jairamesh Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Beheading enemies at time of war on native soil cannot and never can be compared with beheading enemies on foreign soil in a state of peace. As usual, Pakistanis miss the point/shift goalposts to obfuscate the issue. As such, we have examples of wartime conduct with peacetime conduct, which Pakistanis cannot seem to differentiate between. beat me to it
panther Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Okay, even IF it happened, it was during a state of war between two nations. Worse things have happened during war. Ask your paki soldiers about 1971, responsible for one of the worst crimes against humanity by a foreign army in modern times. What the Paki soldiers did last week was not under the pretext of war. I don't support what the pak army did to Bangladesh, I don't even support the pak army especially after they got involved in the war on terror. The average soldier is being used by the corrupt generals at the top.
jairamesh Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 The first paragraph does not indicate a time of peace. either way no one has seen the Indian soldier head or the Pakistanis' date= all speculation, except the Indian media gave it significant coverage. ?? What are you insinuating, that currently Pakistan is at war with India?:hmmm:
panther Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 ?? What are you insinuating' date=' that currently Pakistan is at war with India?:hmmm:[/quote'] I meant it does indicate a time of peace.
Muloghonto Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 The first paragraph does not indicate a time of peace. either way no one has seen the Indian soldier head or the Pakistanis' date=' all speculation, except the Indian media gave it significant coverage.[/quote'] No one has seen Osama's dead body either. Does that mean he is not dead ? I am sorry but our military has to prove nothing to us or you guys. They've been loyal, following orders to a T, professional and as such, if they state vehemently that 'x' happened, i am prepared to take them at a far greater face value than claims of the Pak military, which adheres to no code of conduct except 'goondagardi' and has no loyalty to anyone but itself. The first paragraph, about the hulabaloo of Indian soldier beheaded is most categorically during peacetime. currently India-Pakistan are not at war- officially or unofficially and therefore, the two examples ( current Paki beheading indians and Indians beheading Pakis during kargil) are incomparable.
seedhi Posted January 20, 2013 Author Posted January 20, 2013 I understand there is quite a bit of support in Indian community to boycott Pakistan in cricket. However, can someone please explain the logic of it to me ? If i understand currently, Pakistan is being boycotted by all nations as far as visiting them goes & as such, they are starved of cricket. Therefore, if we play Pakistan, we must play them at home or neutral venues. In such a scenario, its BCCI holding the lion's share of the revenue rights, our networks boosting their ratings, our players getting lakhs and lakhs fo money & what is PCB employees getting out of the deal ? a 25% cut of the money, player salaries that are 1/5th ours, etc ? So then, the bottomline of India vs Pakistan in India/Neutral venue = India, BCCI, Indian cricketers getting rich, Pakistan hardly making a dime. So, if we were to interact with our enemy in such a fashion, we make money, they do not. So i don't get it- why should be shun them, again ?! Think of it this way- if someone comes to you and tells you ' yaar, we have a plan. it involves you and your arch enemy. However, both of you will do the same job, i will pay you 100 bucks, i will pay him 10 bucks. Deal?'. What would your answer be ?If the other person has a clear, stated intention of using those 10 bucks to buy a gun and shoot my family, then I would tell him to ***** off. Otherwise, I will be responsible for allowing the death of my family. For a 100 bucks more, I am not going to arm a murderous terrorist.
jairamesh Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 I meant it does indicate a time of peace. okay, then Musharaf towed the line (and I believe still does) that his soldiers were never involved in Kargil war, claiming to be Kashmiri militants. This disgraced ex-general even refused to accept the bodies of his dead soldiers. So if Pakistan Army is towing the line that they were never involved in Kargil and it was Kashmiri militants, then why all of sudden claim now the involvement of Pakistani soldiers and these beheadings during Kargil war.
Muloghonto Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 If the other person has a clear' date=' stated intention of using those 10 bucks to buy a gun and shoot my family, then I would tell him to ***** off. Otherwise, I will be responsible for allowing the death of my family. For a 100 bucks more, I am not going to arm a murderous terrorist.[/quote'] Then i'd blame you for being a fool, if your enemy can arm himself with 10 bucks and you cannot arm yourself with 100 bucks. The point is, to get into a venture with your enemy that nets you 10x more capital in return. With your 10x more capital, you can match whatever your enemy is doing and then go buy a car, house and arrange your daughter's wedding. Absolute amount of money is largely irrelevant, as money is never static or of the same value. What matters, is relative wealth. If you are getting relatively richer than your enemy, that is what matters.
KeyboardWarrior Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 No one has seen Osama's dead body either. Does that mean he is not dead ? Sorry OFF TOPIC but , Osama bin ladin killed 2 times more before, according to USA.
jairamesh Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Sorry OFF TOPIC but ' date=' Osama bin ladin killed 2 times more before, according to USA.[/quote'] Is this What Pakistan government claims?
panther Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 okay, then Musharaf towed the line (and I believe still does) that his soldiers were never involved in Kargil war, claiming to be Kashmiri militants. This disgraced ex-general even refused to accept the bodies of his dead soldiers. So if Pakistan Army is towing the line that they were never involved in Kargil and it was Kashmiri militants, then why all of sudden claim now the involvement of Pakistani soldiers and these beheadings during Kargil war. I don't know too much about the kargil war but didn't pak army admit it a couple years later that they were involved?
Muloghonto Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Sorry OFF TOPIC but ' date=' Osama bin ladin killed 2 times more before, according to USA.[/quote'] Err no. The prior two times, it was media speculation, stemming from statements from low level Pentagon officials that could've been interpreted either way. This was the only time the US president has come on Tv and said 'we've got him'. There is a big difference. I am sorry, but i see no reason why i cannot take the Indian military's statement at face value and rank their credibility inherently higher than that of the Pakistanis. Our military, like most civilized military, has had a long and distinguished record of integrity. Pakistani military on the other hand, has no loyalty to anyone but itself, it cannot even get the basics right of being loyal to the constitution. The same nation where 10 years ago your President issued a statement saying that Kargil was all about Kashmiri 'freedom fighters', not PAK military and 10 years later, is talking about PAK army regulars being beheaded in kargil. So tell us, why would anyone put the Indian military and the Paki military on the same level of credibility. What has the Paki military done to get any credibility in their claims in their history of existence ?!
Muloghonto Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 No concrete proof all 2nd hand information. There is hardly ever a concrete proof in any military claims. Does that mean military claims are all baseless ? I am sorry, but i asked a straight-up question to the Pakistani members of the forum here: on what basis do they suggest that Paki military can have equal credibility as Indian military ? Look at it this way- in a case of rape, when its all about 'he said, no she said', how are the decisions reached in the event of lack of witnesses ? By pitting the credibility of the accused and the accuser to the jury. In several cases, where the accused has questionable integrity and the accuser is far cleaner in comparison, it is 'guilty' verdict. In cases where there are equal credibility, with no witnesses, the situation defaults to 'innocent until proven guilty' and case dismissed. In cases where the accuser has very little credibility vs the defendant ( eg: the high profile French boss of IMF vs the lying whoring Peurto Rican cleaning lady), the cases are dismissed outright. Translating that to this situation, this is a matter of he says and she says. Since Indian military establishment has orders of magnitude greater credibility, by default the verdict swings in their favour.
KeyboardWarrior Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Is this What Pakistan government claims? they never showed his dead body to any other country , not only pakistan. they gave evidence to pakistan and other countries that he was Osama bin ladin. like they gave evidence that IRAQ had W.M.D. to every country. they are Super Powers and they can claim anything they want. and nobody ask them , not even the so called UN.
jairamesh Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 they never showed his dead body to any other country , not only pakistan. they gave evidence to pakistan and other countries that he was Osama bin ladin. like they gave evidence that IRAQ had W.M.D. to every country. they are Super Powers and they can claim anything they want. and nobody ask them , not even the so called UN. So why ISI and Pakistan gov put Dr Afridi in jail.
Muloghonto Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 they never showed his dead body to any other country , not only pakistan. they gave evidence to pakistan and other countries that he was Osama bin ladin. like they gave evidence that IRAQ had W.M.D. to every country. they are Super Powers and they can claim anything they want. and nobody ask them , not even the so called UN. They did not want to display Bin Laden, as it would be disrespectful to Islamic code of conduct (where the body has to be buried in 48 hrs or so) or make a grave that can be the beacon of terrorism to the extremists of the most violent and depraved religion ever conceived by mankind(Islam) but they obviously said they collected enough DNA evidence to prove their claims, as well as claims by Osama's wives that he's dead. If there was any doubt, you'd think that atleast someone from the Bin Laden family would've asked for more evidence, as people are inherently reluctant to accept the death of a family member without certainty.
seedhi Posted January 20, 2013 Author Posted January 20, 2013 Then i'd blame you for being a fool, if your enemy can arm himself with 10 bucks and you cannot arm yourself with 100 bucks. The point is, to get into a venture with your enemy that nets you 10x more capital in return. With your 10x more capital, you can match whatever your enemy is doing and then go buy a car, house and arrange your daughter's wedding. Absolute amount of money is largely irrelevant, as money is never static or of the same value. What matters, is relative wealth. If you are getting relatively richer than your enemy, that is what matters.Point is that I have other sources of earning the same amount of money, than dealing with my enemy. In the case of India-pakistan, the mutual trade is a tiny fraction of what India trades with the rest of the world. On the other hand pakistan stands to gain much more relatively. Take for example the Mumbai 26/11 attacks, it cost pakistan an extremely tiny amount of resources to inflict an enormous damage to India. They lost 10 expendable lives, we lost 160+, not to mention hundreds of crores worth of material damage. Or take the 1993 Mumbai blasts - Dawood Ibramim in collaboration with the ISI used only some amount of RDX to cause an incomparably more amount of damage - over 200 lives lost, BSE, Airport and other places bombed. Therefore, with those 10 bucks my enemy can cause more damage than what 100 or even 1000 bucks cannot repair.
KeyboardWarrior Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 So why ISI and Pakistan gov put Dr Afridi in jail. Maybe becoz of his true or false information the foriegn navy seals operate in pakistan . wether it was Osama or Not.
Crookbond Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 So why ISI and Pakistan gov put Dr Afridi in jail. If he keeps on scoring ducks after ducks, what else can the government do to a 16-year old? :dontknow: I think he should be allowed to play T20s though.
Recommended Posts