Jump to content

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


Asim

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

Look, if you want a peaceful solution the stronger party always has to compromise and discuss with the weaker party. You have to compromise and talk rather than be obstinate and kill children.

Ind has been easy with Pak on POK. Has Ind raised Kashmir issue? Has Ind built terrorist camps in J&K? Has Ind changed the demographics of the region by driving out non Islamic citizens? Has Ind allowed to settle people of other states in Kashmir? Pak has impacted the local population in POK which includes Gilgit-Balistan? Is Ind using nuclear threats? Did Ind start Operation Gibraltar in 1965?

 

Ind actually went to UN instead of driving Pak out of its terrolitory. 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

Radhika, our courts are an ass if they can justify killing of 12 year olds by armed forces. Even if I assume that young children are being put in front of protests, there is absolutely no justification to shoot them for pelting stones, even if they did. 

 

 

If the courts or the forces wanted to kill.....they would use bullets.

The use of pellets is a defensive action. Sometimes pellets kill, just like stones.

I think we should be angry at the cowards who put these children in front to throw stones at armed security personal .We should be upset at the parents.

...........................................................................

Please don't use the word 'hijda ' as an abuse.

It is not their fault they are born that way. .....They are just different from most of us .

The community is working so hard to get respect in our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zen said:

Ind has been easy with Pak on POK. Has Ind raised Kashmir issue? Has Ind built terrorist camps in J&K? Has Ind changed the demographics of the region by driving out non Islamic citizens? Has Ind allowed to settle people of other states in Kashmir? Pak has impacted the local population in POK which includes Gilgit-Balistan? Is Ind using nuclear threats? Did Ind start Operation Gibraltar in 196

Arre chaman, Pakistan is tangential to today's Kashmir issue. If your Sanghi brain is able to assimilate that statement you will realize how futile your post is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

Forget about 12 year olds, they've killed 5 year olds as well. Which gangs and rapes are they capable of running?

Why are five year olds coming for stone throwing protests? Who gets them?Why are these people not being criticized?Why is no one talking about the rights of these kids to be away from stone throwing protests? How do security forces do their job if soft target are always being put between them and the terrorists/supporters?This is not new...this has been happening for ages.

Why expect the security forces to put their lives or mission  in danger for the kids when there own parents and relative /well wishers are ready to put them in the line of fire with stones in their hand. 

Cry for the kids but first blame the people who are putting them in danger in the first place.

 

As for my comment ,I was writing in general that not all twelve year olds are innocent.The papers everyday have some news of 'minors'  doing horrible things and getting away because they are still the 'innocent age'. The poor victims of these minor criminals can never even get justice.

Sorry for the digression.

Edited by radhika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, radhika said:

I am writing in general that not all twelve year olds are innocent.The papers everyday have some news of 'minors'  doing horrible things and getting away because they are still the 'innocent age'. The poor victims of these minor criminals can never even get justice.

Sorry for the digression.

But do you believe that 5 year olds who have been murdered by us are capable of any crime, violent or not? What's the difference between us and terrorists if we go down the path of justifying such atrocities. My son is almost 4 - if I tell him to pelt a stone at someone and he obliges will you justify armed forces killing him because I told him to throw a stone? These are our children, our nation's children who we've murdered in cold blood under AFSPA. Zara Socho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

Arre chaman, Pakistan is tangential to today's Kashmir issue. If your Sanghi brain is able to assimilate that statement you will realize how futile your post is.

If taking up Ind's  cause and standing

up for secularism is being Sanghi, I would rather be that than an apologist for Islamic extremism against whom fight is on in almost every continent (not just in Ind). Tell me in how many continents, the fight against Hindu extremism is on? 

 

And Akal ke Dushman, there have been reports about money being funded through Italy to Hurriyat. Aisha Andrabi  or whatever her name is reached out to Hafiz Saeed. So these 12 years old are an instrument of foreign enemy. So if your idea is that foreign enemy can use 12 years old to attack Ind's army and Ind Army has to treat them as 12 years olds, you should get your head checked (and you have it in you to call the army names) 

 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

But do you believe that 5 year olds who have been murdered by us are capable of any crime, violent or not? What's the difference between us and terrorists if we go down the path of justifying such atrocities. My son is almost 4 - if I tell him to pelt a stone at someone and he obliges will you justify armed forces killing him because I told him to throw a stone? These are our children, our nation's children who we've murdered in cold blood under AFSPA. Zara Socho.

I have a six year old .If some one took my six year old to a protest or put her in any danger....I would not be siding with the cowards...I would be asking the security forces to shoot down the bastards who put her in danger.

 

If I put her in danger myself...what right do I have to cry .The parents/caretakers of those five year olds are criminals .

It is indeed really sad when innocent people get caught in the criminal acts of the adults.

 

Do you really believe that our armed forces take aim at a five year old and shoot? What do they achieve? ...they can just pick up the five year old if he comes in front of them.Hurting children gets them nothing but bad press and accusations. 

 

Who benefits from something like this...the forces or the terrorists?So who is really hurting them? 

 

These terrorist supporters get a few children and put them in danger .When they get hurt or killed ,they use these kids to malign India and it's forces.People like you make it easier for them to use these children because you refuse to get angry at people who are using these children in their terror war.

Edited by radhika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zen said:

If taking up Ind's  cause and standing

up for secularism is bring Sanghi, I would rather be that than an apologist for Islamic extremism against whom fight is on in almost every continent (not just in Ind). Tell me in how many continents, the fight against Hindu extremism is on? 

 

And Akal ke Dushman, there have been reports about money being funded through Italy to Hurriyat. Aisha Andrabi  or whatever her name is reached out to Hafiz Saeed. So these 12 years old are an instrument of foreign enemy. So if your idea is that foreign enemy can use 12 years old to attack Ind's army and Ind Army has to treat them as 12 years olds, you should get your head checked 

 

 

India doesn't have a cause or justification of any kind as long as it's indulging in a mass slaughter we are witnessing in Kashmir today. India's stance on Kashmir has weight under Nehru and Abdullah senior who were committed to self determination and democracy despite recognizing the perils of Pakistan. 

 

Today, India is morally bankrupt on Kashmir by shooting children. Chhappan kya ek sau barah inch can't hide the bullets we are letting loose on our children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, radhika said:

I have a six year old .If some one took my six year old to a protest or put her in any danger....I would not be siding with the cowards...I would be asking the security forces to shoot down the bastards who put her in danger.

 

If I put her in danger myself...what right do I have to cry .The parents/caretakers of those five year olds are criminals .

It is indeed really sad when innocent people get caught in the criminal acts of the adults.

 

Do you really believe that our armed forces take aim at a five year old and shoot? What do they achieve? ...they can just pick up the five year old if he comes in front of them.Hurting children gets them nothing but bad press and accusations. 

Who benefits from something like this...the forces or the terrorists?So who is really hurting them? 

I'll cease and desist. Both of us have young ones, but you feel it's the state's right to kill them if I asked them to pelt some stones and I don't. 

 

State should be accommodating and not confrontational. Otherwise, what's the difference between us and terrorists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Outsider said:

India doesn't have a cause or justification of any kind as long as it's indulging in a mass slaughter we are witnessing in Kashmir today. India's stance on Kashmir has weight under Nehru and Abdullah senior who were committed to self determination and democracy despite recognizing the perils of Pakistan. 

 

Today, India is morally bankrupt on Kashmir by shooting children. Chhappan kya ek sau barah inch can't hide the bullets we are letting loose on our children.

Ofcourse India has justification. Perhaps you are one of the rare Indians who never passed civics class in high school. Or a Pakistani masquerading as Indian. 

As per mass slaughter- the police, the army and all other security forces are authorized, by our constitution, to enforce the law by whatever means necessary. And if people turn against the state, then mass slaughter will happen to the guilty parties. 

 

There is nothing morally bankrupt about the incidents in Kashmir. It is morally bankrupt to argue that no harm should befall you, even when you are committing illegal acts. So its people like you who are morally bankrupt. 


As per Nehru and Abdullah- they are the REASON Kashmir is such a mess, because they were more interested in Gandhi-style image building than doing their jobs, aka being Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers of the state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

India doesn't have a cause or justification of any kind as long as it's indulging in a mass slaughter we are witnessing in Kashmir today. India's stance on Kashmir has weight under Nehru and Abdullah senior who were committed to self determination and democracy despite recognizing the perils of Pakistan. 

 

Today, India is morally bankrupt on Kashmir by shooting children. Chhappan kya ek sau barah inch can't hide the bullets we are letting loose on our children.

There is no mass slaughter. How many ppl do you think Ind killed in Kashmir? How many ppl have been living in the camps due to these Pak backed Islamic extremists who want to create a theocratic state? 

 

Are children of Kashmiri pandits not ours? Did these Kashmir pandits wage war on their Islamic  brothers and sisters?

 

Do you know the first condition of the UN Resolution? Does the removal of pandits not appear to be a violation of UN Resolution? Did Pak not settle Punjabi in POK? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

Look, if you want a peaceful solution the stronger party always has to compromise and discuss with the weaker party. You have to compromise and talk rather than be obstinate and kill children.

Wanting peaceful solution and having peaceful solutions are two separate things.

Your precious Nehru saw to it that there is no peaceful solution to Kashmir when he ran to the UN to get ceasefire, instead of Indian army finishing the job and liberating 100% of Kashmir from Pakistani occupation. 


As long as a foreign occupying power is illegally present in our sovereign lands, there CANNOT be a peaceful & legal solution to the rest of the state. That much, should be obvious.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

I'll cease and desist. Both of us have young ones, but you feel it's the state's right to kill them if I asked them to pelt some stones and I don't. 

 

State should be accommodating and not confrontational. Otherwise, what's the difference between us and terrorists?

Cease and desist from what...from trying to control terrorism ,from trying to save innocent Indians who would be their target. Do you expect the forces to step back every time? It is not a war zone where you only fight adults.How do the forces stop these terrorists if every time they take action,a child or a woman is involved by them.

 

The difference is that the terrorists and their supporters are using some kids to stop the security forces from catching and stopping them......while the security forces are trying to stop these terrorists from killing innocent Indians...some of whom are children too. 

 

How are these people different from the terrorists/militia who use children as soldiers?

Edited by radhika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

Haha! Sanghis with garbage and personal attacks have infested the thread. Time to abandon and be ready to be called coward, weak, and some more colorful language.

 

Perhaps these guys can start by reading what sovereignty means!

Answer the questions. Like the Islamic extremists you apologize for, so far it is you who has been shouting accusations/abuses on one hand, and now acting as a victim on the other 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

What you are advocating is mass genocide against own population .

When citizens refuse to obey the law, they are no longer protected against the state. You cannot simply overturn the law because it is unpopular and because tens of thousands protested against it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

Haha! Sanghis with garbage and personal attacks have infested the thread. Time to abandon and be ready to be called coward, weak, and some more colorful language.

 

Perhaps these guys can start by reading what sovereignty means!

Perhaps you should try passing grade 9 civics first. Sovereignty is the right that CAN BE accorded to a state. Sovereignty does not apply to individuals or people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...