Indian Double Standards on Terrorism

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Indians in India, the diaspora and also the People of Indian origin across the globe believe Balochistan is an occupied territory...

OK, and your point relevant to the topic is what?

That therefore Indians are justified in supporting the Baluch insurgents? If so, as in the case of continued India support for the past policies of supporting insurgents/terrorists in East Pakistan, then India and Indians have no room to be complaining about J&K insurgency then do they?

 

[foxbat]

Haven't we? 'Moral support'.

In any case, the point is that given that Indians use the pretext of 'oppression and denial of rights to East Pakistanis' as an excuse for covert intervention in East Pakistan in 1971, they have no standing to criticize Pakistani support, moral or otherwise, to insurgents fighting in Kashmir, given the occupation of Kashmir and the oppression and subjugation of Kashmiris.

When India can condemn its own policies in 1971 is when it can argue against the insurgency in Kashmir, till then it is just Indian double speak and a distinction of 'good terrorism vs bad terrorism'.

India really doesn't need a certificate of conduct from a nation who is considered a hot bed of terrorism and an international migrane. I have seen your posts that discount world opinion as every body believing something doesnt make it right. By the same logic, Pakistan believing something which is different from what rest of the world believes is worth even less.

About not being critisized by India, first have the courage to own up that you are sending insurgents and materially supporting them and then lets talk and compare the 2 situations.

Also your hope of popularizing the term "India's distinction between Good and bad terrorism" is an extremely long shot. However, full marks for creativity. Somewhat less for practicality.

I don't speak for all Indians, but me for one am proud of India's role in 1971 which I along with rest of the world (ICJ report as one of the artifacts) did not believe to be terrorism of any sort. If there was terror, it was purely by Pakistani Army in form of genocide on Bengalis. And like today, India fought it. It defeated it then, and God willing will defeat it now..

 

[foxbat]

Yet you support East Pakistani terrorists and Indian State support for them ...

In 1971 Pakistani Army was the state sponsored terrorist indulging in ethinic genocide, which was defeated by the Indian Army on humanitarian grounds.

Obama just tried to copy us in Afghanistan. But hey, difficult to beat the original..

 

[Skeptic]

And what category are the East Pakistani rebels, that massacred tens of thousands of non-Bengali civilians, men women and children, in?

Seems like you recently bumped a post stating the official definition of terrorist in this forum. While the poster is criticizing organizations (calling them terrorist), which fall into the mentioned definition i.e. Both GoP and UN have officially declared them terrorist organization, you on the other hand are calling East Pakistani Rebels as Terrorists - whom neither UN or GoP has declared a terrorist organization.

Either edit the definition, or ban yourself from the forum for coming out in support of LeT, JeM & TTP (Declared by GoP and UN) and for supporting JuD (Declared by UN.)
http://www.defence.pk/forums/forum-...ance-policy-support-terrorism.html#post847485

And who was talking of Double standards...

 

[foxbat]

And what category are the East Pakistani rebels, that massacred tens of thousands of non-Bengali civilians, men women and children, in?

Unwilling Victims of the terror unleashed by the Pakistani Army who was the real terrorist in 1971

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India really doesn't need a certificate of conduct from a nation who is considered a hot bed of terrorism and an international migrane. I have seen your posts that discount world opinion as every body believing something doesnt make it right. By the same logic, Pakistan believing something which is different from what rest of the world believes is worth even less.

What does that have to do with the topic or any of my points related to Indian double standards on terrorism, glorifying one set of terrorists and condemning another?

Don't hijack the topic with emotional off-topic rants please.

About not being critisized by India, first have the courage to own up that you are sending insurgents and materially supporting them and then lets talk and compare the 2 situations.

There, owned up. Now please tell me why your stance on condemning the insurgency in J&K has any legitimacy given that India and most Indians glorify their nation's support for insurgents/terrorists in East Pakistan?

Also your hope of popularizing the term "India's distinction between Good and bad terrorism" is an extremely long shot. However, full marks for creativity. Somewhat less for practicality.

Don't worry about my odds for success, try and explain why the distinction I pointed out is incorrect.

I don't speak for all Indians, but me for one am proud of India's role in 1971 which I along with rest of the world (ICJ report as one of the artifacts) did not believe to be terrorism of any sort. If there was terror, it was purely by Pakistani Army in form of genocide on Bengalis. And like today, India fought it. It defeated it then, and God willing will defeat it now..

The ICJ report does not endorse the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent non-Bengalis, nor is it any sort of comprehensive or binding judgment on the events in 1971 - it is an NGO that selects its members god knows how and offered an opinion - do not confuse people or yourself by mistaking it with the International Court of Justice, whose ruling might actually have some standing.

But at least you clarified that you are 'proud of' Indian State support fort terrorism/insurgents in 1971, and hence your comments, specifically opposition to, on the J&K insurgency have no legitimacy.

 

[foxbat]

OK, and your point relevant to the topic is what?

That therefore Indians are justified in supporting the Baluch insurgents? If so, as in the case of continued India support for the past policies of supporting insurgents/terrorists in East Pakistan, then India and Indians have no room to be complaining about J&K insurgency then do they?

India does not materially support any Baluch insurgents. Conspiracy theories aside

In 1971, India's policy was to respond on humanitarian grounds, to the plea of help from the victims of terror unleashed by the Pakistani army on its own citizens based on their ethinic origins..

Apples and Oranges.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Unwilling Victims of the terror unleashed by the Pakistani Army who was the real terrorist in 1971

Oh these were 'victims' cutting off the breasts of women, slaughtering children and burning hundreds alive at a time locked up in their houses?

It just illustrates the moral bankruptcy and ugliness of those that even attempt to find excuses for these atrocities instead of condemning them and the Indian policies of supporting them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India does not materially support any Baluch insurgents. Conspiracy theories aside

In 1971, India's policy was to respond on humanitarian grounds, to the plea of help from the victims of terror unleashed by the Pakistani army on its own citizens based on their ethinic origins..

Apples and Oranges.

My response was to another poster - but, using your words, 'Pakistan's policy was to respond on humanitarian grounds, to the plea of help from the victims of terror unleashed by the Indian army on the people of Kashmir'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Seems like you recently bumped a post stating the official definition of terrorist in this forum. While the poster is criticizing organizations (calling them terrorist), which fall into the mentioned definition i.e. Both GoP and UN have officially declared them terrorist organization, you on the other hand are calling East Pakistani Rebels as Terrorists - whom neither UN or GoP has declared a terrorist organization.

Either edit the definition, or ban yourself from the forum for coming out in support of LeT, JeM & TTP (Declared by GoP and UN) and for supporting JuD (Declared by UN.)
http://www.defence.pk/forums/forum-...ance-policy-support-terrorism.html#post847485

And who was talking of Double standards...

What would you call the East Pakistani rebels that massacred tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in East Pakistan for a political objective?

And no, I have not 'come out in support of any group', that's a strawman - what I have pointed out is that Indian protestations against the insurgency in J&K have no legitimacy given that India and Indians support the policy of aiding the insurgency in East Pakistan and even glorify it.

 

[Skeptic]

What would you call the East Pakistani rebels that massacred tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in East Pakistan for a political objective?

And no, I have not 'come out in support of any group', that's a strawman - what I have pointed out is that Indian protestations against the insurgency in J&K have no legitimacy given that India and Indians support the policy of aiding the insurgency in East Pakistan and even glorify it.

I dont know what to call them, probably dont know much, but you know what I did...
I googled the term just to know some more opinions about it, and bam: Results show for themselves.
"East Pakistani terrorists" - Google Search
Try it its funny

Result no 1: this page itself
Result n. 2:

At the time, East Pakistan was a federated province of Pakistan. The vast majority of the population was Muslim but steeped in the language and culture of East Bengal. A brutal military dictatorship in West Pakistan arrested the democratically elected East Pakistani leader, Mujibur Rahman, and launched a bloody military campaign, ostensibly against East Pakistani "terrorists." Tens of thousands of innocent civilians in East Pakistan were slaughtered--and more than a million refugees poured into India.

Recall how the international community reacted with an outpouring of assistance to those fleeing the West Pakistani killers. But also recall that the refugees could not return home until India mounted a massive invasion of East Pakistan and liberated the country. Thus was born Bangladesh.

Result No. 3:

I also grew up learning very little about the 1971 war which led to the creation of Bangladesh out of what used to be East Pakistan. My Bengali friends tell me stories of atrocities committed by the Pakistani Army, while my Pakistani uncles often speak of nasty East Pakistani terrorists.

And no other results.

I hope you get the drift.

 

[foxbat]

What does that have to do with the topic or any of my points related to Indian double standards on terrorism, glorifying one set of terrorists and condemning another?

Don't hijack the topic with emotional off-topic rants please.

This was in response of your statement denying India any standing to protest the insurgency in the Indian state of J&K. Didnt realize it was off topic since it responds to your determination that India does not have this standing. If I misunderstood, then my bad.

Indians use the pretext of 'oppression and denial of rights to East Pakistanis' as an excuse for covert intervention in East Pakistan in 1971, they have no standing to criticize Pakistani support, moral or otherwise, to insurgents fighting in Kashmir, given the occupation of Kashmir and the oppression and subjugation of Kashmiris.

There, owned up. Now please tell me why your stance on condemning the insurgency in J&K has any legitimacy given that India and most Indians glorify their nation's support for insurgents/terrorists in East Pakistan?

Firstly, your owning up has no relevence. Its the Pakistani State that needs to own this up for this comparison to make any sense.

But lets say it does.. Let me ask you a question first.. Pakistan's support for insurgency in J&K is as old as 1948. Didn't you guys protest against India's activities in 1971 while glorifying your support for Kashmiri insurgency since 1948. How come you had the standing..?? When you can promote insurgency in Kashmir and condemn India's action in East Pakistan, India can do the same. If anything, Pakistan started it...

Don't worry about my odds for success, try and explain why the distinction I pointed out is incorrect.

Did

The ICJ report does not endorse the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent non-Bengalis, nor is it any sort of comprehensive or binding judgment on the events in 1971 - it is an NGO that selects its members god knows how and offered an opinion - do not confuse people or yourself by mistaking it with the International Court of Justice, whose ruling might actually have some standing.

I am not confusing that with the court of justice at all. It did not endorse the killings by Bengalis, however did term that as a response to PA Army's genocide against them. Bengalis just refused to turn the other cheek as PA expected. In this case, the terrorist got terrorised back. I call it a response (unfortunate) to a genocide and not a terroist action.

About selection of the jurists and the credibility of their opinion, it definitly has more than any report published by Pakistan which is the real culprit in this situation.

But at least you clarified that you are 'proud of' Indian State support fort terrorism/insurgents in 1971, and hence your comments, specifically opposition to, on the J&K insurgency have no legitimacy.

Thats what your opinion is. Unfortunately does not match the rest of the world's.

 

[foxbat]

Oh these were 'victims' cutting off the breasts of women, slaughtering children and burning hundreds alive at a time locked up in their houses?

It just illustrates the moral bankruptcy and ugliness of those that even attempt to find excuses for these atrocities instead of condemning them and the Indian policies of supporting them.

Well you beat someone to ground with an iron rod and if he picks up a rock and hits back, he becomes a terrorist. And then you have the gall to talk about someone else's moral bankruptcy.

You seem to conform to the belief that speaking a lie loud enough convinces people about its validity.

 

[foxbat]

My response was to another poster - but, using your words, 'Pakistan's policy was to respond on humanitarian grounds, to the plea of help from the victims of terror unleashed by the Indian army on the people of Kashmir'.

That's absolutely your call. We consider it wrong and hence protest. Just like you protested in 1971

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I dont know what to call them, probably dont know much, but you know what I did...
I googled the term just to know some more opinions about it, and bam: Results show for themselves.

I hope you get the drift.

The drift I get is of an attitude beyond shameless in weaseling around the fact that 'non-state actors' carried out large scale massacres of men, women and children in East Pakistan, and you have the moral turpitude to not condemn it for what it is, and instead whine about what a google search brings up.

The 'drift' as it pertains to your and some other Indian attitudes, in essence defending the massacres of civilian non-Bengalis in 1971 and condoning blatant terrorism, is clear.