US asks Pakistan to stop the groups that carry out terrorism in India

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Please come out of the denail mode. Do you except a PA major coming out and calling the media to announce like "Wilh respect I want to tell you that I support terrroist and I am signing this paper in behalf of that..."
Please read the articl again and see who has blocked the proceedings..
Even Kasab had not accecpted his role..

PA news paper is reporting that not an American/Indian. I rest my case here.

What is your case? You admit above that no one accepted their role, and I pointed out to you that even the article is nothing but opoinions and speculation by some people. so what is 'your case'?

Nothing.

Poor comparision.. Its not the same case here. Also Time had changed, please keep up with the change..

For another 1000 years, you can keep on fighting and remain where your are now. Nothing is going to change except India's growth.

Its a very apt comparison - J&K is considered disputed territory by the UNSC and therefore the world and India, by virtue of refusing to allow the Kashmiris to exercise the right of self determination to decide which country to be a part of, is occupying them, and those that disagree with that occupation have every right to fight against it.

If its occupied....so ur logic fails . If its occupied people wont come and vote in elections..
More civilians have been killed in India by PA sponsered terror. Have you heard about the story of a Kashimir girl droving a milintant using the kitchen tools....

PA does not sponsor terror, however Amnesty International and other HR organizations have accused the IA and other Indian security forces of committing tens of thousands of massacres, rapes and torture of innocent people in J&K - now that is terrorism.

May be you should urge the Tibetan people to take up arms..

That is their call.

Gotcha...I prefer India better spend on Infra, Education and research than this superiority..

Stop trolling and read the post.

Thats the truth and the world, except PA, accecpts that.

Does not matter who accepts it, the facts indicate the opposite of your absurd claims.

My stupid comments are meant for Intellectuals. After your comment , I wont be cosidering you in that circle.Is telling the truth called troll and flame and stupid?. Being a moderator, I expect you to be more respectful.

After two successive posts containing lies and flames, and displaying a complete lack of ability to comprehend the other sides argument on your part, I don't really have to worry about what you 'classify' me as.

I repeat it, PA has been drubbed four times by India

Keep repeating it, won't make it the truth

1) 1947 - Kashmir war - Failed to capture Kashmir
- On the contrary, I would argue it was India that 'failed to capture Kashmir'. We ended up with a little more than one third of it, and the war was largely at a stalemate, despite the resource constraints Pakistan had to face immediately after independence.

2) 1965 - Did PA won? Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

India certainly did not win it - territorial gains were minimal on either side. At best a stalemate from the Indian side.

3) You accecpted

The only accurate statement by you in absurdly long posts that fail to establish anything, except that you are a troll.

4) Kargil - Where you able to acheive your goal? - The Prime Minister of PA doesnt know, wht the army is doing!

More of a border conflict than a war, and according to some sources the PM did indeed know what the Army was doing.

What are these called? When you are not able to acheive your goal in a war,initated by you! wht do you call them

Its called one victory out of three wars for India.

Ever country has 'conspiracy theory' but none other than PA thrives in that.

As I pointed out, the Indians and Americans are right there with everyone else on swallowing and propagating 'conspiracy theories' about countries with which they do not see 'eye to eye'.

Now good bye, I am not wasting any more time with you, nor should you waste any more of our time on this forum.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Someone in Pakistan said " we eat grass but make bomb (terrorists) " , now time has came that you eat grass.

Yeah, we'll eat grass.

 

[Solomon2]

We can't stop something that does not occur in the first place. And unless you have evidence to back up your comments, I will ask you to stop slandering Pakistan and flaming on this forum

Oh, sure. Possibly the best example that the U.S. government is convinced that Pakistan has supported terrorism in the past are from declassified diplomatic cables and memorada. In this one a member of the National Security Council staff discusses the Pakistani "infiltrators" he blamed for starting the 1965 war: link (Note, however, the document does not contain an explicit admission from a Pakistani official that the GoP had done so.)

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Oh, sure. Possibly the best example that the U.S. government is convinced that Pakistan has supported terrorism in the past are from declassified diplomatic cables and memorada. In this one a member of the National Security Council staff discusses the Pakistani "infiltrators" he blamed for starting the 1965 war: link (Note, however, the document does not contain an explicit admission from a Pakistani official that the GoP had done so.)

Why would those infiltrators be considered 'terrorists'? They were sent in with the purpose of instigating a rebellion against Indian occupation and fighting the Indian security forces occupying the territory, and not to carry out suicide bombings in markets.

So no, you have not established that Pakistan supported terrorism any more the the US and India supported terrorism through their own support for violent proxies in other nations to advance their perceived 'strategic interests' - the US outshines almost every other country in that respect.

 

[Solomon2]

Why would those infiltrators be considered 'terrorists'? They were sent in with the purpose of instigating a rebellion against Indian occupation and fighting the Indian security forces occupying the territory, and not to carry out suicide bombings in markets.

That is your definition of terrorism? Suicide bombings in markets and nothing else? I think many Pakistanis would beg to differ with you.

These armed infiltrators did not wear uniforms and their purpose was to surreptitiously instigate violence for Pakistani, not Kashmiri, political gain, so they were not liberators. The effort to recruit locals failed and Kashmiris alerted Indian forces to the presence of infiltrators, so they can't be classed as freedom fighters. What would you like to call them?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is your definition of terrorism? Suicide bombings in markets and nothing else? I think many Pakistanis would beg to differ with you.

By 'suicide bombings in marketplaces' I was referring to deliberate acts of violence aimed at killing civilians - gunning down people in a market place, instead of a bomb for example.

The aim of these infiltrators was not to go and kill civilians in cold blood.

These armed infiltrators did not wear uniforms and their purpose was to surreptitiously instigate violence for Pakistani, not Kashmiri, political gain, so they were not liberators. The effort to recruit locals failed and Kashmiris alerted Indian forces to the presence of infiltrators, so they can't be classed as freedom fighters. What would you like to call them?

Correct - they did not wear uniforms, they were insurgents, much like many of the proxies that the US and India have sponsored, some of whom did in fact go on to deliberately massacre innocents.

And given that it was (and is) India denying the Kashmiris the right of self-determination as promised in the UNSC and under the rules of accession of Princely States, I would argue that attempting to instigate a rebellion against Indian occupation to force the implementation of plebiscite was an action for kashmiri gain and potentially Pakistani gain (depending on how the results of the plebiscite worked out).

Terrorism, by the definition of deliberate attacks on civilians, this action certainly was not.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Theres not enough leverage for US to dictate Pakistan regarding India. US will never compromise its interests. !!

 

[Solomon2]

The aim of these infiltrators was not to go and kill civilians in cold blood.

Not as a first stage, no. More on that later. Furthermore, I think the fact that soldiers who deliberately shed their uniforms and deny their affiliation to engage in a battle campaign against the enemy is enough to classify them as terrorists.

they did not wear uniforms, they were insurgents, much like many of the proxies that the US and India have sponsored -

They were foreign infiltrators so they can't be classed as insurgents.

And given that it was (and is) India denying the Kashmiris the right of self-determination as promised in the UNSC and under the rules of accession of Princely States -

It does not appear to me, reading the diplomatic record, that Pakistani leaders were concerned with liberating Kashmiris per se as much as they were interested in embarking on a campaign of conquest with Kashmir as an excuse. Bhutto did not want to withdraw Pakistani forces (including infiltrators) just so the Kashmiris could vote; he wanted the infiltrators to remain and seize control. Then the way would be clear for the infiltrators to terrorize the populace into voting for Pakistan.

After that, why wouldn't a new border war would ensue, and the process repeated, ad infinitum? After all, Bhutto said Pakistan would keep fighting as long as the U.S. kept supplying it with arms.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Not as a first stage, no. More on that later. Furthermore, I think the fact that soldiers who deliberately shed their uniforms and deny their affiliation to engage in a battle campaign against the enemy is enough to classify them as terrorists.

They were foreign infiltrators so they can't be classed as insurgents.

It does not appear to me, reading the diplomatic record, that Pakistani leaders were concerned with liberating Kashmiris per se as much as they were interested in embarking on a campaign of conquest with Kashmir as an excuse. Bhutto did not want to withdraw Pakistani forces (including infiltrators) just so the Kashmiris could vote; he wanted the infiltrators to remain and seize control.

.

Dudes they are Kashmiri Mujahideen fighting for the liberation of Kashmir which is there just cause. And yes, these freedom fighters will not stop untill the dispute of Kashmir is resolved.

Then the way would be clear for the infiltrators to terrorize the populace into voting for Pakistan.

Oh such extreme level of BS.Where did you get this distorted fact from Solmon2 ??

 

[Frankenstein]

Telling Pakistan to stop sponsoring terrorism in India is not courtesy, now is it?

Telling India to stop sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan is

 

[Solomon2]

Dudes they are Kashmiri Mujahideen fighting for the liberation of Kashmir -

They were from Pakistan.

Where did you get this distorted fact -

It is indeed important to point out that this is not fact, but extrapolation through reasoning.

The FRUS record makes it clear that Pakistani leaders wanted the infiltrators to remain. That essentially would have yielded the occupied areas to Pakistani control. That implies Bhutto and Ayub had absolutely no confidence the Kashmiris would vote for Pakistan rather than independence, or they would have agreed to withdraw the infiltrators.

How do you think Bhutto and Ayub would have guaranteed a U.N.-run but Pakistan-favorable vote, if not through terror?

 

[ramu]

Pakistan can continue to deny when the whole world recognises what is called the breeding ground of terror. No Pakistani can deny the existence of terror groups in Pakistan when the President of Pakistan sees a need to eliminate them. Whether he followed his words to actions is for all to see.

 

[waraich66]

US need to develop understanding of Jehad , In Kashmir Jehad is continued not terrorism.

 

[Rocketsingh]

US need to develop understanding of Jehad , In Kashmir Jehad is continued not terrorism.

it's ur choice to learn frm past

 

[ramu]

US need to develop understanding of Jehad , In Kashmir Jehad is continued not terrorism.

The need for violence and the acts that can destroy the lives of innocents whether in Kashmir or in Lahore is terror. If you start getting in to the nomenclature of terror, you will hear the deafening sounds of reality in your backyard.