Insurgent & Secessionist movements in India

[SamantK]

Then hold the plebiscite in IOK and let the people decide.

Clear the Pakistan occupied Kashmir and we will think about it..

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am not supporting terrorists anywhere.

I believe that it is Indian state sponsored terrorism in IOK against her own people which is terrorism.

Instead of appropriately responding, you go personal and start supporting terrorists in Balochistan which you agree that they are being supported by RAW,

Why don't you have the honesty to admit that there are no ethnic Kashmiris in the infiltrated terrorists any longer? Only a long line of misguided religious fundamentalists, of the sort happily shooting up your own country.

We don't have Sunni and Shia problems in India; we don't kill Ahmedis in India; no Indian citizen is given state-defined documents asking them to disqualify themselves from membership of one religion or the other; no Indian citizens are shot dead for upholding the rights of minorities; no Indian citizens are shot and left for dead merely for asking for the right to be educated.

The whole culture of terrorism and violence is bred in Pakistan, in the teeth of what some lately-converted Pakistanis uphold as laudable Islamic family values. If those family values call for the shooting of a 14 year old schoolgirl, nothing much more needs to be said. And for those who deny that these shameful things are happening, fooling themselves into thinking that Kashmiris are involved in the shooting and terrorist attacks is not a big step.

Fits in very well with the mealy mouthed hypocrisy of such apologists.

India is forcing a division unto itself by killing tens of thousands of her own minorities.

We must take you seriously at least on this issue and area of expertise.

Who knows better than you how to force a division on yourselves?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I always said, BLA is supported by RAW.....I don't support terrorists but if you gonna support terrorists in our country then expect the same reply.

With respect, you may say personally whatever you want, but you do so with as little evidence as any hysterical Pakistani media maven.

ha ha ha .... Sir you are growing old.

I meant India.

Hajmula zara ziyada istimal kiya karein.

I am glad to know that Peter Pan has joined the forum and is participating under the nick Ticker.

 

[Ticker]

You don't need a hypothetical situation. You just need to go and see for yourself the protection racket that these gangsters posing as political workers run, to see the reality. If you probe a little more, you will find that huge sums of money are collected by these Maoists through blackmail and torture, and this goes, not into popular welfare, but into buying arms and ammunitions.This reality is constantly and deliberately misrepresented by those who have a vested interest in spreading such disinformation.

Sir,

The arguments you offered on many occasions earlier were appropriately counter reasoned as well. For you these may be facts, for others these may not present as factual as you may accept them to be.

I respect your viewpoint, and i expect you to respect the other viewpoint as well. Agreeing with it may not be as important as it may sound.

It has always been a rewarding experience to have discussed things with you and therefore, I at times take an undue liberty. Please forgive me for doing that - but I feel that I do have a bit of a right to at times not agree with you and throw in a bit of polite sarcasm if I may.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What gurantee you had in 1947 that democratic india will not end up as rotten corrupt system in a stealthiest way a sort of theocracy of dynastic rule.

As for maoist india is not ussr or china to produce stalins.
communist of WB are not communists by ideology but are same dirty pliticians which are by product of indian corrupt democracy.they are communists only by flag.

Why does this sound like the equally lame explanation that terrorism committed by Muslims is not Islamic terrorism, because Muslims cannot be terrorists, because Islam does not permit terrorism? So now we have Communists who are not true Communists, because true Communists would not behave this way?

We must be grateful to sasural school of political science, for these gems at least.

 

[Abhishek_]

^"sasural school of pol science" epic LOL
you sir, have a distinct way with words.

 

[KRAIT]

With respect, you may say personally whatever you want, but you do so with as little evidence as any hysterical Pakistani media maven.

Sir more elaboration for more knowledge. Looking forward to know your views about RAW working in Pakistan.

Regards.

^"sasural school of pol science" epic LOL
you sir, have a distinct way with words.

Joe sir has just started.

 

[Bang Galore]

Ajtr - answer my question - in a hypothetical situation that Maoist come to power what is the assurance that they will not be equally corrupt in addition to establishing a dictatorship and throttling the freedom of speech which is there in today's India?

Corruption & other silly stuff would be the least of the problems if the Maoists somehow managed to take power. Think Khmer Rouge.

 

[Sashan]

Corruption & other silly stuff would be the least of the problems if the Maoists somehow managed to take power. Think Khmer Rouge.

I have personally seen in Phnom Penh what these commies have done in Cambodia - Tuol Sleng prison and killing fields along with the destruction they have caused in Ankor city(not Ankor Wat but a city nearby which is equally spectacular with numerous temples - cutting off some of the heads of the devas/asuras statues in the entrance to the city and selling these statue heads to support their war with Vietnam).

 

[Ticker]

Why does this sound like the equally lame explanation that terrorism committed by Muslims is not Islamic terrorism, because Muslims cannot be terrorists, because Islam does not permit terrorism? So now we have Communists who are not true Communists, because true Communists would not behave this way?

We must be grateful to sasural school of political science, for these gems at least.

Joe,

This is hitting below the belt. And probably you know it.

Such comments do not seem appropriate from a person of your caliber.

Please.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir,

The arguments you offered on many occasions earlier were appropriately counter reasoned as well. For you these may be facts, for others these may not present as factual as you may accept them to be.

I respect your viewpoint, and i expect you to respect the other viewpoint as well. Agreeing with it may not be as important as it may sound.

It has always been a rewarding experience to have discussed things with you and therefore, I at times take an undue liberty. Please forgive me for doing that - but I feel that I do have a bit of a right to at times not agree with you and throw in a bit of polite sarcasm if I may.

Sir,

Facts are facts, and viewpoints are not facts. Against your careful and elaborate web of deception and word-smithing, only facts accepted by reputable authorities have been opposed. Coming up repeatedly with wishful thinking and wistful speculation in large volumes does not improve the factual basis of such arguments. If you wish to be honest, you should say clearly that you have no facts to put up, but are not willing to concede the point. The matter ends there. If you wish to fool yourself about the stuff that you put up, it is your privilege. After all, the entire discussion is on written record.

If you are suggesting that we should either allow blatant concoctions to pass unchallenged, or to allow mis-stated facts to remain on record without a protest, that is not possible. On every single occasion that you have brought up contentious issues, such as the IVC, or the circumstances of the granting of independence to the Dominions of India and Pakistan, or to the historical train that connects present-day political India to the cultural India of the past, you have been given facts, which you could not counter. Arguing that you do not agree with the facts, or that you do not agree with conclusions that may be drawn from the facts merely amounts to an emotional refusal to face reality.

This inability to face reality, to understand the nature of the creation of Pakistan, leads you, and other emotional and I'll-prepared apologists for a non-existent cause, to put up one weird theory after another. Do so by all means, but be prepared to have those weird constructions demolished - pitilessly.

Other people displaying sarcasm and cheek is something which does not bother me. If it gives them solace, by all means, let them go ahead. Neither their insolence nor later recantations really affect the purpose of my comments, that is, to lay the bare truth before other members of the forum. The rest is frothy irrelevance.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe,

This is hitting below the belt. And probably you know it.

Such comments do not seem appropriate from a person of your caliber.

Please.

I don't think so.

This is a particularly vicious person, who has no intellectual integrity but will parrot whatever gives here the greatest mileage against her former country, a person who can make the most outrageously false assertions to make a case, and, above all, a person who has cited the views of her sasural as a justification for saying whatever she is saying. if she brings in her sasural, it is common coin thereafter. We did not, I did not introduce that theme.

Since, as usual, you have jumped to conclusions without checking your facts, please look up post #1153 and read this for yourself:

mere sasural ka hai to jawab dene ka haq banta ha mera

Can you please the knight to the rescue of the defenseless damsel at home, please, next time? This is Tokyo Rose, no defenseless damsel.

 

[SamantK]

Sir,

Facts are facts, and viewpoints are not facts. Against your careful and elaborate web of deception and word-smithing, only facts accepted by reputable authorities have been opposed. Coming up repeatedly with wishful thinking and wistful speculation in large volumes does not improve the factual basis of such arguments. If you wish to be honest, you should say clearly that you have no facts to put up, but are not willing to concede the point. The matter ends there. If you wish to fool yourself about the stuff that you put up, it is your privilege. After all, the entire discussion is on written record.

If you are suggesting that we should either allow blatant concoctions to pass unchallenged, or to allow mis-stated facts to remain on record without a protest, that is not possible. On every single occasion that you have brought up contentious issues, such as the IVC, or the circumstances of the granting of independence to the Dominions of India and Pakistan, or to the historical train that connects present-day political India to the cultural India of the past, you have been given facts, which you could not counter. Arguing that you do not agree with the facts, or that you do not agree with conclusions that may be drawn from the facts merely amounts to an emotional refusal to face reality.

This inability to face reality, to understand the nature of the creation of Pakistan, leads you, and other emotional and I'll-prepared apologists for a non-existent cause, to put up one weird theory after another. Do so by all means, but be prepared to have those weird constructions demolished - pitilessly.

Other people displaying sarcasm and cheek is something which does not bother me. If it gives them solace, by all means, let them go ahead. Neither their insolence nor later recantations really affect the purpose of my comments, that is, to lay the bare truth before other members of the forum. The rest is frothy irrelevance.

Sir, it is such a pleasure to read your comments.. Thanks for being on this forum!

 

[ajtr]

So seems like for the govt and country these security men fight and die their govt. dont want to confer them with martyr status.Now that says a lot about the so called sacrifices........





No 'martyr' status to police, paramilitary personnel killed in line duty

NEW DELHI: (PTI) While the country today commemorated the sacrifice of its police and paramilitary personnel killed in the line of duty, the government is yet to accord "martyr" status to these personnel on the lines of the armed forces.

"The stark reality is that while there is an official notification in the government gazette to declare troops and officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force as martyrs when they sacrifice their lives in the line of duty, there is no such order for police and paramilitary personnel," a top central police officer said.

As per a home ministry data, between September 2011 to August this year, a total of 546 police and paramilitary personnel lost their lives on duty due to "unnatural" causes, which include action.

Union home minister Sushilkumar Shinde today paid tributes to these personnel at a memorial event in the national capital, where for the first time all the central forces came together to pay their tributes to their valiant comrades.

The fact was also recently reported in Parliament by minister of state for home Jitendra Singh stating that in a committee of secretaries (COS) meeting, convened on this subject last year, "no consensus" could emerge on the issue.

"The matter (for giving status of martyr to paramilitary personnel) was considered by the COS on September 14, 2011 but there was no consensus on the issue," Singh said in a written reply in Lok Sabha on May 8 this year.

 

[Ticker]

Sir,

Facts are facts, and viewpoints are not facts. Against your careful and elaborate web of deception and word-smithing, only facts accepted by reputable authorities have been opposed. Coming up repeatedly with wishful thinking and wistful speculation in large volumes does not improve the factual basis of such arguments. If you wish to be honest, you should say clearly that you have no facts to put up, but are not willing to concede the point. The matter ends there. If you wish to fool yourself about the stuff that you put up, it is your privilege. After all, the entire discussion is on written record.

If you are suggesting that we should either allow blatant concoctions to pass unchallenged, or to allow mis-stated facts to remain on record without a protest, that is not possible. On every single occasion that you have brought up contentious issues, such as the IVC, or the circumstances of the granting of independence to the Dominions of India and Pakistan, or to the historical train that connects present-day political India to the cultural India of the past, you have been given facts, which you could not counter. Arguing that you do not agree with the facts, or that you do not agree with conclusions that may be drawn from the facts merely amounts to an emotional refusal to face reality.

This inability to face reality, to understand the nature of the creation of Pakistan, leads you, and other emotional and I'll-prepared apologists for a non-existent cause, to put up one weird theory after another. Do so by all means, but be prepared to have those weird constructions demolished - pitilessly.

Other people displaying sarcasm and cheek is something which does not bother me. If it gives them solace, by all means, let them go ahead. Neither their insolence nor later recantations really affect the purpose of my comments, that is, to lay the bare truth before other members of the forum. The rest is frothy irrelevance.

Well Joe, if facts are facts as stated by authorities then why do we have the judges who interpret the presented facts and yet people disagree with their judgments and counter these by stating further facts. Because facts as presented always have counter facts as responded.

Why is it that jurists sit to see through the presented facts. You infact are just like the 15th century jurists, who pronounced judgment on the factual audacity of strategy of manoeuvre. You are after all a human being who can write English and probably nothing more. And you are showing it again and again through your misappropriated beliefs.

And what you presented earlier, were mere decisions taken by a certain group of people and others. And many many before me have written books to challenge not only the authority but the decisions and even the decision making processes. So if you somehow are acting as a God and stating nothing but facts, atheists don't believe in your being a God. That is the way of human nature, that is if you consider yourself a human and not something above that.

And I say here without any compunction that the facts that you thought were facts and as you quoted, for me were a piece of trash. And I countered these with logical answers and logical arguments. You may not agree with it, that is your viewpoint. However, it is you who in a state of bigoted and expressionist laden drunkenness, failed to see the reason.

And then retorting as a common jingo against a girl who probably is more akin to your own daughter, if you have one, was not only shameful but then responding to a gentleman's request in the manner, even compounded and displayed the petty thinking of an egotistical being, who may be losing more than he may be gaining at the fag end of his illustrious life.

Should I wish that you have a good day.