Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

[CC1981]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

I encourage anyone who is wronged to seek justice- hindus' date=' muslims or otherwise. [/quote'] Nope... thats just your facade .... I have dug beneath that quite few times in past only to see - Run-Hide-Convert-Die as your idea of justice .

Justice has nothing to do with retalitatory killing of innocents.

[CC1981]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

so the question of targetting innocents doesnt even arise.

We are talking about murder of innocent muslims in Gujrat. That is no less heinous and saddening than the KP situation in Kashmir.

And I have provided facts and figures to proove that there were not many innocent Kashmiri muslims who considered themselves Indians

Unless you can prove that Mr. X is anti-Indian and pro-fundie muslims, you cannot just look at 'general trend' and then prosecute a person based on a general trend.

[CC1981]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

How do you know they were innocent or not ?

The same way we know that KPs or those that burnt down in the train were innocent. You cannot question someone's innocence simply based on what religion they follow. And the justice system grants innocent until proven guilty as default. Which is why if there is a crime you have to identify the criminals and not just start killing people based on religion.

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

Ahaa so the usual pedantics have started to appear ehhh

We are talking about murder of innocent muslims in Gujrat.

How do you know they were innocent or not ?

How do you know that they aren't. Come on Bheem , you can't advocate death of innocent muslims. If these 2000 muslims are the prepetautors of the train massacre , you have a point , otherwise you don't.

[CC1981]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

Do you really think all those Kashmiris who actively participated in booting out a large community of 300K KPs are really a minority ?

Yes. Known as terrorists across the border with few collaborators inside.

No one in the right mind thinks they are Indians let alone innocent

Sorry...you should say 'no one who isnt a hinduvta fanatic bigot........'

And you insist on a court trial for that community that is 5 million strong on a individual basis as a means of justice for the KPs ?

Yes...because that is the only solution. Would love to hear what your solution would be though. It is not that i think my solution to be perfect, merely to be best suited for the circumstance. I just dont know what would be a better way of dealing with the KP problem. PS: You can talk to me anytime in msn. dont like talking over email- makes it too tedious.

[CC1981]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

You cant drive 300K people with help of few terrorists and "Few" colloboraters WHILE no less an entity than the Indian Army is deployed to prevent that from happening.

I think you can. Guerilla tactics like this has worked in several places before with a small support base and a focussed target.

And I guess all the KPs that ran away were also Hindu bigots because they told what they saw but you dont like it ?

I think anyone who generalizes about any segment of society carte blanche in religious terms is a bigot. So yes, if a KP says that about all kashmiri muslims in general, then i think they are being bigoted. Same way if anyone generalized about India in negetive terms.

Says who? And we have the means and the resources to do that ?

Okay well like i said, state what your solution would be. I can't remember ever hearing your solution to the problem, so i am curious.

[yoda]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

I think anyone who generalizes about any segment of society carte blanche in religious terms is a bigot. So yes, if a KP says that about all kashmiri muslims in general, then i think they are being bigoted. Same way if anyone generalized about India in negetive terms.

What about one who generalizes about all the population of a country (like the US for example) based on his own experiences with a few (or even many)?

[dial_100]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002 Jab taq, hum yeh nahi sochte ke, jo bhi mare, mera apnaa he hoga, kuch nahi badalega. Boss, jo galati bure log kare, jaruri to nahi woh hum bhi kare. I give up cuz debate se kuchh nahi hal hoga... Galtiya manane see hi usse sudhara jaa sakta hai... naki usse justify karne se... No lecture meant but I certainly want to insist that there is a whole lot, in fact everything, when we try to go beyond, this religion, country, family, wife and job and kacharaa..Get over this religion thing. good luck guys :wtg: :wtg: :wtg:

[CC1981]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

Such as ... ?

CONTRA. ie, US sponsored terrorism. More examples exists.

There is no easy solution to this nonsense

Okay well do you have a solution ? For if you don't, then all this chat over the years is pointless.

[CC1981]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

Not even close to a apples to apples comparison in scale or the parties involved .... Nicaraguan Army is like what a few Battalions of Indian Army ? and then you have the other party .. i.e US which again is incomparable to Pak in our case ... and there is no involvment of Religious ideologies either ..

The issue hinges not on whether religious ideologies are involved but whether a very small group of well armed foreign back insurgents can categorically target a section of the society despite government military backup for whatever reason XYZ. For some it may be religion, for some it may be paisa, whatever. And yes, CONTRA is comparable, only that the american backed terrorists and government forces of Nicaragua were at a smaller scale than Pak-backed insurgents and Indian army. But the main fundamental equation is identical. 2:4 is the same deal as 4:8 or 3:6. US supplied them with small-arms fire, which is what Pakistan does with the terrorists and thus the overall strength of the 'backing foreign nation' is irrelevant because there are dozens and dozens of countries who are just as good as anybody when it comes to small weaponries. And don't see how US is incomparable- if anything, they are worse than PAK when it comes to sponsoring terrorism, particularly during the cold war era. Don't see why the biggest sponsor of terrorism historically(US) should be left out of the equation. The bottomline is that you cannot absolutely secure a country's borders (not even Israel's borders are absolutely secure) and if a group of well armed insurgents keep slipping through and targetting a particular community, there is nothing a conventional army can do about it. That is practically guerilla warfare101. Unless you post military at every single street and have the entire border zone patrolled by army personnel (each and every valley, ridge, ravine, etc), people will slip through and once they are in, they can choose to target any group they want - hindus, muslims, buddhists, christians or kashmiris,bengalis, gujjus, etc. Ie, in short, it is unfeasable. All these statements from Indian army chiefs etc. are basically smokescreen because they cannot admit the bottomline : the army is powerless to completely stop terrorism from cross-border insurgents.

Ergo there is not enuff intent seen to even look for a solution with the intersts of KPs at the top

I am not asking about a solution from the society. I am asking what YOUR solution is/would be. All this hyperventilating about this issue is pointless if you don't have a proposed solution.

however (hypothetically speaking) replace our leadership with say a US/Jewish/Any Western "type" Leadership .... the haramis will be booted out fatafat

So basically you want us to follow the genocidal, anti-human rights and downright slavery-oriented Israeli army model. And by following the Israeli model, the first thing we should do is get a genocider and terrorist who bombs hotels ( Menachim Begin) as our Prime Minister. Got any candidates ? We need to find some hindu zealot who goes around poisoning wells in muslim villages, evicting muslims from homes at gunpoint and bombs hotels with foreign and domestic civillians living in it if we are to follow Israel's example. And 'any' western style leadership apart from the US is a softie solution that you so loathe. Even the british ended up accomodating IRA, which is nothing more than a British version of HAMAS. So if we were to follow the British model ( just picking one of your 'any western type leadership' example) we should be negotiating with the LeT. I also don't see how an American/Israeli style government would be better equipped with identifying these haraamis. Given America/Israel's track record, they'll just assume all muslims = haramis and then victimise innocents. If India starts emulating Israel, India too would be an enemy of humanity and i'd oppose the government.

[CC1981]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

Nope. Indian Army is a much more bigger and professional modern army with one of the largest budgets .. whereas the Nicarguan army is well a bunch of rag-tag mercenaries in comparison.

And the CONTRA were a much smaller group that were easily identifiable than the Jihadi terrorists in Kashmir. So they are very much the same comparison because both the antagonist and protagonist are in identical but smaller roles. Also, Indian army is not as professional as you think. We are strong on paper but our troop-treatment, morale, etc. sucks because of mismanagement and scandals upon scandals with BOFORS style ghaaplaas.

Do our guys have the balls to try even that ..... and Nail Pak in the UN .. ?

Well India has always tried to keep this issue OUTSIDE of the UN. I dunno why and it doesn't make much sense. But that is not my position. I think India has a good case for Kashmir but longer it waits, weaker its position is going to become. India somehow needs to firmly establish its claim to Kashmir in world eyes - which it has not. And after that happens, give incentive for immigration into kashmir. Kashmir problem will only be solved by immigration to Kashmir from rest of India. But if immigration is encouraged, care should be given that there are Indians from all walks of life going there, not just some fundie mullahs from bihar or UP or bengal going there.

When the other party is not a signatory to Geneva conventions nor has any moral compunctions .... all this "moral" hyperbole goes right out of the window

No it does not. India is a signatory to the GC. It matters not what the other party is doing, India must respect the GC. Benchmarks in morality is independent of what the other party is doing. If we just kept sliding our moral compass based on what other party is doing, we'd be no better than them.

are they even human

Yes. I define anyone from our species as human. I dont entertain ANY reason whatsoever to classify a human as less than one because it opens the door for dehumanizing people i dont like for various reasons over time. The fundamental concept of human rights is that there are certain rights that every single human being, without whatsoever exception, is entitled to. And trust me, you don't want to dilute this position because even if you think it does no harm if we let the standard slip in case of terrorists, it will be misused in other spheres of life and most importantly, by the governments once the precedent is set ( a person can be stripped of all rights for a reason).

And exactly where the fack were you and your leftist Jihadi friends when KPs were getting raped killed hunted and driven out ?

I dunno ? I wasn't born then ? :shrug:

do you even understand their Ideologies and how they operate and what they believe in ?

Ofcourse i do. And i've spoken to these 'haraamis' pesonally before. You forget, i lived in the middle east for a while- so i am very well aware on how they think and just what their mentality is. However, my example was a metaphoric one to illustrate how your view on the 'hard western governments' is false because IRA and HAMAS are exactly the same kind of group and UK negotiated with IRA. I agree negotation in the Kashmir issue is not feasable because these terrorists are NOT the same kind as HAMAS or HEZBOLLAH and they are very different types of groups.

Now its a different matter that "you" are more interested in "Dealing Fairly" with Jihadis and probably more worried about their "Human Rights" (are they even human tired ) for obvious reasons ... but yeah spare me your moral lecture.

Actually, i am more malevolent towards the jihadis than you think. In the other thread, i am against death penalty for whatsoever reason but i actually make an exception for terrorism. I have no problems when terrorists are put to death (though i'd prefer they spend a few years in jail before being put to death because in all honesty, there are several who are young and have heard only one side of the story. Their minds can be changed). My only problem is just how good are we in identifying these terrorists and making sure that an innocent muslim is not victimized. I have the same concern about innocent hindus becomming target for fundamentalist hinduvta stuff.

[CC1981]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

Dude you are trying to compare nicaragua with India ... one of the biggest economies with a big fat ass Military (with nuclear weapons) that has won many wars against much larger Haramis and is surrounded by Aggresive neighbours ... Iam not even going to think of considering the Contra situation ... as equivalent to the Kashmir ... you can continue to perform verbal gymnastics but thats the bottomline.

Bottomline is they are comparable. I dunno if you read the acclaimed defence journal called Jane's IG but this comparison is made there by various groups. And India hasnt won a war against a much larger country than itself- we got our arse kicked by China and Pakistan is smaller. The bottomline is, the situation is very much comparable because the CONTRA were a much less organized and smaller group than the jihadis in Kashmir, thus compensating for the weaker Nicaraguan govt. army. Cechnya is another example- the Russian army cannot protect Russians in Cechnya from small group of terrorists targetting them. The bottomline that you refuse to accept is that a small group of insurgents without a timetable can get past any modern army to target the citizenry if it chooses provided it can retreat to foreign ground and lie low there for a while as well as get supplied by the foreign power. That is called guerilla warfare 101. Unless you post army personnel every 10 yards across the entire border, you wont prevent people from crossing in illegally. And unless you are going to post army in every single street of every single city, you cannot protect them against insurgents. That is the bottomline.

most world media outlets have brazenly removed parts of Kashmir from their maps

You mean they recognise LoC as the official boundary? Well that is fine by me since that is essentially how the boundary has been for most of india's independent existance and its pointless to even contest for PoK.

[CC1981]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

it was not as onesided as you think it was even 45 yrs ago ...

India = lost huge territorries. China = lost no territorries. Looks pretty one sided to me. We lost comprehensively to China in that war.

Huh ... last time I checked they got their heads handed to them but for the intervention of the international community ..

If they had their heads handed to them, the situation would be solved and all terrorists would be dead, their strongholds demolished in the mountains,no ? Russia did what Russia does best - killed people by the scores in extrajudicial killings by the military. Only made Chechns more pissed off and the previously neutral or pro-Russian ones started joining the rebels because their loved ones got butchered by Russia.

you can keep your moral "karmic" gains to yourselves that dont save lives or feed people ....

Trying to gain control of PoK back doesnt save any lives or feed people. It only spills more blood.

We got every fackin right to get the last square inch of the Territory that was decided as per Circa 1947 ... That is the difference between how we operate and the rest of the world does ....

Disagree. The fact that PoK has been under Pakistan's control for 50+ years and has been stable in that period makes Pak's position on PoK stronger than India's. It also discounts the fact that most inhabitants of PoK today do not want to join India so we arn't winning PoK back at all. And if we start pitching for PoK, we will weaken our moral argument over rest of Kashmir.

[CC1981]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

And 30 yrs from now you will say the same thing about Kashmir Valley

I think Kashmir valley is untenable position. The border is too close to it to defend it successfully and low rich fertile ground that is crown jewel of Kashmir surrounded by hostiles nearby on higher ground is an untenable position. But no, i don't think this necessarily has to be a case of history repeating itself over and over - we can learn from our mistakes as well as the modus operandi of the enemy to prevent its rise elsewhere.

And BTW a vast majority of current day Kashmiri residents dont consider themselves as Indians ....

If what you are saying is true, then Kashmir shouldn't be a part of India then. If tomorrow the vast majority of Tamils or Bengalis or Gujjus or whatever felt they weren't Indian, i don't see why they should be obligated to stay in Indian union.

[yoda]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

Disagree. The fact that PoK has been under Pakistan's control for 50+ years and has been stable in that period makes Pak's position on PoK stronger than India's. It also discounts the fact that most inhabitants of PoK today do not want to join India so we arn't winning PoK back at all. And if we start pitching for PoK, we will weaken our moral argument over rest of Kashmir.

CC's definition of stability: Ability to create, nurture and grow terrorist cells and send them across the border effectively to kill thousands of innocents. :lmao:

[yoda]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

I kinda missed that gem in the deluge ... many thanks Yods .... :wtg: :lmao:

:hmph:

[dial_100]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

Disagree. The fact that PoK has been under Pakistan's control for 50+ years and has been stable in that period makes Pak's position on PoK stronger than India's. It also discounts the fact that most inhabitants of PoK today do not want to join India so we arn't winning PoK back at all. And if we start pitching for PoK, we will weaken our moral argument over rest of Kashmir.

CC's definition of stability: Ability to create, nurture and grow terrorist cells and send them across the border effectively to kill thousands of innocents. :lmao:

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

Nope. Indian Army is a much more bigger and professional modern army with one of the largest budgets .. whereas the Nicarguan army is well a bunch of rag-tag mercenaries in comparison.

And the CONTRA were a much smaller group that were easily identifiable than the Jihadi terrorists in Kashmir. So they are very much the same comparison because both the antagonist and protagonist are in identical but smaller roles. Also, Indian army is not as professional as you think. We are strong on paper but our troop-treatment, morale, etc. sucks because of mismanagement and scandals upon scandals with BOFORS style ghaaplaas.

Do our guys have the balls to try even that ..... and Nail Pak in the UN .. ?

Well India has always tried to keep this issue OUTSIDE of the UN. I dunno why and it doesn't make much sense. But that is not my position. I think India has a good case for Kashmir but longer it waits, weaker its position is going to become. India somehow needs to firmly establish its claim to Kashmir in world eyes - which it has not. And after that happens, give incentive for immigration into kashmir. Kashmir problem will only be solved by immigration to Kashmir from rest of India. But if immigration is encouraged, care should be given that there are Indians from all walks of life going there, not just some fundie mullahs from bihar or UP or bengal going there.

When the other party is not a signatory to Geneva conventions nor has any moral compunctions .... all this "moral" hyperbole goes right out of the window

No it does not. India is a signatory to the GC. It matters not what the other party is doing, India must respect the GC. Benchmarks in morality is independent of what the other party is doing. If we just kept sliding our moral compass based on what other party is doing, we'd be no better than them.

are they even human

Yes. I define anyone from our species as human. I dont entertain ANY reason whatsoever to classify a human as less than one because it opens the door for dehumanizing people i dont like for various reasons over time. The fundamental concept of human rights is that there are certain rights that every single human being, without whatsoever exception, is entitled to. And trust me, you don't want to dilute this position because even if you think it does no harm if we let the standard slip in case of terrorists, it will be misused in other spheres of life and most importantly, by the governments once the precedent is set ( a person can be stripped of all rights for a reason).

And exactly where the fack were you and your leftist Jihadi friends when KPs were getting raped killed hunted and driven out ?

I dunno ? I wasn't born then ? :shrug:

do you even understand their Ideologies and how they operate and what they believe in ?

Ofcourse i do. And i've spoken to these 'haraamis' pesonally before. You forget, i lived in the middle east for a while- so i am very well aware on how they think and just what their mentality is. However, my example was a metaphoric one to illustrate how your view on the 'hard western governments' is false because IRA and HAMAS are exactly the same kind of group and UK negotiated with IRA. I agree negotation in the Kashmir issue is not feasable because these terrorists are NOT the same kind as HAMAS or HEZBOLLAH and they are very different types of groups.

Now its a different matter that "you" are more interested in "Dealing Fairly" with Jihadis and probably more worried about their "Human Rights" (are they even human tired ) for obvious reasons ... but yeah spare me your moral lecture.

Actually, i am more malevolent towards the jihadis than you think. In the other thread, i am against death penalty for whatsoever reason but i actually make an exception for terrorism. I have no problems when terrorists are put to death (though i'd prefer they spend a few years in jail before being put to death because in all honesty, there are several who are young and have heard only one side of the story. Their minds can be changed). My only problem is just how good are we in identifying these terrorists and making sure that an innocent muslim is not victimized. I have the same concern about innocent hindus becomming target for fundamentalist hinduvta stuff.

Only a psycho will want to implement death penalty . Remember the famous CC equation " Calling for the death of the perpetrator = seeking to gain pleasure from a person's death = psycho. End of story. " What a hypocrite ! :lmao: :lmao:

[CC1981]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002 Err...stating the exception to the rule is not being a hypocrite....sheesh!

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

Err...stating the exception to the rule is not being a hypocrite....sheesh!

According to your equation , it is being Psycho.