Can Pakistan take on the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba?

[Patriot]

We should eliminate all Jihadi infrastructure IMHO and i am sure we can also fix the Baloch insurgency by providing better infrastructure, resources etc.For this i think we should simply end our Covert Operations in which people are brainwashed which can damage our economy/society..If we are scared that India might support more insurgencies then we should make a organization like ISI which works domestically.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

We are not arguing over Mumbai, I thought that was clear by now. The perpetrators of Mumbai need to be arrested and prosecuted, and based on whatever evidence India has provided, the alleged mastermind have been arrested by Pakistan.

What I am contesting is the arrest and banning of the JuD and Saeed just because of their past links to the LeT and the insurgency in Kashmir.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

(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.

My point is that you have a non indigenous armed force (the IA) committing atrocities against the native population, which is exactly the same argument against some of the freedom fighters.

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.

The IA has deliberately acted against civilians in occupied territory as well, in a moral sense they aren't any better then GoI paid goons either then.

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.

I don't really think that is a valid argument or comparison to the insurgency in Kashmir. India does not want UN/international arbitration or an implementation of the principle behind the UNSC resolutions (that both nations agreed to) suggesting a means of resolution to the dispute - 'let the Kashmiris decide'.

Were India still committed to arbitration of the dispute in a neutral forum, or committed to implementation of the existing resolutions in the UN, and the creation of conditions in Kashmir that allow for the implementation of the resolutions, I would agree with you completely.

Instead what we have seen is that since the 50's, under Nehru, India chose in principle to refuse to implement the UNSC resolutions, and therefore a move away from a arbitrated solution to the dispute completely, which is what led to the use of military solutions to attempt a resolution.

Pakistan is not the one opposing arbitration and refusing to implement existing commitments in the UNSC, India is.

 

[Kasrkin]

"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..."

I swear to God if there is any point behind this, I didn't get it. Since when did Mumbai or your Tamil territories become Disputed Territory occupied by the Pakistan Army? And since WHEN did I say it is okay for anyone, including Kashmiri freedom fighters, to go around killing random people? Please talk with a little credibility.

"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..."

First off, there is no 'Pak position of using a Punjabi non-soldier to go kill..." and whatever crap you've been lead to believe. If an Indian goes and rapes someone in the UK, and we have racists there ranting about 'Indian position of using a Punjabi non-soldier to go rape etc..." would you call that fair? This whole Mumbai affair has become nothing more than way for Indians to vent their deep rooted hate for Pakistan and justify it as a ‘moral stand’. Please speak with a little clarity and objectively if you wish to be addressed.

No one here is trying to defend the attacks on Mumbai, please get that in your head. We condemn those attacks but obviously require some conclusive proof in order to try the alleged perpetrators with some credibility. Also we won’t sit low and take crap on the basis of ‘LeT has had links with the Pakistani military’ or ‘LeT has killed many Indian soldiers in Kashmir and should be prosecuted’ because all of that is history and there is NO proof to back up any of the claims regarding the Pakistan military being responsible in any way for the Mumbai attacks.

 

[jeypore]

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.

Just because Musharaff says so does not make it into fact, that India is trying to destabilize Pakistan. The argument of Indian Consulates can be speculated in numerous ways, but the bottomline is, Pakistan is always looking for excuses of outside intervention for there ails. And the number one excuse is of course India.

Regarding Indian Consulates, it is afterall Pakistans fault. Pakistan establishment should had a friendlier relations with the Afgan adminstration in order to control Indias medaling in Afganistan. It is India that stepped up to the plate and is using it to it's own advantage.

Based on AM argument, India can make the same argument today. That our past relations with Northern alliance and to increase our friendship with Iran, we need to put our foot down into Afganistan. And unless there is no proof of terrorism it is the status quo, no matter how much Pakistan wants to complain.

 

[EjazR]

Pakistan is not the one opposing arbitration and refusing to implement existing commitments in the UNSC, India is.

I think the real reason behind the non-applicability for the resolution is its not inline with Kashmiri aspirations(at least in the valley). They want Independence and that is not on offer as per the resolution. Pakistan policy has been that Kashmir should become part of Pakistan and NOT independent.

Other factors that make it difficult other than India's stance on the issue are:
(1) Pakistan does not consider FANA (Gilgit-Balistan) as part of J&K even though UNSC explicitly mentions that it is part of J&K. So as per Pak government no plebiscite will take place there.

(2) China has control of Aksai chin and Karakoram tract. China will not allow these territories to be ceded. As its not part of the UNSC resolution, it will not get any territory. Hence, China will not allow it.

(3) Plebescite is to be held by all people of J&K including hindus and buddhist and Pakistan wants only the valley to be part of the vote. That's against UNSC. But as per recent opinion polls, even the valley muslims want independence and not to join Pakistan so again Pakistan will not support that.

(4) Poll must be conducted by the native population only. That means Punjabis and Pathans that might have settled in the Gilgit and Pakistan administered Kashmir regions will not be able to participate. Is that practical? Its up to you to decide, but probably not.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think the real reason behind the non-applicability for the resolution is its not inline with Kashmiri aspirations(at least in the valley).

I'll accept that as the real reason when the GoI articulates it as such - otherwise it is just speculation on your part.

If the lack of a third option was a reason, the GoI could still engage with Pakistan in modifying the UNSC resolutions and seek neutral arbitration for such a purpose.

The same with the other issues you mentioned - the GoI is not arguing that the conditions on the ground should change or XYZ should be implemented - it is categorically refusing to consider any arbitration or plebiscite and demanding the status quo prevail.

In any case, this is going off topic into a Kashmir discussion.

 

[Kasrkin]

The argument of Indian Consulates can be speculated in numerous ways, but the bottomline is, Pakistan is always looking for excuses of outside intervention for there ails. And the number one excuse is of course India.

Look who is speaking jeypore, do I even need to make the obvious retort here?

Pakistan establishment should had a friendlier relations with the Afgan adminstration in order to control Indias medaling in Afganistan. It is India that stepped up to the plate and is using it to it's own advantage.

Good that you've admitted that India’s exploiting Afghanistan's age old hatred and territorial designs against Pakistan. I agree with you that India is doing what is in its nature, which was what they did in East Pakistan as well. And according to your logic then, Indian atrocities against the Kashmiri people justify Pakistan’s interference, especially since Kashmir is Disputed Territory unlike Bengal, NWFP and Baluchistan.

Based on AM argument, India can make the same argument today. That our past relations with Northern alliance and to increase our friendship with Iran, we need to put our foot down into Afganistan. And unless there is no proof of terrorism it is the status quo, no matter how much Pakistan wants to complain.

Who makes a bigger scene internationally? Pakistan over Indian involvement in Afghanistan or India over alleged Pakistani involvement in every terrorism-related ill that assails India. India’s increasing anti-Pakistan role in Afghanistan is not the same as Pakistan not entertaining impulsive and rash Indian demands for action without evidence against now dismissed groups. If Pakistan were directly increasing and intensifying militant activity of these groups across the LoC then perhaps your argument would’ve been fair (which is not happening according to your own generals), and that is not even considering that Kashmir is not Indian territory.

 

[jeypore]

Kasrkin

Who makes a bigger scene internationally? Pakistan over Indian involvement in Afghanistan or India over alleged Pakistani involvement in every terrorism-related ill that assails India.

Does it really matter who does? What matters is there are insurgents that are coming from Pakistanie soil entering illegally into India, that is a fact!!! It is proven time and time again. Since, history has shown this phenomenon from Pakistan, India has every right to use soft or hard power.

India’s increasing anti-Pakistan role in Afghanistan is not the same as Pakistan not entertaining impulsive and rash Indian demands for action without evidence against now dismissed groups.

You have this thing completly wrong. India is in Afghanistan for it's benefit, there is not advantage to spend billion of dollar for the cause of anti-pakistan agenda, you guy's are doing that by your self all ready. And another interesting aspect is Pakistan had the chance in the past to control Afganistan and not let India in at all, but that was drastically mis-managed and now the whole world is moving in your backyard (figuratively speaking).

If Pakistan were directly increasing and intensifying militant activity of these groups across the LoC then perhaps your argument would’ve been fair (which is not happening according to your own generals), and that is not even considering that Kashmir is not Indian territory.

What is to say that in future that will not change. Infact Mr. Am clearly specified that past policy remains a status quo, and what is the possiblity that GoP and Army is thinking along the same lines. Until concreate actions are not shown across the board there is not going to be a stability in the kashmir issue. So the ball is in Pakistan court, not India's, to pave the way for the future. Pakistan experience has shown, that you leave any terrorist organization unchecked, they have the possiblity of terrorising not only the region, but Pakistan itself.

Regarding the issue of Kashmir not being Indian territory, time will prove that. But I can assure you in one aspect, to win the territory of Kashmir, the country that brings the most economical clout in the region is going to be the winner of kashmirie hearts and minds. And currently India is winning that battle.

 

[notsuperstitious]

So whats the accepted norm, support freedom movements in whats called 'disputed' territory? I think thats morally incorrect, everyone has right to freedom. Pakistanis should support Baloch freedom fighters too.

As to LET or JUD or whatever new nameplate they have at muridke these days , the eyewash continues. LET is considered a friend, there was a survey in Pakistan posted here too where IIRC 43% Pakistanis think LET are heroes. There is a clear conflict of ideas, its not over yet.

 

[wtf]

"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..."

I swear to God if there is any point behind this, I didn't get it. Since when did Mumbai or your Tamil territories become Disputed Territory occupied by the Pakistan Army? And since WHEN did I say it is okay for anyone, including Kashmiri freedom fighters, to go around killing random people? Please talk with a little credibility.

"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..."

First off, there is no 'Pak position of using a Punjabi non-soldier to go kill..." and whatever crap you've been lead to believe. If an Indian goes and rapes someone in the UK, and we have racists there ranting about 'Indian position of using a Punjabi non-soldier to go rape etc..." would you call that fair? This whole Mumbai affair has become nothing more than way for Indians to vent their deep rooted hate for Pakistan and justify it as a ‘moral stand’. Please speak with a little clarity and objectively if you wish to be addressed.

No one here is trying to defend the attacks on Mumbai, please get that in your head. We condemn those attacks but obviously require some conclusive proof in order to try the alleged perpetrators with some credibility. Also we won’t sit low and take crap on the basis of ‘LeT has had links with the Pakistani military’ or ‘LeT has killed many Indian soldiers in Kashmir and should be prosecuted’ because all of that is history and there is NO proof to back up any of the claims regarding the Pakistan military being responsible in any way for the Mumbai attacks.

I was not trying to bring Mumbai into picture or make Tamilnadu a disputed territory. I agree with your statements that generalizing based on race is bad.

What I am saying is that Saeed Hafeez is non-Kashmiri. He is a non-soldier. If he can fight in Indian Kashmir, then a Tamilian or a Mumbaikar could fight in Pak Kashmir and then be called a "freedom fighter", would it not ? Pakistan has not yet held a plebiscite in Pak Kashmir either. So the situation would seem symmetric. (I am not saying it should, but I am just trying to show you a flaw I perceive in your argument)

As for your comments on Indian Army -- I have already said that raping anyone is not allowable and they should be prosecuted. I don't think Army is under orders to rape women - a situation quite asymmetric. They were send there to keep peace and to arrest terrorists, any violation of those rules should be prosecutable. On the other hand a LeT terrorist is under orders to kill Kashmiri Hindus/bomb markets etc. all the while hiding amongst civilians.

What I was asking is how you find a non-Kashmiri killing Kashmiri people as morally justifiable ? By saying they are freedom fighters it would (seem to ) imply that those murders should go unpunished and you see the situation as morally justifiable.

 

[wtf]

My point is that you have a non indigenous armed force (the IA) committing atrocities against the native population, which is exactly the same argument against some of the freedom fighters.

The IA has deliberately acted against civilians in occupied territory as well, in a moral sense they aren't any better then GoI paid goons either then.

The difference is that there is willingness to prosecute those who commit atrocities against civilians. I don't think anyone in India says "They are Army so they can commit atrocities". Their orders are to keep peace, not disturb civilians. They are prosecuted when the violate the rules, but I agree that as with most things in India, a lot of the criminals may have in the past gotten away with it. Indian opinion does not think atrocities are right. I am not aware of deliberate orders to kill civilians -- there have been instances when civilian deaths have been reported and Army officers arrested and jailed.

This seems to be unlike what your position is. You seem to say that even if LeT is non-Kashmiri, it is OK for them to kill Kashmiri Hindus or to bomb marketplaces because they are "freedom fighters". You seem to be saying that they should not be prosecuted ? You have to understand that orders for LeT is to kill civilians. Their orders are not to "engage soldiers in battles, while protecting civilians".

The biggest difference is intent and then culpability/prosecutability.

I don't really think that is a valid argument or comparison to the insurgency in Kashmir. India does not want UN/international arbitration or an implementation of the principle behind the UNSC resolutions (that both nations agreed to) suggesting a means of resolution to the dispute - 'let the Kashmiris decide'.

Were India still committed to arbitration of the dispute in a neutral forum, or committed to implementation of the existing resolutions in the UN, and the creation of conditions in Kashmir that allow for the implementation of the resolutions, I would agree with you completely.

Instead what we have seen is that since the 50's, under Nehru, India chose in principle to refuse to implement the UNSC resolutions, and therefore a move away from a arbitrated solution to the dispute completely, which is what led to the use of military solutions to attempt a resolution.

Pakistan is not the one opposing arbitration and refusing to implement existing commitments in the UNSC, India is.

That is what the Pak situation on Sir Creek now is. The river mouth has shifted in India's favour and Pakistan wants to ignore the earlier UN authorized settlement process and re-open a new dialogue. I would not support vigilante groups going in and killing Pakistani fishermen for this.

Anyway, my point is that disputing UN resolutions is no reason to say that killing innocents is a good idea. You can say that that is the current Pakistani position, but saying that you (personally) believe that you can kill civilians in a disputed territory would seem heartless.

 

[pak-marine]

Can Pakistan take on the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba?

LET is an independent kashmiri gorilla army and they are fighting for the injustices done in occupied kashmir by Indian army... the simple solution for Indians is give kashmiris their right their freedom and LET and many others will simply vanish untill the occupation is there even if some how India manages to crush LET some one else will take its place

 

[zubair723]

Can Pakistan take on the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba?

LET is an independent kashmiri gorilla army and they are fighting for the injustices done in occupied kashmir by Indian army... the simple solution for Indians is give kashmiris their right their freedom and LET and many others will simply vanish untill the occupation is there even if some how India manages to crush LET some one else will take its place

Absolutely right.
The INDIANS will never learn. A whole KASHMIRI generation has now grown up like the AFGHANS seeing this all. Its just the LULL before a very big storm. In this case WAVE after WAVE of suicide bombings all across INDIA specifically targetting HIGH COMMERCIAL activities. In the end they will just be begging to 'give up KASHMIR' and then it will be too late.

 

[Kasrkin]

Since, history has shown this phenomenon from Pakistan, India has every right to use soft or hard power.

Why are you deluding yourself into believing that our collective history has shown this 'phenomenon' only from the Pakistani side?

India is in Afghanistan for it's benefit, there is not advantage to spend billion of dollar for the cause of anti-pakistan agenda

We'll just have to agree to disagree with that wont we? Since that is not part of the topic.

And another interesting aspect is Pakistan had the chance in the past to control Afghanistan and not let India in at all, but that was drastically mis-managed and now the whole world is moving in your backyard (figuratively speaking).

I'll agree that things are not going very well for Pakistan in Afghanistan right now. But I don't think that is our fault in the way you're speaking. The only way India could've been kept out of Afghanistan was the Taliban, and their fall was inevitable.

Until concreate actions are not shown across the board there is not going to be a stability in the kashmir issue. So the ball is in Pakistan court, not India's

Actually the ball is very much in India's court because the Indians have done NOTHING to make peace between us work. Pakistan has taken very concrete steps, acknowledged by your own officials, by preventing infiltration of freedom fighters across the LoC as much as possible. This is saved many Indian lives and went a great way in stabilizing relations. But India hasn't agreed to any of Pakistan's proposals regarding the resolution of Kashmir's status and dispute.

It’s like Pakistan should ask you to disassemble, destroy all your Pakistan oriented offensive military equipment, dissolve all your forces and send them all home (and magically get rid of them) as the only ‘concrete step’ required before negotiations even begin, let alone mature. That fact that we have washed our hands of the Kashmiri fighters and pushed them back should've given enough political room for India to atleast embark on a long lasting settlement, if it had wanted.

Regarding the issue of Kashmir not being Indian territory, time will prove that. But I can assure you in one aspect, to win the territory of Kashmir, the country that brings the most economical clout in the region is going to be the winner of kashmirie hearts and minds.

That is utterly immoral nonsense. If I take something that doesn't belong to me and tell the legal owner that 'time will prove its mine' doesn't make me right, it makes me a criminal. The world will not forget that Kashmir is Disputed Territory and neither will the Kashmiris no matter how much India coerces then, and you can count on the fact that Pakistan won't either.

Kashmir is not yours, and that is international and legal protocol and its not going to go away. If India wants a UN Security Council seat, people will say you better start respecting UN Laws and Resolutions. Either way, point being, Kashmir is NOT India and nothing you or I can say that will change that.