Pak must keep option of force over water row with India: JuD

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

True.. Did IA themselves indulge in so called massacres in East Pakistan.. Wouldnt you then apply the same logic there??

The IA supported rebels that committed those massacres, massacres whose veracity has been supported by the very same researchers that condemned PA atrocities.

In the case of the JuD at least you do not have an individual supporting the same kinds of attacks on civilians. - additionally, my point with respect to the EP atrocities by rebels supported by India is not that the atrocities justify the insurgency in Kashmir and alleged atrocities by some militants in Kashmir, but that the Indian argument of condemning the insurgency in Kashmir, but not condemning Indian policies supporting rebels that committed atrocities, is representative of a double standard - India is making a 'good terrorist vs bad terrorist distinction'. The point being here that if Indians are willing to condemn Indian policy in supporting insurgents in EP in 1971, then such a balanced approach might fine a similarly balanced approach with respect to the insurgency in Kashmir.

Till such condemnation from Indians, their arguments against Kashmiri insurgents and the Kashmir insurgency appear hypocritical.

I have and in my opinion, you are wrong . I agree that Bangladesh discussion is off topic here as well as in the other thread you mentioned. Which any way is off limits for me on the principle of opposition to authoritarian bullying .. We will catch that up somewhere else sometime..

I don't believe you have, otherwise you would have offered some rebuttal to the points I raised in the Insurgents vs IA thread, but if the thread title is holding you back, I was considering a new thread on that subject, Indian double standards on terrorism, in any case and will set one up soon.

No one has the absolute authority to certify what is wrong and what is not. All facts are subject to interpertation. You may chose yours as the baseline but cant force the world to do the same. Each nation acts based on how it sees those facts. Case in Point, your example of Jamaat Ud Dawa...

What about JuD? I have offered a simple yardstick for measurement, that endorsement of attacks on civilians constitutes terrorism, and the the JuD does not meet the definition of terrorism by that measure. In addition I have argued that the UN process for designating terrorist entities is flawed, and pointed out a paper discussing similar issues in the EU with the UN process, and even offered suggestions on possible alternate means to designate entities as terrorists, that might be acceptable to all parties concerned, especially the accused, that currently does not get any opportunity to defend themselves.

Sure, but given 2 options, neither with proofs that will stand up in a court of law, I would (along with most people) go with the world opinion rather than Pakistan's, specially if the discussion is about Pakistan's (not necessarily whole population) role in terrorism since its obvious that Pakistan's opinion in this case is more suseptible to bias...

You are going with opinion, I am going with facts - facts that no trial has determined JuD involvement in terrorism, fact that HS did not, here at least, call for killing innocents.

Had I used the writings of Zaid Hamid, Ahmad Qureishi, Hamid Gul, Hamid Mir or some other right winger to make my points, then you could justifiable argue that it was a 'battle of opinions' - I am merely pointing out that Pakistan has a legitimate position based on certain facts around the JuD scenario.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Do read the part in red.. From your own constitution...

Constitution of Pakistan
---------------------------
19. Freedom of speech, etc.-Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, 1[commission of] or incitement to an offence

And then the question becomes, are HS's statements in Pakistan's 'interest'? You'll get a whole range of opinions on that count.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

If India has credible information, why not Back them off in Int Court of Justice ..!
UNSC is an arena where global powers play thier cards regardless of whats right or wrong. Havent UNSC actions be justified, we might have prevented the Palestinian Massacre by the Israelis and in this case the Barbarism IA committed against the Kashmiris decades ago ,JUD is the End result of such injustice done through UNSC to meet narrow interests. The blood spillt and millions of lives lost , speaks out loud for itself the unjustified actions committed by stooges at UNSC..
Theres no evidance found against JUD being involved in Mumbai attacks in Pakistani courts, i am not willing to accept what SC has to say regarding JUD and on what grounds did it labeled it as terrorist org.
If God Forbade an Indo-Pak war breaks out, then i guess that can
also be traced down to the injustice done through hands of UNSC.

 

[karan.1970]

And then the question becomes, are HS's statements in Pakistan's 'interest'? You'll get a whole range of opinions on that count.

So your logic here is that if its in interest of Pakistan, its all right to override Pakistan's constitution and allow freedom of speech that result in incitement to an offence.

I am sure Musharraf also found similar justifications when he threw out the original constitution of Pakistan.

 

[karan.1970]

The IA supported rebels that committed those massacres, massacres whose veracity has been supported by the very same researchers that condemned PA atrocities.

In the case of the JuD at least you do not have an individual supporting the same kinds of attacks on civilians.

My point being that if you are using the logic of HS not being liable for anything that he personally didnt say, but encouraged at rallies organized by him and his org, then why hold IA responsible for somethings that your own citizens did to some other citizens of yours. Isnt that how you refer to the issue of Indian Maoists??

- additionally, my point with respect to the EP atrocities by rebels supported by India is not that the atrocities justify the insurgency in Kashmir and alleged atrocities by some militants in Kashmir, but that the Indian argument of condemning the insurgency in Kashmir, but not condemning Indian policies supporting rebels that committed atrocities, is representative of a double standard - India is making a 'good terrorist vs bad terrorist distinction'. The point being here that if Indians are willing to condemn Indian policy in supporting insurgents in EP in 1971, then such a balanced approach might fine a similarly balanced approach with respect to the insurgency in Kashmir.

Till such condemnation from Indians, their arguments against Kashmiri insurgents and the Kashmir insurgency appear hypocritical.

I persoanlly dont buy that line of arguement. That way you can label both Indian and Paksitani govts and Army to be terrorists because similar things happened during partition as well.

Also, there are enough and more accounts (not just Indian or BD) that call the atrocities committed by MB cadre as a result and not cause of atrocities committed by the PA in East Pakistan. And even if IA provided training to MB folks, there is no credible linkage that ties IA to any so called unprovoked atrocities committed by Pakistani citizens against other Pakistani citizens..Hence I believe that this arguement is more of a smoke screen to confuse the issue. Show me a link that IA was directly or indirectly involved in aiding and abetting the atrocities you mentioned.

I don't believe you have, otherwise you would have offered some rebuttal to the points I raised in the Insurgents vs IA thread, but if the thread title is holding you back, I was considering a new thread on that subject, Indian double standards on terrorism, in any case and will set one up soon.

And I would love to exchange views on this there..

What about JuD? I have offered a simple yardstick for measurement, that endorsement of attacks on civilians constitutes terrorism, and the the JuD does not meet the definition of terrorism by that measure. In addition I have argued that the UN process for designating terrorist entities is flawed, and pointed out a paper discussing similar issues in the EU with the UN process, and even offered suggestions on possible alternate means to designate entities as terrorists, that might be acceptable to all parties concerned, especially the accused, that currently does not get any opportunity to defend themselves.

Just like Pakistan sees JuD as something important for its strategic objective of keeping the insurgency option against India alive, and hence does not clamp it down, despite itself declaring it as a terrorist org, every nation sees the facts in light of its national objectives and acts accordingly

On UN process of terrorists designation, every process has flaws. Holes can be blown into every processl sometimes on efficiency, sometimes on effectiveness and sometimes on the fairness. Fortunately or unfortunately, thats the process as of now. If Pakistan thinks it's unfair, either reject it formally as a member state or work towards getting it changed. But till such time, Pakistan doesnt reject it formally or till such time that Pakistan gets the process changed, this is the process that needs to be followed. I can get up tomorrow and start calling the tax system in India as unfair with a 100 valid arguements. That doesnt entitle me to not pay taxes. does it??

You are going with opinion, I am going with facts - facts that no trial has determined JuD involvement in terrorism, fact that HS did not, here at least, call for killing innocents.

Not really.. You are going with your opinion and I am going with the majority opinion. Its your opinion and not a undisputable fact that the trial of HS was not rigged ...Mine says it was...