Shed insecurities: India to Pakistan

[foxbat]

When you can prevent all local terrorism in India and prevent all crime and make a perfect society, then you can ask another country to prevent all crime from taking place on its soil, whether it is crime targeted locally or abroad.

Its an absurd requirement. Any country can only do so much. When Pakistan is struggling to prevent terrorism against itself, how can it guarantee that no one from Pakistani soil will act against another nation?

I understand the helplessness of Pakistan as you state above. Except that are you saying that Pakistan is not responsible for the illegal acts of its citizens in a foreign country?

 

[prototype]

Another characteristics of thieves (India), try and get away with the crime by pointing the finger elsewhere ...

Since in this case the accession itself was conditional to a plebiscite (conditions to which India agreed) and the the UNSC also indicated the dispute would be resolved through plebiscite (to which India also agreed), India's unilateral withdrawal from allowing a plebiscite is a clear theft of the rights of Kashmiris and therefore their lives and land.

first of all try to steal a property(pakistan),when get caught ask for plebiscite and when get discarded cry over the territory that u not even allowed to steal as not even allowed to give it,if u wish a good life for kashmiris,stop sending ur jehadis

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The resolution u r talking about asked for complete withdrawal of the tribal forces of Pakistani origin from the Indian territories and ceasefire.But that is something which never happened.Now I dont really see a reason for India to comply to the resolution while its counterpart never did..From that time,a part of Kashmir continues to be a part of India.
I just wonder,why the leaders of the insurgents that u r talking about continue to live in Pakistan..

Read the threads I pointed to, the issue has been discussed there with quotes from the resolutions and exchanges between the UN rapporteurs and India and Pakistan, and the evidence does no support your POV.

In other words, u dont have a clue....

In other words I gave you the sources, look them up. There are even threads on Indian atrocities in the Kashmir section that are sticky, that also cover some of these details.

Playing ignorant will not change the facts.

I have merely drawn a deduction from from ur logic.The way 'disowning' the Pakistani terrorists is ur own issue,in the very similar manner,any decisions related to the Indian security forces on Indian territory is our own issue.Please read the posts more carefully next time....

You have drawn no deduction from my 'logic', you have completely misinterpreted my comments and are off in la la land arguing about god knows what.

Did u miss the first part of my previous post???No problem,here it is,again

Repeating your previous comments does not change my response to it, to which you have not replied, but merely 'repeated your comments'.

Now dont tell me that the militants conduct grenade attack in busy,civilian populated areas like Lalchawk of Kashmir to protect those very civilians from the Indian Security forces...

Just as I am sure Indian soldiers raping, killing and torturing innocent civilians do not do so with the intention to 'protect those civilians' from insurgents.

The militants u r talking about dont exist,as it is those very militants who try to hide in a mosques or a civilian building after an attack before being slaughtered,thereby risking the civilian lives....And I m not even talking about the terrorists who directly attack market places or try to threaten the girls not to attend schools and colleges...

The militants I am talking about do exist, since of late the majority of clashes have been between Indian security forces and militants, and not killings of civilians, which in fact have been primarily by Indian security forces, given the number of protests against India in Kashmir.

I gave an analogy of the TTP for better understanding..An attack on any Indian property or any Indian, or a threat by any organization to see things their way is an act of terrorism against the Government of India.Now,since the government is made by the people in India,such an act is an act of terrorism against the people of India...

It is not Indian property or territory until the conditions of plebiscite are fulfilled, as required by the rules of accession and the UNSC resolutions. As such the insurgents are justified in fighting the 'invading and occupying Indian security forces'.

Anyways...let us say that there has been a terrorist attack in a market place and the terrorists are then engaged by the security forces.Now i dont really understand where ur support lies.......

If it was an attack deliberately targeting civilians (and not targeting an Army patrol or post in the market place) then it would be a terrorist attack, whether by the insurgents or Indian Army.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

first of all try to steal a property(pakistan),when get caught ask for plebiscite and when get discarded cry over the territory that u not even allowed to steal as not even allowed to give it,if u wish a good life for kashmiris,stop sending ur jehadis

Brush up on history please, plebiscite in J&K was a condition of accession as noted by Mountbatten when accepting the instrument of accession (allegedly, no one has actually seen the original instrument of accession), and the UNSC resolutions later endorsed that fact. So the accession of J&K is incomplete under the conditions of accession.

 

[ajpirzada]

correct the second part ,we never asked ur permit to stay in afgan,but i can only say that-shed ur insecrities

lol. no pakistani permission. only saudi or US permission required.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Except that are you saying that Pakistan is not responsible for the illegal acts of its citizens in a foreign country?

Correct, we are not responsible just as the Saudis were not responsible for 911.

Where Pakistan's responsibilities lie are in acting against any alleged perpetrators on the basis of evidence obtained against them, and of course preventing any such future attacks to the best of her capabilities. The latter part of course is where I pointed out that no nation can guarantee 100% prevention, especially not when a country itself is struggling with terrorism and security challenges.

 

[foxbat]

Why not? If Indian security forces deliberately kill, torture and rape civilians, then they are committing acts of terrorism and are terrorists. I fail to see how wearing a uniform changes the nature of the act - it is still the murder of an innocent, the rape of an innocent, the torture of an innocent, ostensibly in pursuit of a political objective of perpetuating Indian occupation of J&K.


Hitler's Nazi terrorists were at one point 'elected' as well. Just because a government is 'elected' does not mean its policies, or the actions of those charged with implementing those policies, are automatically correct and legitimate. The tens of thousands of murders, rapes and torture of innocent Kashmiris by Indian SF's obviously indicates that not to be the case.

So what if they are 'disowned'? That is our problem. The issue here remains the acts themselves, not what the people committing them are called and whether they wear a uniform or not.

Terrorism is the act of deliberately committing violence against civilians (you may insert 'in pursuit of a political objective' here if you wish). I fail to see how a uniform changes the nature of the act.

Nice attempt, but a couple of observations/Questions

1. By this line of logic, are you accepting PA being a terrorist organization.. Balochistan, Sindh. East Bengal, Pakistan Ocupied Kashmir etc (by the same Amnesty intl)

2. Rape and murder is a crime and a court martial-able offense if committed by a man in uniform. If we follow the trail of labeling the organization because of acts of some individuals, then you should not object to Pakistan being called a terrorist nation since a lot of non state actors involved in terror activities are/have been Pakistanis

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In the same manner what you consider about Indian Army is as irrelevant.. Isnt it? Because if you go that way, there is not a single security force(including your own)which has participated in such operations and can not be accused of human rights violations.

Sure, but I usually don't use this kind of terminology when referring to the IA except to make the point that generalizing all insurgents as terrorists is a flawed argument.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nice attempt, but a couple of observations/Questions

1. By this line of logic, are you accepting PA being a terrorist organization.. Balochistan, Sindh. East Bengal, Pakistan Ocupied Kashmir etc (by the same Amnesty intl)

2. Rape and murder is a crime and a court martial-able offense if committed by a man in uniform. If we follow the trail of labeling the organization because of acts of some individuals, then you should not object to Pakistan being called a terrorist nation since a lot of non state actors involved in terror activities are/have been Pakistanis

So long as we are consistent and also accept that India and the US are also terrorists nations by virtue of having committed the above.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

correct the second part ,we never asked ur permit to stay in afgan,but i can only say that-shed ur insecrities

The last time India and Pakistan duked it out in Afghanistan, the only place where India did not need permission was a tiny sliver of NA controlled territory in the north of Afghanistan.

 

[foxbat]

Every ten years, India becomes overtly optimistic that Pakistan would soon be over and done with, this happened ten years ago when after ten years of sanction, Pakistan suffered greatly. The sanctions were passed because of our nuclear program. This is what CIA operative Milt Braden said.



Now recently the world media on the behest of US decided to declare Pakistan a failed state overlooking our growth and reforms that made such a positive impact that everyone was chirping about in the middle of the last decade. They all declared Pakistan to be a failed nation that will die a sudden death, war broke out and the President of USA was threatening Pakistan repeatedly, economy collapsed and things looked very bleak.

Indians through they won it again, just like they thought that won when the Soviets invaded and at the end of 90's. But things turned around and we picked ourselves back up, we are reviving our economy, defeating the militants/terrorists and quashed the insurgency in Balochistan.

On top of it all we are getting nuclear plants, weapons, aid and a big say in an important war in our neighborhood.

This humiliated and hurt the indian psyche, once again their wished were not to be. They went ahead with their sneaky little games hoping one day the thorn in their eyesight's that is Pakistan, disappears somehow.

Keep passing comments and veiled insults, we are here to stay and you will always have to deal with that.

There may be Indians who hope Pakistan becomes a failed state. I for the record am not one of them. However 1 question. Apart from the nuclear status, Is Pakistan in a better state today (economically and standing in the world order) than it was in 1989 when it started the active support of terrorist activities in Kashmir?

 

[foxbat]

Incorrect -the UNSC resolutions called for negotiations between Pakistan, India and the UN commissions/rapporteurs on demilitarization - it was not supposed to be unilateral - this is discussed in the UN resolutions explained sticky in the Kashmir section as well as on a thread on the 1948 war in the military history section.

Please continue this discussion on one of those threads after reading through the comments there.

Were the negotiations completed? If not then why the talk of plebiscite?

 

[foxbat]

lool..... actually wat india really wanted to say was following:

'Shed insecurities and let us stay in Afghanistan'

now i know this thread will get derailed

Interesting mindset. Why does Pakistan think India and Afghanistan need its permission to have diplomatic/military ties? I see a misplaced sense of entitlement here....

 

[ajpirzada]

Interesting mindset. Why does Pakistan think India and Afghanistan need its permission to have diplomatic/military ties? I see a misplaced sense of entitlement here....

i dont know. ask history

 

[foxbat]

Another characteristics of thieves (India), try and get away with the crime by pointing the finger elsewhere ...

Since in this case the accession itself was conditional to a plebiscite (conditions to which India agreed) and the the UNSC also indicated the dispute would be resolved through plebiscite (to which India also agreed), India's unilateral withdrawal from allowing a plebiscite is a clear theft of the rights of Kashmiris and therefore their lives and land.

The initial accession transaction was between India and Maharaja of Kashmir. It was Pakistan who showed the characteristics of a common robber by sending in armed men to wrest away parts of land owned by the maharaja at that time. India was not involved at that time. The daylight robbery was initiated by Pakistan but stopped mid way by Indian forces.

Hence this negates the credibility of Pakistan making accusations of thievery against india.

Very similar to a recent case of civil liability in the US where a thief who went into a house to rob, when slipped in the snowed backyard and broke a leg, sued the house owners (unsuccessfully) of causing injury due to unsafe residence.