Jump to content

In Kashmir, Indian security forces use pellet guns that often blind protesters


Asim

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

They most definitely do not in the 'book' of most experts. I've not heard a 'dismemberment of Pakistan is a great idea for regional stability' from any expert source.

Nepal is not a muslim majority country where people look to jihadism when things go bad.

this is super-naive. If terrorism increases, then having more or less states in the region matters not a jot. And terrorism does not get curtailed by border differences. Terrorists who use Nepal or Bangladesh as entry points to India are not impeded by the fact that Indian border with pakistan can/would be sealed. They will simply use third party transit to come and go as they please.

 

The fact that they would be poorer due to being landlocked and greater competing political interests (direct consequence of having more nations) would fuel further terrorism.

 

It would depend upon whom you consider as experts. May be you should do more research :dontknow:

 

The point is that a break up of Pak would help Pakistanis and the region. If for some reason things go bad for a particular state, it can still be contained as mentioned. The chances of that "IF" happening are less

 

It is as if an ill person is recommended an operation that can save his life. But there are chances that he could die too in that operation. Your comments are along the lines that if he could die, how is the operation useful

 

Good to know that you consider Pak Punjab remaining land locked as something that could create further havoc. But for me it is not an issue which cannot be addressed through agreements such as NAFTA 

 

Islamic Terrorism is not necessarily related to being economically backward. IS has access to oil. AQ was funded by oil money. People in Europe carrying out attack are not necessarily economically backward. In fact, OBL came from a Saudi billionaire family

 

A break up signals that an Islamic country is willing to break up rather than being forced to support such ideologies and be ruled by military that is more focused on creating trouble with its neighbors

 

The assumptions on which your arguments are based on are inaccurate 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by rett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, rett said:

It would depend upon whom you consider as experts. May be you should do more research :dontknow:

As i said, i've not seen one credible proposal about breaking up Pakistan that involves an independent Sindh & Punjab. Most I've seen is 'Kashmir to India, FATA to Afghanistan, Baluchistan independent and rest is Pakistan'.

Quote

The point is that a break up of Pak would help Pakistanis and the region. If for some reason things go bad for a particular state, it can still be contained as mentioned. The chances of that "IF" happening are less

Breaking up Pakistan doesn't help the region anymore than breaking up India helps the region. Your idea of containing a state is ridiculous, since states that have less to lose, are harder to contain. Making Sindh & Punjab independent of each other, helps neither. Sindh needs the transit revenue for Punjab, Punjab needs the sea-access through Sindh. They lose more than they gain by being separate.

Quote
 

Good to know that you consider Pak Punjab remaining land locked as something that could create further havoc. But for me it is not an issue which cannot be addressed through agreements such as NAFTA 

Then you have no clue as to the increased costs and struggles for land-locked nations seeking sea access. Unless you can integrate defense, police & policy to create open borders, like the US-Canada border or even more, the Shengen zone, landlocked nations are always f*cked over in trade due to lacking sea access. And if you are going to integrate so much, might as well have one nation.

 

Quote

Islamic Terrorism is not necessarily related to being economically backward. IS has access to oil. AQ was funded by oil money. People in Europe carrying out attack are not necessarily economically backward. In fact, OBL came from a Saudi billionaire family

Utterly false. Islamic terrorism is fundamentally driven by poverty. This is why the bulk majority of the Jihadis are Pakistanis, Afghans, Uzbeks, Tunisians, Syrians, etc. All very poor nations/poor peoples. It doesnt matter where the money comes from, it matters where it is going. And its going to radicalize the poor, bored and angry youth of these poor nations. And yes, bulk majority of the recent Islamic terrorism in Europe is done by poor people. 

Quote

A break up signals that an Islamic country is willing to break up rather than being forced to support such ideologies and be ruled by military that is more focused on creating trouble with its neighbors

A breakup of Pakistan into balochistan, Pakistan, return of Kashmir to India and FATA to Afghanistan is a positive move, i agree. Any further breakup is a step backwards and a negative move.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

As i said, i've not seen one credible proposal about breaking up Pakistan that involves an independent Sindh & Punjab. Most I've seen is 'Kashmir to India, FATA to Afghanistan, Baluchistan independent and rest is Pakistan'.

Breaking up Pakistan doesn't help the region anymore than breaking up India helps the region. Your idea of containing a state is ridiculous, since states that have less to lose, are harder to contain. Making Sindh & Punjab independent of each other, helps neither. Sindh needs the transit revenue for Punjab, Punjab needs the sea-access through Sindh. They lose more than they gain by being separate.

Then you have no clue as to the increased costs and struggles for land-locked nations seeking sea access. Unless you can integrate defense, police & policy to create open borders, like the US-Canada border or even more, the Shengen zone, landlocked nations are always f*cked over in trade due to lacking sea access. And if you are going to integrate so much, might as well have one nation.

 

Utterly false. Islamic terrorism is fundamentally driven by poverty. This is why the bulk majority of the Jihadis are Pakistanis, Afghans, Uzbeks, Tunisians, Syrians, etc. All very poor nations/poor peoples. It doesnt matter where the money comes from, it matters where it is going. And its going to radicalize the poor, bored and angry youth of these poor nations. And yes, bulk majority of the recent Islamic terrorism in Europe is done by poor people. 

A breakup of Pakistan into balochistan, Pakistan, return of Kashmir to India and FATA to Afghanistan is a positive move, i agree. Any further breakup is a step backwards and a negative move.

 

You are repeating yourself but anyways in short:

 

* You could try reading Ind defense reviews where you will find articles on this subject 

 

*  If everything were about economics, countries such as Pak would have been more focused on development and growth rather than turn in to the epicenter for terrorism. If both prospective countries - Sindh and Pak Punjab are so dependent up on each other, they will work together. If you agree with FATA joining AFG, then it would appear as if you have no problem with AFG and FATA being land locked 

 

* I disagree that terrorism is fundamentally driven by poverty. Already gave a few examples, one more is rich Saudis flying planes in to the Twin Towers. Another one is Pakistani origin couple shooting people in California .... Recently, there was debate in Ind about people being inspired by Zakir Naik to conduct terrorist activities .... It appears as if because many of the terrorists come from developing Islamic countries, you may be correlating terrorism with poverty. IF people are blowing themselves up for just money, then someone would be paying a lot of money for that. A poor person cannot afford to launch / finance such projects (and that to at a global level) .... Tomorrow, you would say people join Military for money only because they are bored and have nothing better to do 

 

The article in Sunday Express - What is Terrorism? tires to understand terrorism. Such discussions show that terrorism is a complex subject and something that cannot be explained by simple concepts such as poverty 

 

Let agree on the benefits of the break-up of Pakistan in to a) FATA to AFG, b) Balochistan and c) POK to Ind. If Sindh and Punjab want to stay together, I will have no problems. But note that Sindudesh concept is promoted by many in Sindh themselves 

 

 

Edited by rett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, rett said:

You are repeating yourself but anyways in short:

 

* You could try reading Ind defense reviews where you will find articles on this subject 

Well, if you mean stuff like BRF, yes, i do follow it. Nobody considers it a feasible or desirable solution to completely dismember Pakistan. Not unless you want to do a modern day version of Great wall of China around our borders to them. And they may just as easily unite again and then the wall would be a very good propaganda tool to perpetuate hatred. 

Quote

*  If everything were about economics, countries such as Pak would have been more focused on development and growth rather than turn in to the epicenter for terrorism. If both countries - Sindh and Pak Punjab are so dependent up on each other, they will work together. If you agree with FATA joining AFG, then it would appear as if you have no problem with AFG and FATA being land locked 

Pedantry. Not everything is about economics, obviously. However, definitively worsening the economic scenario of a hotbed of recruitment is not going to help the situation. Please don't use this as a contraposition argument of 'well, then lookie-loo, what the rich muslim nations are doing', either. All i am trying to say, is that out of nearly 200 million nearly radicalized Muslims, making them poorer than they already are, without affecting much societerial change, will do nothing more than make the already hot 'hotbed' of terrorism go hotter. Not a desirable product. 

Quote

* I disagree that terrorism is fundamentally driven by poverty. Already gave a few examples, one more is rich Saudis flying planes in to the Twin Towers. Another one is Pakistani origin couple shooting people in California.  Recently, there was debate in Ind about people being inspired by Zakir Naik to conduct terrorist activities. It appears as if because many of the terrorists come from developing Islamic countries, you may be correlating terrorism with poverty. IF people are blowing themselves up for just money, then someone would be paying a lot of money for that. A poor person cannot afford launch such projects. Tomorrow, you would say people join Military for money only because they are bored and have nothing better to do 

 

The article in Sunday Express - What is Terrorism? tires to understand terrorism. Such discussions show that terrorism is a complex subject and something that cannot be explained by simple concepts such as poverty 

 

Let agree to agree on the benefits of the break-up of Pakistan in to a) FATA to AFG, b) Balochistan and c) POK to Ind. If Sindh and Punjab stay together, I have no problems. But Sindudesh concept is promoted by many in Sindh themselves 

It depends on what you mean by the word 'driven'. If you mean as driven = 'pouring money & giving executive help' towards fomenting terrorism, sure. I don't mean the word 'driven' in that sense. i mean it in the engineering sense. As in 'driven = fuel'. Ie, who are the 'meat being thrown into the grinders', to put it bluntly. Those are all the poor radicalized Muslims. Look it up if you ever wish- most of the composition of Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, LeT 'ground troops/suicidebombers/on-site logistics' are Uzbeks, Pakistanis, Afghans, Tunisians, etc. - these 4 make up the top 5. They are all poor AND large Islamic population (except for Afghans, but well, they've been at perpetual war for nearly 40 years now, so they are just poor and easily brainwashed into jihadism). 

Given that Pakistan itself is a big giant mess, completely dismembering it will not provide greater security to the region. 

It will make it poorer & it will provide further recruits towards jihadism. Like i said, unless you want to 'wall India away', it will never, ever work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Well, if you mean stuff like BRF, yes, i do follow it. Nobody considers it a feasible or desirable solution to completely dismember Pakistan. Not unless you want to do a modern day version of Great wall of China around our borders to them. And they may just as easily unite again and then the wall would be a very good propaganda tool to perpetuate hatred. 

Pedantry. Not everything is about economics, obviously. However, definitively worsening the economic scenario of a hotbed of recruitment is not going to help the situation. Please don't use this as a contraposition argument of 'well, then lookie-loo, what the rich muslim nations are doing', either. All i am trying to say, is that out of nearly 200 million nearly radicalized Muslims, making them poorer than they already are, without affecting much societerial change, will do nothing more than make the already hot 'hotbed' of terrorism go hotter. Not a desirable product. 

It depends on what you mean by the word 'driven'. If you mean as driven = 'pouring money & giving executive help' towards fomenting terrorism, sure. I don't mean the word 'driven' in that sense. i mean it in the engineering sense. As in 'driven = fuel'. Ie, who are the 'meat being thrown into the grinders', to put it bluntly. Those are all the poor radicalized Muslims. Look it up if you ever wish- most of the composition of Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, LeT 'ground troops/suicidebombers/on-site logistics' are Uzbeks, Pakistanis, Afghans, Tunisians, etc. - these 4 make up the top 5. They are all poor AND large Islamic population (except for Afghans, but well, they've been at perpetual war for nearly 40 years now, so they are just poor and easily brainwashed into jihadism). 

Given that Pakistan itself is a big giant mess, completely dismembering it will not provide greater security to the region. 

It will make it poorer & it will provide further recruits towards jihadism. Like i said, unless you want to 'wall India away', it will never, ever work. 

I meant IDR

 

Rest of your post is merely repeating what you said earlier and my response to that was - " .... It appears as if because many of the terrorists come from developing Islamic countries, you may be correlating terrorism with poverty ...."

 

PS Here is another good insight from IDR - Dhaka attacks and fallouts on India

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by rett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rett said:

I meant IDR

 

Rest of your post is merely repeating what you said earlier and my response to that was - " .... It appears as if because many of the terrorists come from developing Islamic countries, you may be correlating terrorism with poverty ...."

 

PS Here is another good insight from IDR - Dhaka attacks and fallouts on India

 

 

I do not correlate terrorism with poverty, i go one step further: there is categoric, empiric evidence that amongst tens of thousands of jihadis milling about the globe today, the overwhelming majority of them, come from poor, impoverished backgrounds. 

 

If anyone really thinks that a poor angry muslim is a bigger risk of taking direct radical action than a rich angry muslim, then i am sorry, their opinion is fatally flawed at the basics of human nature & cause & effect. 


The basic principle of terrorism at play for the last 30 years, has been rich muslim ideologues pouring money, training and religious drivel on poor, impoverished people & children or people severely affected by war and turning those into their foot soldiers. 


To make them poorer by dismemberment, is a categoric situation of 'making things worse' and classic of 'chop off your nose to spite your face' syndrome. 

There is a stark and sobering distinction between rendering an Enemy toothless and ripping apart an enemy's lands and letting it fester right next door to one's home. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I do not correlate terrorism with poverty, i go one step further: there is categoric, empiric evidence that amongst tens of thousands of jihadis milling about the globe today, the overwhelming majority of them, come from poor, impoverished backgrounds. 
 

That is because you are focused on 4-5 developing countries. When considering PPP, they may not be that "poor"

 

May be the below would help you to see this from a different perspective:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by rett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, rett said:

That is because you are focused on 4-5 developing countries. When considering PPP, they may not be that "poor"

 

May be the below would help you to see this from a different perspective:

 

 

 

 

I am focussing on not a few countries, i am focussing on the net demographic of the jihadis. What does it matter, if those tens of thousands come form one nation, five or seven ? What matters, is a huge majority of them come from poor backgrounds. 


Talking about a few statistical exception scenarios won't change the fact that the profiles of 90%+ terrorists in the world today come from lower middle class or poor background BY THEIR OWN NATION's standards.


PS: I don't care about statistical surveys. Poor people are uneducated, so they like/disike things more intensely and blindly. It doesn't change the FACT that a huge majority of the actual terrorists themselves, are from poor backgrounds. 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I am focussing on not a few countries, i am focussing on the net demographic of the jihadis. What does it matter, if those tens of thousands come form one nation, five or seven ? What matters, is a huge majority of them come from poor backgrounds. 


Talking about a few statistical exception scenarios won't change the fact that the profiles of 90%+ terrorists in the world today come from lower middle class or poor background BY THEIR OWN NATION's standards.

You are missing the forest for the trees .... Care to explain how did you come to the conclusion that 90%+ terrorists in the world come from humble backgrounds? .... FYI, we don't even know who all the terrorists in the world are. There are even sleeper cells. There are divisions that support the foot soldiers 

 

In a traditional organization, the number of laborers, plant workers, etc. > the number of people in senior management. But where secrecy is required that may not always be the case

 

Anyways, here is a list of terror attacks in 2015 - List - Can you also tell me the demographics of the terrorists?

 


 

 

 

Edited by rett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rett said:

You are missing the forest for the trees .... Care to explain how did you come to the conclusion that 90%+ terrorists in the world come from humble backgrounds .... FYI, we don't even know who all the terrorists in the world are. There are even sleeper cells. There are divisions that support the foot soldiers 

 

In a traditional organization, the number of laborers, plant workers, etc. > the number of people in senior management. But where secrecy is required that may not be the case. In terrorist organizations, the number of people in senior management could be > foot soldiers 

 

Anyways, here is a list of terror attacks in 2015 - List - Can you tell me the demographics of the terrorists?

 


 

 

 

We are going by ones that have been identified, from the lists of the wanted, KIA, MIA in various roles around the world. The overwhelming majority of them are poor, semi-educated people. Take the ones in France or Germany or the legions of LeT for example. US has lots of intel on ISIS and have already ID-ed thousands of them. 

 

In any organization, labor is bigger than the management. You have no reason to think that whether secrecy is required or not, the structure of an organization changes.

The overwhelming majority of the incidents, where perpetrators have been identified, they themselves are from humble backgrounds. 

As has been noted in many, many articles posted in this forum itself, the criminal masterminds are not sending their children to carry Jihad, its the children of the poor, illiterates they are doing it to, under the guise of financial & temporal support.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

We are going by ones that have been identified, from the lists of the wanted, KIA, MIA in various roles around the world. The overwhelming majority of them are poor, semi-educated people. Take the ones in France or Germany or the legions of LeT for example. US has lots of intel on ISIS and have already ID-ed thousands of them. 

In any organization, labor is bigger than the management. You have no reason to think that whether secrecy is required or not, the structure of an organization changes.

The overwhelming majority of the incidents, where perpetrators have been identified, they themselves are from humble backgrounds. 

As has been noted in many, many articles posted in this forum itself, the criminal masterminds are not sending their children to carry Jihad, its the children of the poor, illiterates they are doing it to, under the guise of financial & temporal support.

 

By posting the above you are in fact suggesting that there is no correlation b/w poverty and terrorism which is contrary to the point that you are trying to make 

 

Let me explain - People look for financial support because they expect to carry on with their lives and dreams. By killing themselves up despite the support, they are doing the opposite of what they are rationally expected to do. This shows that there is more than money that is in play 

 

If you believe that labor is bigger than management in any organization, the poor being more in numbers in as terrorist foot soldiers is merely the application of how the demographics work 

 

Putting the two together,

a) if a person from a humble background is primarily seeking financial support, he would more likely chose to be a laborer for example. By choosing to be a terrorist, there are more factors in play that impacted his decision

b) that you think that there are more people from humble background as terrorist foot solders is merely the application of the law of demographics / income tier. In a terrorist organization, they are supposed to do the labor work. As shown by point a, it does not show correlation b/w poverty and terrorism 

 

And this is what many of the studies (which you chose to ignore) support, i.e. there is no concrete evidence that poverty is the root cause for terrorism 

 

PS  LINK - the below also disapproves with your theory but you could continue to chose to ignore it 

 

Quote

 

But empirical studies suggest that poverty and inequality aren’t behind terror attacks. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Alan Krueger, the Princeton economist and future Obama administration official,examined databases of terror attacks to identify trends among the participants. Surprisingly, he found most were well-educated and not poor.

 
 
 

 

A quick summary:

 
 
 

 

  • Studies of lynchings in the United States from 1882 to 1938 show no correlation between economic conditions and where these crimes occurred; contemporary studies of hate crimes in the United States and Germany show no correlation between violence against minorities and economic conditions
  • A study of Hezbollah fighters in the 1980s and 1990s found that they were likely to be wealthier and better educated than the general Shi’a population of Lebanon at the time.
  • An analysis of Palestinian terror attacks in Israel and the West Bank between 1987 and 2002 found that the poverty rate among suicide bombers was half that of the general population (15% versus 30%) and they were far more educated than average. A study of Israeli terrorists active in the 1970s and ’80s found that they, too, were wealthier and better educated than their peers.
  • Finally, Krueger and his co-author assembled a data set of major terrorist attacks from 1997 to 2001, and found no correlation between poor economic performance and terrorism: “Once one accounts for the fact that poorer countries are less likely to have basic civil liberties, there is no difference in the number of terrorists springing from the poorest or the richest countries.”

Later studies confirmed these effects: A 2006 study (pdf) using a broader time range also found that poor countries did not produce more terrorists. By 2007, Krueger had also looked at 311 foreign combatants captured by the US in Iraq, and concluded “that countries with a higher GDP per capita were actually more likely to have their citizens involved in the insurgency than were poorer countries.”

Anecdotally, this lines up with what we know about the Paris attacks, which appear to have been perpetrated largely by radicalized European citizens. Two conspirators in the Paris attacks owned a bar, while the alleged planner’s family appears to be middle class, owning a clothing store and a home in Belgium. And the mechanism of radicalization for many terrorists—traveling to the Middle East to fight alongside armed groups like the Taliban, Al Qaeda in Iraq, or today ISIL—demands funds that would be beyond the reach of the truly impoverished.

 
 
 

 

This seems to confirm what Krueger has written: “Most terrorists are not so desperately poor that they have nothing to live for. Instead, they are people who care so fervently about a cause that they are willing to die for it.”

 
 
 

 

It’s possible, of course, that the dynamics of terror are evolving. Organizations like ISIL blur the lines between terrorist groups and insurgent movements; ISIL’s foot soldiers in Syria and Iraq may be motivated differently than its terror operatives. But the data we have suggests that in blaming terrorism on inequality, Piketty has the mechanism wrong.

 
 
 

 

However, we can still draw one connection between Piketty’s arguments and the data about terrorists. He notes that Middle East economies with high inequality are typically the semi-or-outright authoritarian regimes backed by the West, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the Gulf States.

 
 
 

 

Inequality is a very real factor in these corrupt countries, but so too are crackdowns on civil liberties and political participation. The studies cited here find that terrorism has a significantly tighter correlation to states without functioning political processes (due mainly to dictators or political collapse) than to poverty. The linkages Piketty sees between terrorists and Western foreign policy in the Middle East may very well exist, not just because it has led to economic disparities but because it has contributed to the political dysfunction that appears to drive radicalization.

 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by rett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Finer said:

It is hard to have debate since you deem Balochistan as illegal occupied while the irony is lost on you regarding Indian Occupied Kashmir? So-called resistances have already surrendered to Pakistan army which they never stood a chance since majority are still support Pakistan which you don't see in your Indian medias. Balochistan is legal province of Pakistan unlike Indian Occupied Kashmir which is disputed territory. I can understand this is coming from you especially considering the investments of full-fledged proxy war on Balochistan is backfiring.

I don't know what is taught in Pakistan, but these two issues are different: 

 

  • Baluchistan  

"Balochistan was divided between four princely states under the British Raj. Three of these, Makran, Las Bela and Kharan joined with Pakistan in 1947 after independence.[45] The Khan of Kalat, Ahmad Yar Khan, declared Kalat's independence as this was one of the options given to all of the 535 princely states by British Prime Minister Clement Attlee.[46]

Muhammad Ali Jinnah pressured Yar Khan to accept Pakistani rule but the Khan stalled for time. Out of patience, on 27 March 1948, Pakistan formally annexed Kalat.[47] In April, the military invaded, conquering the territory in a month.[48] Yar Khan signed a treaty of accession, submitting to the federal government. His younger brothers, Princes Agha Abdul Karim Baloch and Muhammad Rahim, refused to lay down arms, leading the Dosht-e Jhalawan in unconventional attacks on the army until 1950.[49] Jinnah and his successors allowed Yar Khan to retain his title until the province's dissolution in 1955."

 

  • Kashmir

When Kashmir was deciding on its future, Pak invaded it too making the decision easier for Kashmir to acceded to Ind. Ind went to UN because of the Kashmiri land occupied by Pak

 

"The (UN) resolution recommended that in order to ensure the impartiality of the plebiscite Pakistan withdraw all tribesmen and nationals who entered the region for the purpose of fighting and that India leave only the minimum number of troops needed to keep civil order. The Commission was also to send as many observers into the region as it deemed necessary to ensure the provisions of the resolution were enacted. Pakistan ignored the UN mandate, did not withdraw its troops and claimed the withdrawal of Indian forces was a prerequisite as per this resolution.[5]Indian claim is that Subsequently Pakistan refused to implement the plebiscite until India accedes to it and continued holding on to the portion of Kashmir under its control.[6][7]

The resolution was adopted paragraph by paragraph; no vote on the resolution as a whole was taken.

  • In November 2010 the United Nations has removed Jammu and Kashmir from its list of disputed territories.[8][9][10][11]
  • In a major setback to Pakistan’s efforts to internationalise the Kashmir issue, the United Nations has excluded Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) from its list of unresolved international disputes under the observation of the UN Security Council (UNSC). Pakistan's acting envoy in the UN, Amjad Hussain Sial, has lodged a strong protest, while Indian authorities welcomed the decision. [12][13][14]"

 

So either Pak has to come out of its own world or someone will bring Pak out of it sooner or later 

 

 

 

Quote

As for CPEC, i will leave the future to judge since future is unknown to us. As for now, it is hypothetically scenario taking probable factors into account like the geopolitical, diplomatic relationship, and cost of ground/sea routes. As for now, CPEC is hope not just for Pakistan but for Balochistan as well putting foreign-funded proxy-war to the rest once and for all. It all will work it out one at a time.

Link .... I don't think Pak can decide if CPEC helps Baluchistan by not including all its stakeholders in the decision making process, keeping the terms of the deals in secret (iirc) and diverting much of the route through Punjab 

 

 

POK representatives have appealed to world community to take action against CPEC:

 

 

 

Therefore, if Pakistan even hope to debate, first it will have to get the facts correct and not come to the table with what is propagated or perceived to be true in Pak 

 

 

PS 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by rett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2016 at 10:04 AM, rkt.india said:

Lot bhai Kashmir ki stone pelters association ka fatwa..

 

Girls riding scooties will be burnt alive says Stone Pelters of Association of‪#‎Kashmir‬. Poster appears in Lalchowk."

 

ConK-7KWgAAaVcH.jpg

Im not saying this cannot happen but particularly for this image: Do you have some 4-6 yr old kid at home? ask him/her whether this "Poster" real or fake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2016 at 6:43 PM, Muloghonto said:

Asim, where are you ? Or do you not have the integrity to respond to my question ???

Bro after reading opinion of u guys regarding actual topic of this thread, its a bit difficult for me to seriously follow and respond after noticing almost all of you strongly believe that:

Every stone some Kashmiri throw on indian army is Paid... by Pakistan...

Edited by Asim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...