Acts of Terrorism in Pakistan

[Hellfire]

The IA definitely has significant experience in COIN, but you have to look at the lower casualty rates in the context of very, very low numbers of insurgents and minimal cross-LoC infiltration and provision of supplies.

While the IA puts the total number of insurgents in Kashmir at between 300 to 800, we had around 500 Taliban in Buner alone, all supplied with excellent communications equipment, mortars, RPG's and other weapons.

The operation in Bajaur alone resulted in 1500 militants killed, and there was a significant number of reinforcements from across the border in support of the Bajaur Taliban (estimates suggest over a thousand) in just that short operation span.

The dynamics in Kashmir and FATA are significantly different, which is why I have always been leery of direct comparisons between the two.

Agnostic

The relatively lower numbers of militants has been achieved over a period of time (and in part due to Musharraf taking steps to curb crossing over). Early 90s there was a time when Sopore was an area which was virtually lost to India. It took time and casualties.

Am not making a direct comparision at all. PA is new in CI grid and as such will take time to adjust and modify its principles and doctrine as also at the same time you have undoubtedly a more robust and determined enemy which has battle experience of more than 3 decades to draw from (as against 2 decades for IA).

There can not be any comparision. I merely meant to state that PA is learning and it shall evolve its doctrine as it gains experience. It will take casualties as mistakes happen and you learn from them and then soon PA itself will be able to sustain high tempo of CI ops with an acceptable casualty rate.

I am still reserved about use of firepower/armour though.

Thanks

 

[Hellfire]

The reasons for the situation in Kashmir not becoming FATA is because the dynamics are not the same, as I explained already.

Completely different scenario - hardly any civilian population and limited military support from the Pakistani side in favor of the combatants - the IA and IAF went whole hog against their targets.

Kargil could be considered an asymmetric 'military to military' conflict - no comparison to Bajaur or FATA.

A point here.

During and after Kargil till ceasefire, there was coordination between PA and militants attacking Indian posts along LC. Most of the times there would be a frontal attack by PA with militants striking from rear. As a result there was massive induction of troops in form of RR to check this tendency along LoC region too. Even regular Infantry units in Border Guarding role were told to divert troops for CI ops in rear areas to check this.

A definite coordination always existed between PA and militants whenever PA tried to take an Indian held feature

 

[Hellfire]

Agnostic

Terrorism is defined clearly and there are no two definitions for it. While you may want to classify Kashmir struggle as freedom (it may have been in initial years of 90s) its now more of sponsored terror with bulk of cadres coming from Pakistan/Kashmir under Pakistani occupation/Somalia/Yemen/Afghanis (Talibs)/few Egyptians. These people have hijacked what could have been a freedom struggle and as such your continued insistence on such movement being freedom struggle is distortion of facts.

I had already told of how Kashmiri youth is recruited today in an early post in different thread which you kindly deleted for being off-topic when the same was in consonance with this line of thought. Its more on physical threat to family members. Its either a son or if you are rich Rs. 20-25 lac per year. Take your choosing if this is freedom struggle?

Its like India saying that FATA people are waging a freedom struggle as they certainly enjoy immense popularity as many of your own countrymen pointed out to me time and again. So I think morally you should let them have their freedom.

Your defence of attack on Indian Parliament is totally in poor taste. Either it is a freedom struggle (and as logical extension so is Talib movement in Pakistan) or its terror, take your picking.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agnostic

Terrorism is defined clearly and there are no two definitions for it.

The deliberate killing of civilians by the IA is just as much terrorism as that by some Freedom fighters.

Its like India saying that FATA people are waging a freedom struggle as they certainly enjoy immense popularity as many of your own countrymen pointed out to me time and again. So I think morally you should let them have their freedom.

Complete canard, and you know it, since it has been refuted already, several times. That you have to resort to this is an indication of how weak your argument is.

Kashmir is recognized as disputed territory internationally, whereas FATA was officially made part of Pakistan. No one is arguing over Tamil Nadu or Kerala having a freedom movement, since they are were made part of India through a valid process.

Kashmir does not fall into that category, since the UNSC resolutions (agreed to by India) make the disputed status and its resolution, through the principle of resort to the people of Kashmir, absolutely clear. There is no question that so long as India refuses to recognize that basic principle, that she herself agreed to, that Kashmir is occupied.

Finally, the Taliban insurgency is an ideological one, not a separatist one. I can't believe you haven't understood something so basic yet. The first thing the Taliban did after getting Shariah in Swat was to start expanding out into the rest of the country.

So your analogy is horribly flawed.

Your defence of attack on Indian Parliament is totally in poor taste. Either it is a freedom struggle (and as logical extension so is Talib movement in Pakistan) or its terror, take your picking.

Not at all - I explained my reasoning behind why the Indian parliament, from an academic POV, was a completely legitimate target given that the Indian Government is directly responsible for sending in hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy Kashmiris and who have committed atrocities as documented by international organizations.

You may also thank S-2 for this, since the seeds of this particular view point of the attack on the Indian parliament were laid during an argument with him over why the Baluch insurgent groups were not classified as terrorists by the US - his defence was that so long as they attacked 'government targets', the insurgents were not 'terrorists'.

I already explained why the Taliban movement is not a good analogy to Kashmir.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

I can argue my point very well Mr. Agnostic. But one can go on arguing against a terrorist who will always find ways to justify his thinking to himself, if not to anyone else.

By your definition, Iraqi insurgents are "academically" justified to attack the Whitehouse and Pentagon because their country is being occupied by US forces. Afghan Taliban are justified in attacking the Parliaments of NATO countries.

Also, by your argument, your army can kill as many civilians as they want, and create as many million refugees as they please because the territory, according to you, is not disputed.
Well let me remind you - the territory IS disputed. Infact, approximately HALF of Pakistani territory is claimed Afghanistan.

So you "academic" justification is nothing but the lowliest form of propaganda, the same sort of thing widely available in Jehadi CDs in a store near you.

Let me also remind you that the organizations whose attacks you are "academically" justifying are infact Internationally Recognized terrorist organizations.
So, yes, calling you a Terrorist Sympathizer is not a personal attack but a statement of fact.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I can argue my point very well Mr. Agnostic. But one can go on arguing against a terrorist who will always find ways to justify his thinking to himself, if not to anyone else.

Like I said, leave the personal attacks out please and stop trolling.

Last warning.

By your definition, Iraqi insurgents are "academically" justified to attack the Whitehouse and Pentagon because their country is being occupied by US forces. Afghan Taliban are justified in attacking the Parliaments of NATO countries.

Yes - since technically insurgents in occupied territory would be justified in attacking government or military targets of those who are occupying them.

Can you give me a good reason as to why insurgents from an occupied people should not attack the military and government of those occupying them through force?

Also, by your argument, your army can kill as many civilians as they want, and create as many million refugees as they please because the territory, according to you, is not disputed.
Well let me remind you - the territory IS disputed. Infact, approximately HALF of Pakistani territory is claimed Afghanistan.

Not under international law.

Tomorrow India might claim all of Pakistan, or Texas - that does not make that territory disputed. There are clear resolutions issued by the UNSC that both countries agreed to, which declare Kashmir disputed and the means of resolution of the dispute a resort to the will of the people.

Our Army is not 'killing as many civilians as it wants', in fact it is being criticized for not acting aggressively enough because in part the GoP and military are worried about the civilian casualties and humanitarian disaster.

And yes, a nation does have a right to act as to restore its writ in its territory, especially when those challenging its writ have imposed a barbaric rule and committed countless atrocities.

So you "academic" justification is nothing but the lowliest form of propaganda, the same sort of thing widely available in Jehadi CDs in a store near you.

Let me also remind you that the organizations whose attacks you are "academically" justifying are infact Internationally Recognized terrorist organizations.

I am arguing over the act, not the organization, learn to distinguish and not rant. As I said, give me a good reason why an occupied people are not justified in striking out at the government and military of the entity occupying them?

What is propaganda and moral depravity is to excuse an occupation and violation of a commitment to grant millions the right to choose their destiny as part of the country they want under the pretext of 'a billion peoples jingoism'.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Yes - since technically insurgents in occupied territory would be justified in attacking government or military targets of those who are occupying them.

Can you give me a good reason as to why insurgents from an occupied people should not attack the military and government of those occupying them through force?

Glad that's been clarified. If God Forbid, an attack happens on the symbols of my country's government, I shall know on which side of the fence you stand.

Yes, when those insurgents are the lowliest bunch of fundamentalists, who, if given power, would bring the worst form of medeival ideology to the forefront.

Not under international law.

International law says that a region is disputed if more than one country claims it.
So yes, it is disputed under international law.

Our Army is not 'killing as many civilians as it wants', in fact it is being criticized for not acting aggressively enough because in part the GoP and military are worried about the civilian casualties and humanitarian disaster.

It is being criticized for its inaction against the Taliban, and not because it hasn't caused enough humanitarian crises while achieving next to nothing in fighting the real enemy of humanity.

P.S. I think you are misusing your powers as a moderator to delete my posts when you feel offended by them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Glad that's been clarified. If God Forbid, an attack happens on the symbols of my country's government, I shall know on which side of the fence you stand.

Yes, when those insurgents are the lowliest bunch of fundamentalists, who, if given power, would bring the worst form of medeival ideology to the forefront.

You still haven't given me an answer to my question:

Can you give me a good reason as to why insurgents from an occupied people should not attack the military and government of those occupying them through force?

International law says that a region is disputed if more than one country claims it.
So yes, it is disputed under international law.

On mere say so? Nonsense.

A nation would have to make its case as to why it is disputed, and Afghanistan has not made its case, nor are there any UNSC or ICJ rulings indicating that Afghanistan's claims were/are valid.

On the other hand, we do have UNSC resolutions indicating Kashmir is disputed, and whats more, India and Pakistan agreed with them!

It is being criticized for its inaction against the Taliban, and not because it hasn't caused enough humanitarian crises while achieving next to nothing in fighting the real enemy of humanity.

No - its being praised for what it did in Bajaur and what it is doing now in Buner and Dir. The humanitarian crises exists precisely because of those two operations it is being praised for.

P.S. I think you are misusing your powers as a moderator to delete my posts when you feel offended by them.

Your post that was deleted was nothing but slander, personal attacks and trolling.

The first few lines, and the last few, of your last post were in the same mold - if not for the rest of the post, it woudl have been deleted as well.

Read the forum rules again. There is no more discussion over this.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

I have already answered your question Mr. Super Moderator.

I'll repeat it for your benefit:

Yes, when those insurgents are the lowliest bunch of fundamentalists, who, if given power, would bring the worst form of medeival ideology to the forefront.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, when those insurgents are the lowliest bunch of fundamentalists, who, if given power, would bring the worst form of medeival ideology to the forefront.

Thats not really an answer to my question, but if I may rephrase your 'answer' to better reflect your opinion as I understand it:

Are you saying that people under occupation have no right to struggle against that occupation by attacking the occupying military and government?

I believe the right to struggle against occupation is internationally recognized, so your opinion would be in violation of that.

 

[Hellfire]

AgNoStIc MuSliM


The deliberate killing of civilians by the IA is just as much terrorism as that by some Freedom fighters.

The rule of thumb in insurgency is to 'remove' variables that play a determinant role in any localised operation. Since the mere fact that its the force which is able to establish its role over the local populance which rules the roost, the policy of removal of any suspect in case of a major operation is followed albeit covertly. While I do concede that at times innocents have been caught in cross fire/wrongfully terminated, the fact that the CI grid troops are able to dissuade the local populance from harboring/sheltering ANEs is very important. Majority of hard intel is obtained from members of local populance regarding these "innocent yet significant variables" that lead to eliminations after due corroborations by Ikhwan/JKP IB informants and MI Dte and as such since most are difficult to prove in court of law, its best to eliminate any such threat when its located.

If you mean to say the incidents where women and children have been killed, then I would suggest you to travel to Srinagar if you ever get a chance. I did so. The classic policy employed by militants is to fire from over the heads of women and children who are shopping/strolling/whatever and bring specific pinpointed fire on troops. Its a natural instinct to respond and who shoots the women and children is at best confusing. In addition there was a classic case of 7 children being gunned down. They were playing on a day of general curfew in overcast conditions. There was a sudden mist and heavy rainfall and as such these children who should have been home in first place, ran towards the army check point. The men there challenged them to stop and identify themselves which these young folks did not. The tragedy could not be averted as there were orders to ensure no incident takes place and poor visibility caused the subsequent deaths. Such incidents happen and you can not call them acts of terror.

Complete canard, and you know it, since it has been refuted already, several times. That you have to resort to this is an indication of how weak your argument is.

Nice word Canard.

Kashmir is recognized as disputed territory internationally, whereas FATA was officially made part of Pakistan. No one is arguing over Tamil Nadu or Kerala having a freedom movement, since they are were made part of India through a valid process.

Not recognised as such. Its a dispute, not disputed territory. It was amalgamated after due process. Something you cant see as you have decided to be blind to it. And its again back to square one so lets continue to disagree on this.

Kashmir does not fall into that category, since the UNSC resolutions (agreed to by India) make the disputed status and its resolution, through the principle of resort to the people of Kashmir, absolutely clear. There is no question that so long as India refuses to recognize that basic principle, that she herself agreed to, that Kashmir is occupied.

Time Pakistan also realised it has long since passed. Forget it. It wont happen.

Finally, the Taliban insurgency is an ideological one, not a separatist one. I can't believe you haven't understood something so basic yet. The first thing the Taliban did after getting Shariah in Swat was to start expanding out into the rest of the country.

Like hell. Even Kashmiri movement started as an Islamic movement. You guys are trying to give it separatist. It initially targeted Kashmiri Pandits, Sikhs etc who had been there since it was under rule of Punjab and before. To even suggest from day one it was separatist is pure nonsense at best. Read the evolution of Kashmiri militancy first and then make such absurd claims. It was a pure genocide in 1988-89 which saw millions leave J&K as Hindus were selectively butchered there, go to amarnath today and you shall see ruins of hindu houses still there ... I has a local driver, a strict Muslim, who told me what they were and not some Hindu idiot.

So your analogy is horribly flawed.

With respect to your stringent point of view sir.

Not at all - I explained my reasoning behind why the Indian parliament, from an academic POV, was a completely legitimate target given that the Indian Government is directly responsible for sending in hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy Kashmiris and who have committed atrocities as documented by international organizations.

Purely academically speaking, all eveidence points to Pakistan being a source of terror world over being defined as epicenter by one and all ....... yet you have variance here dont you? As for atrocities, its documented of PA in Karachi in early 90s too ...... rem RAW was supporting MQM in those days?

You may also thank S-2 for this, since the seeds of this particular view point of the attack on the Indian parliament were laid during an argument with him over why the Baluch insurgent groups were not classified as terrorists by the US - his defence was that so long as they attacked 'government targets', the insurgents were not 'terrorists'.

I dont care for S-2's views. If Baluchis are fighting you, its your internal affair not mine, it does not affect India. My view is kick their *** and hang the traitors!!!

I already explained why the Taliban movement is not a good analogy to Kashmir

because it unsettles you?

 

[Hellfire]

AgNoStIc MuSliM


Can you give me a good reason as to why insurgents from an occupied people should not attack the military and government of those occupying them through force?

The right to revolt against a lawful government is not given to any citizen and as such he is liable to be declared traitor and tried for high treason.

The only justification for a revolt is victory.


Kashmir has not been a victory in 20 years. The people have understood there is no independent Kashmir. Even if India let them go, Pakistan will gobble them, and if not China definitely will.In addition fighting has killed economy there.

Recently concluded elections proved it. Sajjad Gani Lone is contesting LS elections for he recognised that this is the only way that they can achieve their aims for betterment of people and he has immense support over this from both the Indian state and local people. APHC stands isolated today as no one cares. Only Pakistan and its proxies are shouting. Local population will vote and elect people who really understand the crux of people's problem : economic non-development. The day economy develops, militancy is dead. This is how India broke Nagas. They fought over 55 years and today there is peace there!!!!

 

[Nihat]

How did the Acts of terrorism in Pak thread come to Kashmir????

 

[Hellfire]

How did the Acts of terrorism in Pak thread come to Kashmir????

acts of terror are being credited to india, and thus Kashmir is the crux of the problem isnt it?

anyways you are right ... beck to topic

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The classic policy employed by militants is to fire from over the heads of women and children who are shopping/strolling/whatever and bring specific pinpointed fire on troops.

And the classic policy of the IA is to kill stage encounters and kill innocent Kashmiris - the mass graves and thousands believed missing all documented by international rights organizations as atrocities committed by the Indian military.

Terrorism is terrorism, whether committed by the State or Freedom Fighters.

Nice word Canard.

GLad you liked it, fits your argument.

Not recognised as such. Its a dispute, not disputed territory. It was amalgamated after due process. Something you cant see as you have decided to be blind to it. And its again back to square one so lets continue to disagree on this.

It was amalgamated by India, the rest of the world still considers it disputed, as declared in the UNSC, and as accepted by India at the time.

The territory remains disputed until the two sides can come to an agreement on its final status, and not when India 'amalgamates' it.

There is no such status for Baluchistan, as I have clearly pointed out to both you and Rabbit Rabbit in previous posts. You completely skipped over the argument made.

Time Pakistan also realised it has long since passed. Forget it. It wont happen.

What India wants or you want does not change the disputed status of the territory.

Does our stance 'unsettle' you?

Like hell. Even Kashmiri movement started as an Islamic movement. You guys are trying to give it separatist. It initially targeted Kashmiri Pandits, Sikhs etc who had been there since it was under rule of Punjab and before. To even suggest from day one it was separatist is pure nonsense at best. Read the evolution of Kashmiri militancy first and then make such absurd claims. It was a pure genocide in 1988-89 which saw millions leave J&K as Hindus were selectively butchered there, go to amarnath today and you shall see ruins of hindu houses still there ... I has a local driver, a strict Muslim, who told me what they were and not some Hindu idiot.

You obviously need to hit the books again.

There are some Kashmiri groups that are Islamist, but the movement itself was not and is not 'Islamist'. The violence you refer to was communanal, a result of th perception that a Hindu majority was perpetuating an occupation in violation of the UNSC resolutions granting Kashmiris the right to determine their future.

And you have offered not one iota of a rebuttal to my arguments on the taliban insurgency, merely stated your opinion by making another incorrect comparison to Kashmir.

The right to revolt against a lawful government is not given to any citizen and as such he is liable to be declared traitor and tried for high treason.

India cannot claim a lawful government so long as the territory is disputed and the occupation continues. Just because India want's that to be the case does not make it so. Internationally recognized as disputed.

Your argument does apply in the case of Baluchistan, FATA and Indian Punjab or Assam though.

Purely academically speaking, all eveidence points to Pakistan being a source of terror world over being defined as epicenter by one and all ....... yet you have variance here dont you? As for atrocities, its documented of PA in Karachi in early 90s too ...... rem RAW was supporting MQM in those days?

Rant - you have offered absolutely nothing to refute the arguments made.

Anyway, I was done with this back with Malay.

Back to topic please.