Can Pakistan take on the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba?

[jeypore]

Pakistan is not angrily asking for India to jail RAW operates, or their Mukti Bahami friends or those who collaborated with KHaD and made the Baluch rebellion during the 80s. The Indians though are always demanding such crap without offering conclusive proof, be that the JuD, LeT or bloody Daood Imbrahim.

What is all the racass about the consulates then!!!! We were supporting the north alliance in the past and consulates is there for the purpose to help the north alliance.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My poin twas that Saeed was the founder of LeT. As the LeT was never a part of the "legitimate" pre-1989 local Kashmiri movement, but a foreign terrorist construct, he should be held accountable in any case--not just "if" he was involved in the Mumbai attacks.

I disagree - so long as Indian occupation of J&K continues, any organization fighting occupation is legitimate.

Therefore Saeed and the JuD should not be targeted unless there is evidence of them perpetrating or supporting attacks against civilians after they separated from the LeT. The GoP should also consider, under its own laws, prosecuting them or detaining them if they refuse to abide by Pakistan's policy since 2002-2003 of 'dialog' vs insurgency, since active involvement in even the 'legitimate' insurgency damages the GoP's policy of dialog.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well on the flip side you have to look at India's side on this one, since they are consider terrorist and have planned and acted terrorist activities. This will be stumbling block for the future peace.

The right to struggle against occupation is globally recognized. If India cannot provide significant evidence against Saeed and the JuD, indicating support for terrorism in India, then India has no reason to be looking at it as a 'stumbling block'. These people fought a legitimate struggle for a legitimate cause - Pakistan should not throw them to the dogs just because she changed her policy.

Pakistan should act against them if they move out of Pakistan's control and their actions damage the Pakistani State and/or Pakistan's current kashmir policy.

What I do not get AM, that if India aids baloch movement there is an up roar and nothing but stopping is the typical comment. But If India is angrely saying to jail these people, there is sence of, oh it was our past policy. Well India should give any allegation of Baloch movement or support of North Alliance as past policy.

Baluchistan is sovereign, undisputed Pakistani territory, as was East Pakistan - there is no comparison to Kashmir to be made. I also second kasrkin's post. Pakistan is not asking for XYZ from the NA or East Pakistan or whatever to be jailed.

 

[wtf]

I disagree - so long as Indian occupation of J&K continues, any organization fighting occupation is legitimate.

Therefore Saeed and the JuD should not be targeted unless there is evidence of them perpetrating or supporting attacks against civilians after they separated from the LeT. The GoP should also consider, under its own laws, prosecuting them or detaining them if they refuse to abide by Pakistan's policy since 2002-2003 of 'dialog' vs insurgency, since active involvement in even the 'legitimate' insurgency damages the GoP's policy of dialog.

It isn't. Unless they wear uniforms and only attack the Army they are terrorists in my opinion. A policy like that is the recipe for a never ending tit-for-tat, again, in my opinion.

5 step process to a never-ending war
1) Claim neighbors territory.
2) Drag it to international forums.
3) After things have settled down a bit, hire a bunch of thugs, train 'em and go ask them to kill all the people living in the said territory.
4) Classify them as freedom fighters, even if they were not born in the territory *.
5) The other party either announces war, suffers or retaliates in kind.

Siachen, Sir Creek, Arunachal Pradesh, Tibet, Durand line, McMohan line - all of them would then spark off wars.

* Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It isn't. Unless they wear uniforms and only attack the Army they are terrorists in my opinion. A policy like that is the recipe for a never ending tit-for-tat, again, in my opinion.

5 step process to a never-ending war
1) Claim neighbors territory.
2) Drag it to international forums.
3) After things have settled down a bit, hire a bunch of thugs, train 'em and go ask them to kill all the people living in the said territory.
4) Classify them as freedom fighters, even if they were not born in the territory *.
5) The other party either announces war, suffers or retaliates in kind.

Siachen, Sir Creek, Arunachal Pradesh, Tibet, Durand line, McMohan line - all of them would then spark off wars.

* Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

'Dragging a claim to the UN' would be of no use unless the party claiming the territory had a case of some sort, as was the case in Kashmir.

India cannot for example claim Baluchistan or California and take it to the UN and expect a favorable verdict - it would likely be laughed out the door.

The resistance to occupation is legitimate, whether a uniform is worn or not - however the consequences of violently fighting an occupation can spin out of control, which is a separate argument.

 

[Kasrkin]

What is all the racass about the consulates then!!!! We were supporting the north alliance in the past and consulates is there for the purpose to help the north alliance.

The consulates near our border were not there before, and we have no indications that your anti-Pakistani aid to Afghanistan has stopped, in fact to the contrary. On the other hand your own generals have admitted that Pakistan has almost stopped all infiltration across the LoC which is Disputed Territory. Thus what your government wants is some old political scoring and a good way to stall the peace process through Mumbai. Give us conclusive proof of a Mumbai and JuD link and we'll have no choice. If you can't, then live them going free just like we live with Indians and Afghans who tried to destroy our country.

 

[GlobalStrategist]

I disagree - so long as Indian occupation of J&K continues, any organization fighting occupation is legitimate.

/

Resistance of occupation would have been ligitimate, if Pakstan did not rob it of legitimacy by infiltrating foriegn fighters. Hafiz Saeed Mohammed is not Kashmiri, and his idiot followers are illiterate children from Pakistan.

The LeT is not a Kashmiri ourfit, and they do kill Kashmiri civilians. Pray tell, at what point were they legitimate in the past? If it was a movement spawned by Kashmiris, for Kashmiris, it may have been called legitimate. But LeT? no.

Or perhaps you find them legitimate because they don't kill Pakistanis? Well, JeM, which is an offshoot of LeT does.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Resistance of occupation would have been ligitimate, if Pakstan did not rob it of legitimacy by infiltrating foriegn fighters.

The LeT is not a Kashmiri ourfit, and they do kill Kashmiri civilians. Pray tell, at what point were they legitimate at any point in the past?

The IA is not primarily Kashmiri, and it raped and killed Kashmiri civilians while occupying J&K, so how does this line of argument continue?

The US had no qualms about using fighters from Pakistan and elsewhere in Afghanistan either. The LeT was acting in support of the Kashmiri groups fighting Indian occupation (itself an alien force in kashmir), its struggle was therefore legitimate.

 

[Kasrkin]

The LeT is almost entirely based in Azad Kashmir, therefore it is Kashmiri. Also LeT links to foreign militants with more extremist tendencies are weak since the LeT represents more regional and national aspirations. Foreign militants did get into Kashmir, but that was not through LeT.

 

[GlobalStrategist]

The LeT is almost entirely based in Azad Kashmir, therefore it is Kashmiri. Also LeT links to foreign militants with more extremist tendencies are weak since the LeT represents more regional and national aspirations. Foreign militants did get into Kashmir, but that was not through LeT.

And which brave Azad Kashmiri decided what would be best for the poor sods next door?

Besides, the fact remains that hafiz Saeed mohammed is NOT Kashmiri. Mohammed Ajmal kasab is NOT Kashmiri. Mumbai is NOT in Kashmir. Now don't tell me that the LeT was NOT involved in the Mumbai attacks, because that would insult my intelligence, and frankly, the memory of every man woman and child who died in that attack.

 

[wtf]

The IA is not primarily Kashmiri, and it raped and killed Kashmiri civilians while occupying J&K, so how does this line of argument continue?

The US had no qualms about using fighters from Pakistan and elsewhere in Afghanistan either. The LeT was acting in support of the Kashmiri groups fighting Indian occupation (itself an alien force in kashmir), its struggle was therefore legitimate.

(If) Indian Army has committed extra-judiciary killings or rape, and I would gladly support them being tried in courts. I believe that killing and hurting innocents should not be part of state policy and I believe it has not been so. I would only support uniformed soldiers acting against terrorists or against other uniformed soldiers in a legally sanctioned manner. That I think is morally justifiable.

LeT has actually acted against civilians and certainly did hide amongst civilians. In a moral sense, I can't differentiate between them and hired goons.

Sir Creek is under under UNCLOS (UN laws) dispute - how could anyone sanction shooting fishermen who wandered in there? Both sides have so far maintained decency in this area (arrests is the worse that has happened), but would you justify if random Indians (non-soldiers, non-police) started shooting fishermen? I would certainly condemn that - unless they could prove it in court that those shot were actually terrorists and even then I would condemn it if those doing the shooting were not soldiers/cops.

I think this would be the case with majority of Indians (in the sense that majority of Indians form the laws of land through democracy) and Indian courts.

 

[wtf]

The LeT is almost entirely based in Azad Kashmir, therefore it is Kashmiri. Also LeT links to foreign militants with more extremist tendencies are weak since the LeT represents more regional and national aspirations. Foreign militants did get into Kashmir, but that was not through LeT.

Well the thing about that line of argument is that it gives India a free hand to send Mumbaikars and Tamilians to kill random people in Pakistani Kashmir. Then all one would have to do is to reverse your argument and claim that those killings are legitimate. Don't use Kashmiri Hindus, don't use enlisted officials or Army. That way India would not even have to take blame through R & AW -- you could always then claim that they were non state actors.

As far as the current Pak position of using a Punjabi non-soldier to go kill people in a neighbouring territory with the same name as a Pakistani territory - Do you find that morally correct ? I mean not just pragmatically correct - but in the sense that you would not as a citizen of the country doing the killing, not ever feel guilty or (if you believe in god) not subject to judgment by a supreme power ?

 

[zubair723]

If LT was a totally mecenary organization then its effect would have just lasted not more then a year in KASHMIR. Any insurgency requires local support to sustain. If for the past 20 years armed freedom struggle is going on then its not & cannot be declared 'imported'. Another possibilty is that if they have infiltrated then they are facing the most incompetent ARMY in the world & in the history of warfare.

 

[Contrarian]

Well the thing about that line of argument is that it gives India a free hand to send Mumbaikars and Tamilians to kill random people in Pakistani Kashmir. Then all one would have to do is to reverse your argument and claim that those killings are legitimate. Don't use Kashmiri Hindus, don't use enlisted officials or Army. That way India would not even have to take blame through R & AW -- you could always then claim that they were non state actors.

I agree with this line. If Pakistan claims that sending non regulars across the LoC to attack the 'legitimate' targets in Kashmir is okay, and THEN expect no reaction from India. Then India should send in Indians from every damn state here to fight in *** against 'their' legitimate targets.

Your arguments stand on thin ice Agnostic and Karskin.

 

[glomex]

The title should be .....Is Pakistan willing to take on LET?