Desi Cartman Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Wikipedia as a source. Lol!!!! No that was to remind you why we have special love for Pakis ...
Guest Gunner Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 Don't worry' date=' [b']talibanisation is a disgusting thing that has happened, it is being and will be finished, don't you worry. I don't agree Kashmir valley should go back to dark ages. This statement is inherently wrong. You either do not understand what Wahhabism has manage to accomplish in South Asia or you don't care to admit it. I would really like to talk about the impact of Wahabbism on sufism, secular Islam and the culture of south asia, I am just not sure whether the mods will appreciate it.
Macj Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 Be that as it may, but the Kashmiri ummah should be cognizant of this fact, Balochistan is energy rich has abundant natural resources but is treated like a pariah. Imagine how Kashmir will be treated if it were to become a Pakistani entity no resources no educated populace nothing, with the Taliban lurking around the corner dont even expect tourism to take hold look at what happened to Bajaur so called Switzerland of Asia!
THX_1138 Posted June 27, 2009 Posted June 27, 2009 according to CIA (i'm citing wikipedia sources) 95% of Kashmiri pundits left their land and possessions during early 90s...why is there no outcry?? These separatists who cry for freedom by motivating the youth with fables about Indian army oppression never denounce the condition of Kashmiri pundits and what happen to them during 90s...why this bias? Are pundits not part of Kashmir? are you slow or what? the kashmir issue has little to do with representation, exploitation of local resources, or even an inadequate developmental aide from the center. the whole kashmir issue is about religion. clear as that. unlike other secessionist movements, where exploitation of the local resources by an unpopular central government which is not representative of the region, one example of such a struggle would be norther iraq and southern turkey in what could be identified as "kurdistan"... this kashmir issue arose from the singular issue of religion. therefore, there has never been any outcry over the lost possessions or displacement of the kashmiri pandits. heck, they were either forced out or were motivated to leave by the actions of these separatists. in fact, i suggest that instead of separatists, a better identification for them would be fundamentalists, for their actions and demands are not motivated by a desire for democracy (last i checked, they wanted to instill the umah and the calif and the whole nine yards that mecca and medina stuff...), its religion that gets them going.
THX_1138 Posted June 27, 2009 Posted June 27, 2009 So has been Pakistan sponsored so called Kashmiri freedom struggle for Muslims of Kashmir no, but its one of the agendas... as the kashmiri fundamentalists grew more excessively violent and drifted more to the right (if that was ever possible), like every other fundamentalist movement that does not seem to be nearing its objectives or has found itself in a stalemate of sorts, their rhetoric advances (compensating for the lack of any material advances). thus, they have ratcheted up their 'objective': from a 'free' (and i can only use that term rather sparingly) kashmir, to an islamic state of india under the influence of the the calif or whoever that is supposedly the supreme authority in islam.
yoda Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Religion is before the country for these guys. And this attitude isn't just tied to those in Srinagar, we have such elements throughout the country. Sad, but true.
THX_1138 Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Religion is before the country for these guys. And this attitude isn't just tied to those in Srinagar' date=' we have such elements throughout the country. Sad, but true.[/quote'] we have people on both sides of the fence for that matter. for every mullah, there is a fundamentalist hindu in the ranks. but one must look beyond these trivial lines of religion and nationality. why must we suffer from the legacy of colonialism?
gs Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Which should take higher prority - religion or nationality? Seems like a chicken and egg problem.
THX_1138 Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Which should take higher prority - religion or nationality? Seems like a chicken and egg problem. good question... i suggest: neither. if we can dissolve the institution of religion and personal faith and the whole mumbo jumbo of a supernatural entity, we might, arguably lead more fulfilling lives. furthermore, the boundaries of nations are extremely arbitrary and outside europe, they are all relics of a colonial past. for instance, i just finished adam hochschild's "king leopold's ghosts" and its about the oppressive belgian colonization of what is contemporary democratic republic of congo (erstwhile zaire). the borders of those nations, that are not along tribal lines, or even linguistic or racial lines, have led to considerable grief as a minority finds itself disconnected with a land where it forms the majority, and a closed border prevents an exodus. iran, iraq, turkey... their borders are another example. the kurds, deserving of their own country have been spread over three nations, incidentally oppressed in each! there are countless examples. is nepal really distinct from india? or does the northeast really connect to the rest of the indian state? the worst case of national borders is arguably haiti. a mere 100 miles off the coast of united states, very similar in ethnic composition to african americans who trace their roots to their time of slavery... and yet they are born into poverty and doomed to the same, whereas 100 miles north, one can experience considerably many more opportunities!
hassan_113 Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Interesting from THX_1138...I enjoyed reading your posts. I believe it is high time that Pakistan as a nation, we clear out ALL militants- whether it be the lot in the North West or those in Kashmir. I for one believe that if this happens, it will be good for Pakistan, India and the whole world.
King Tendulkar Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 I believe it is high time that Pakistan as a nation, we clear out ALL militants- whether it be the lot in the North West or those in Kashmir. I for one believe that if this happens, it will be good for Pakistan, India and the whole world. Jeez talk about stating the obvious. Next you will tell us the earth is round! The question is why can't your fellow paks(both people and state) understand what you have rightly said?
Texy Posted July 1, 2009 Author Posted July 1, 2009 we have people on both sides of the fence for that matter. for every mullah' date= there is a fundamentalist hindu in the ranks. but one must look beyond these trivial lines of religion and nationality. why must we suffer from the legacy of colonialism? worst comparison I have seen from you here on ICF(your bias bs is above par)....if the above statement was true then pakistan and bangladesh would suffer worse terrorist acts than India as Hindus in that region out number the muslims.
Texy Posted July 1, 2009 Author Posted July 1, 2009 are you slow or what? the kashmir issue has little to do with representation, exploitation of local resources, or even an inadequate developmental aide from the center. the whole kashmir issue is about religion. clear as that. unlike other secessionist movements, where exploitation of the local resources by an unpopular central government which is not representative of the region, one example of such a struggle would be norther iraq and southern turkey in what could be identified as "kurdistan"... this kashmir issue arose from the singular issue of religion. therefore, there has never been any outcry over the lost possessions or displacement of the kashmiri pandits. heck, they were either forced out or were motivated to leave by the actions of these separatists. in fact, i suggest that instead of separatists, a better identification for them would be fundamentalists, for their actions and demands are not motivated by a desire for democracy (last i checked, they wanted to instill the umah and the calif and the whole nine yards that mecca and medina stuff...), its religion that gets them going. thank you sherlock...we had no idea...before you stroll in here with your wikipedia info.
MUMBAISKIPPER Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 yes kashmiris celebrated when pakistan won but they were threatened by pakistani terrorists and were at gun point. By the way,Kashmir is an integral part of India and will remain so forever.
Texy Posted July 1, 2009 Author Posted July 1, 2009 yes kashmiris celebrated when pakistan won but they were threatened by pakistani terrorists and were at gun point. By the way,Kashmir is an integral part of India and will remain so forever. don't write that.... THX will go berserk on you...will quote you random paragraphs to compensate for his lack of IQ
King Tendulkar Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 worst comparison I have seen from you here on ICF(your bias bs is above par)....if the above statement was true then pakistan and bangladesh would suffer worse terrorist acts than India as Hindus in that region out number the muslims. So true. THX with an idiotic PC post!
Macj Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 So true. THX with an idiotic PC post! PC is one part of it, another is the 'argument of proportion' clause. What is so ironic is whenever Muslims claim to be victims they invariably point to the massacre of Muslims during the Crusades, an event that happened 900years ago.They have to go back almost a millenium to show an example of Christian massacre of Muslims. When its about Hindus, its the Godhra carnage, try bringing up the fact that Hindus died in the thousands before that or during the Mughals, or during the Islamic conquest of the Deccan or the Islamic conquest of Sind or the Islamic conquest of the Central Indian plateau and you'll see them brush it off and bring something else up like Ayodhya. The fact is ONLY since independence has there been Hindu retaliation, before that Hindus have been ONLY victims of Islamic aggression. This PC prodding bullcrap is the death knell of our country, and those peddling it are ABCDs or liberal transplants like the person you alluded to who have never been raised in India or havent lived there in years.
Macj Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 we have people on both sides of the fence for that matter. for every mullah' date= there is a fundamentalist hindu in the ranks. but one must look beyond these trivial lines of religion and nationality. why must we suffer from the legacy of colonialism? Not true , there is an abject lack of a sense of proportion in your statement. You dont see even the craziest nationalist Hindu nutjobs whipping a woman or decapitating a man or chopping a persons hand off for stealing in the name of Hinduism. Religion and nationality gives us a sense of identity, it's the core concept of what India is, you may not like it , you may call it 'trivial' but doesnt mean it doesnt define our nation.
Recommended Posts