that half-@ss Two Nation Theory is, well, half @ssed...

Wrong. You have put the cart before the horse. What is needed to be examined is if 'peoples' (note the 's') have the right to declare secession from a State, and under what circumstances. This is to be viewed along with the State's right of territorial integrity. And it is in this context I...

Puerto Rico was a colony of USA. Kashmir is not a colony of India. Different equation. UN has a specific resolution (Millennium resolution) which specifically recognizes the right of self-determination of colonies. And the residents of Quebec didn't just pick up AK-47s and start shooting the...

Hokum. Something is 'illegitimate' if it violates a law (written or unwritten). What you are talking of is 'morality' of State, which is not the same as legitimacy of a State's 'sovereignty'.

How? Care to explain?

She stands up for herself, and herself only. Occasionally she talks sense. But mostly it's 'me, myself and I'. Essentially, she is a casuist.

Does it now? EDIT: Anybody care to explain how Kashmir's accession to India was in violation of law.

'700,000' were sent when insurgency broke out and the 'troops and paramilitaries' are still there. DUH!

Where does it say that India currently deploys 700,000 troops in Kashmir? Anyway, I am still waiting to learn how Kashmir's accession to India was in violation of law, and therefore sovereignty of India over Kashmir is 'illegitimate'.

Which law is violated by India's accession of Kashmir, that makes Indian sovereignty over Kashmir 'illegitimate'.?

And therein lies the bias, a subtle one. That particular paragraph goes beyond just telling the Pak side of the horror story of Partition. That is what I referred to as soft pedaling a subtle bias against Hindus. I am glad that you are finally acknowledging that such bias exists in Pak...

And the same couldn't have been done without using the word 'extremist'?

Because it uses that description only in the context of Hindus. Duh!! Really? Let me quote it once again. 'The Congress although lead by Gandhiji who preached tolerance and kindness, was at the time dominated by Hindus, who were in turn dominated by extremists.' Implying that, those who...