Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Break the Silence]

Kasmir isnt going any where!! Chill guys.... it was its it will be a state of India...

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

why r so many indians on this forum??
ye saale paise kama rahe hein humare advertisements se. baad me yahi paise hume maarne k liye kaam aayenge.
i urge all true indians to laeve this forum.
a lot of venom is spewed against us in this forum.
pata nai kaise sah lete hein sab indians
itna sahte hein tabhi to hume chun chun k maarte hein ye porkistani terrorists.

MODS ban this motherfuka.

 

[mjnaushad]

MODS ban this motherfuka.

Chill dude.....Spammer.....Frustrated spammer....we deal with them everyday.

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

i bet ur father never dicked ur mama.
saala haramiii

Because he was busy doing yours .......

Bhartis......

 

[Areesh]

You will do it again and again and the history will repeat itself again and again.

Thanks for your "words of wisdom" but anyways we will do it again when ever we would get the chance.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

i bet ur father never dicked ur mama.
saala haramiii

He was doing ur sister n mama both at the same time thts why u were born.

Im my Fathers son but im HAPPY to say Ur also my fathers Bastard kid.

This piece of slum bitchh is abusing Pakistan in many threads.Ban this son of a whore.

 

[dabong1]

before destroying India..... It would be better if you save your country first..have not you noticed..what is happening these days?

Who said anything about destroying india?.........oh yeah thats you indians not answering the question and posting something thats totally irrelvant.

 

[DGMO]

The conclusion is simple,India won't give up Kashmir,but Pakistan wants it.
So whats the future?

No, I don't think that's the case. I don't think we simply 'want' it, and if the national mindset tilted towards that view, it does seem to have changed.

Pakistan over the past decade has witnessed innumerable problems and suffering, so much so that Kashmir doesn't have the same 'attachment' that it may have had during the 1990's.

Two key things to bear in mind:

1) Kashmir was going through turbulent times in the 90's, and we were taking full advantage of the propaganda war. How? Through state TV (PTV). With plentiful dedication to the suffering, and the only outlet of news, it certainly drew Pakistani's closer to the events and happenings. But what we've seen in the last decade, and most notably in the past five years is a huge swing towards private news channels. And ask yourself this, how much time are Geo and the likes running with Kashmir? May get the odd mention, but nowhere near as much as before. Therefore, it drops from the national consciousness.

2) Musharraf's peace push and national reaction - so what was Musharraf proposing? Borders can't be redrawn right? A four-point solution which you guys were slow to react to, even your commentators and analysts say so. You dragged your feet during what was the best opportunity for peace in living memory. Infiltration was down massively, if not totally, a ceasefire remained intact, and had done for years.

However, when Musharraf moved away from the UN resolution talk, about soft borders, where was the national outcry? Were Musharraf effigies being burnt nationwide? Did the nation call him a 'traitor' and 'sell-out'? No is the answer.​

So it shows, when all three parties sincerely address the issue, strides can be made towards some sort of a solution.

What Musharraf's plan would've most likely witnessed is a reduction (if not total) withdrawal of security forces from the Valley, a repeal in laws considered draconian etc etc. So you have to ask yourself the question: Would the protestors still be protesting like they are today if that had happened? I personally doubt it.

 

[Vinod2070]

^^ You are right. India was slow in the beginning to trust Musharraf after Kargil and Agra (you can't really blame India for that!) but once we saw that sincerity, there was a lot of progress in backroom negotiation.

Then your government changed and Kayani is no longer committed to what Musharraf proposed.

 

[gurjot]

watevr they talk?will it affect the indian integrity??

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

No, I don't think that's the case. I don't think we simply 'want' it, and if the national mindset tilted towards that view, it does seem to have changed.

Pakistan over the past decade has witnessed innumerable problems and suffering, so much so that Kashmir doesn't have the same 'attachment' that it may have had during the 1990's.

Two key things to bear in mind:

1) Kashmir was going through turbulent times in the 90's, and we were taking full advantage of the propaganda war. How? Through state TV (PTV). With plentiful dedication to the suffering, and the only outlet of news, it certainly drew Pakistani's closer to the events and happenings. But what we've seen in the last decade, and most notably in the past five years is a huge swing towards private news channels. And ask yourself this, how much time are Geo and the likes running with Kashmir? May get the odd mention, but nowhere near as much as before. Therefore, it drops from the national consciousness.

2) Musharraf's peace push and national reaction - so what was Musharraf proposing? Borders can't be redrawn right? A four-point solution which you guys were slow to react to, even your commentators and analysts say so. You dragged your feet during what was the best opportunity for peace in living memory. Infiltration was down massively, if not totally, a ceasefire remained intact, and had done for years.

However, when Musharraf moved away from the UN resolution talk, about soft borders, where was the national outcry? Were Musharraf effigies being burnt nationwide? Did the nation call him a 'traitor' and 'sell-out'? No is the answer.​

So it shows, when both parties sincerely address the issue, strides can be made towards some sort of a solution.

What Musharraf's plan would've most likely witnessed is a reduction (if not total) withdrawal of security forces from the Valley, a repeal in laws considered draconian etc etc. So you have to ask yourself the question: Would the protestors still be protesting like they are today if that had happened? I personally doubt it.

Not 2 parties BUT 3 the KASHMIRIS...
Nothing without them is acceptable!

 

[DGMO]

^^ You are right. India was slow in the beginning to trust Musharraf after Kargil and Agra (you can't really blame India for that!) but once we saw that sincerity, there was a lot of progress in backroom negotiation.

Then your government changed and Kayani is no longer committed to what Musharraf proposed.

I think the army (and do remember, the beauty of Musharraf's plan was that he would've had the backing of the army), became entrenched in the fight against the Taliban, and so moved away from what Musharraf was dealing with.

But then it was left to the politicians to pick up where we were. But it seems for point scoring purposes, and the refusal to give Musharraf the deserved credit on Kashmir, they moved away from the four-point formula (and even failed to acknowledge it in some cases)

Unfortunately, as with Pak politics, the new administration is playing an oppourtinistic game, and can't fathom sealing a deal on Kashmir for which they'd have to credit a 'military dictator' for being the chief architect.

 

[DGMO]

Not 2 parties BUT 3 the KASHMIRIS...
Nothing without them is acceptable!

An oversight on my part, apologies. I totally agree and have changed it to relect it as so.

No solution is achieveable without all three sincerely charting the future course of that region.

 

[GreenStar]

Very sad Indeed, May there souls rest in peace.

 

[GreenStar]

We deeply mourn the loss of innumerable young life.

Obviously you don't mourn them enough as you would not have killied them.

We as representatives of people ourselves believe that together with positive frame of mind we can seek resolution only through open communication

Looks like they have failed in this regard......you had 20 years since 1989....yet you haven't even begun to scratch the surface in solving the problem......where was the communication then.

History teaches us that any resolution can only be brought about through dialogue and not through violence.

That's funny.....why are there 45 people dead then...if History does teach us that dialogue is better than violence.

 

[GreenStar]

Get a life buddy

Personally attacking someone is not good....if you don't like his views don't respond to him....its as simple as that.