It seems that you win this battle on the grounds on interpretation of the facts. Yes I did make some errors, however you believe too much of what you read in the media in our beloved US. I'd urge you to read non-bias sources (or as close as you can get to them). Just because some guy with a Pakistani or Indian sounding name says that Pakistan is breaching the line doesn't mean its _just_ Pakistan. I found it amusing that you chose not to address the problems of why Pakistan was created in the first place. Then when you say that the Maharaja signed to become a part of India, you totally miss the point. The Maharaja had close ties to India from the beginning, why wouldn't he side with India? He was a dictator ruling over people that didn't want his rule. Another point you miss about Kashmir is that the people their don't want India ruling them. THEY WANT FREEDOM. Yet the world tells them to sit down and shut up.
Let me apply this situation to our own situation in the 1700s. What if France hadn't helped us against Britian? We would probably have lot the war and still be British citizens. Now the Kashmiris are fighting the Indian army. They are out gunned, out manned, out trained. They asked Pakistan for help. Just like we asked France for help against Britian. How would you feel today if France had sanctions put against it by Spain? You'd think it was absurd because people should have the right to choose their own destiny and if a large enough population wants freedom, then they should get it. Am I wrong here? If you say yes, then you are a hypocrite and don't deserve to live in the US. If you say no, then your arguments are irrelavent. Your choice.
I'd like to see how much of what the Indian muslims want their government to do gets done. India is democratic only if your Hindu. Much like the US during the Civil Rights years. Blacks had the right to vote, but if they did, KKK type groups would come and get them. Or there were so many obsticles (like the Poll tax) that the poor Blacks couldn't vote. Please, I'd ask you to tour India and PROVE me wrong. Muslims are second class citizens in India too worried about how they'll find their next meal, India doesn't have much to worry about. Latly, if India is so open to religions, then why is the government funding a campaign to drive out catholics? Please explain. We have see reports about 6 churches being destoryed and christians being persecuted, please explain why India is doing this? I thought they were a democratic state?
About the PR, you are very wrong here. We see the Indian point of view in the news here. I don't care if they set up an office in DC and lobby from their, all they need to do is make some ridiculous claims on their national news, and our media jumps at every attempt to defame Pakistan. Tell me, why aren't CNN and CNBC reporting the human rights abuses that some of the biggest HR organization in the world are complaining about? Is HR just a thing our country adds on to sway the public when another country is disliked like China? Please explain.
I disgree with your statements on the Muslims of East Pakistan being abused by West Pakistan. It sounds like more FUD to me. Please provide reliable un-biased sources. I'd like to see them. You want my sources, I can give you a phone book of East Pakistan, you can call whoever you please.
SAARC... that's a whole 'nother article.
BTW, about the third-world banding together, I think it'll happen sooner than your prediction. I give our beloved US another 5 decades at most if our current foreign policy strategy continues. All it'll take is a little push from the Euro, the EU getting stronger in trade and FP, and us pissing off another country or two sitting on the security council.
Is this an absolutely off-the-cuff remark, or is/. a forum for political discourse? Pakistani armed forces crossed the ``Line of Control''(LoC) that was demarcated in a bilateral treaty in 1972. The Indian army was defending Indian territory. They went out of their way to prevent the conflict from spreading by not targeting supply depots or crossing over to the Pakistani side of the LoC. The answer to the rhetorical question is that there is no easy way to end conflicts. Responsible influential nations would do well to nudge adversaries towards talks, and back their words with even-handed action. The rise of Islamic militancy in central Asia can be linked almost directly to the US funding and supplying of the Taliban in Afghanistan. With that war over, many of the militants have had to turn elsewhere to continue their way of life. Many have turned back to bite the hand that once fed them. There are moral, military, political and social lessons in the United States' history of foreign policy interventions. Perhaps someone will learn them some day.
You mentioned in the above paragraphs that you don't really believe that any country can be trusted on the non-proliferation of nuclear arms, and I agree with that. However, in the above two paragraphs, your comments turn to a different stance that I don't agree with. I am in college majoring in political science and during last quarter (summer), our professor challenged the class to provide some sort of proof of wrong doing on one side or the other. We were required to use both U.S. and international outlets of news and were also required to interview people who have ties to the region. In our research we came up with some startling information. What we see on television here isn't completely correct. It seems like India is winning the propoganda war and that's all it takes to win a war in our modern era. Our research found that even though we were told that India and Pakistan had stopped fighting and withdrawn their forces, but it wasn't the case. Pakistani Mujahidins, civilians fighting for the principle of freedom, were stuck. They could either stay and fight and die, or leave and be killed from behind. India kept telling the world that they had widthdrawn and everything was fine. It wasn't, those poor people had no where to go, so they decided to stay and die fighting rather than retreating. Now, I want you to understand that our class has 80 students in it and we had to provide hard evidence of what we uncovered. Unfortunately, I can't point you to a URL with digitized camcorder video showing this situation, but it is heart wrenching to hear people calling for their mothers after being attacked on both sides. For you to say that the LOC was breached in 1972 and implying that is was breached at no other time is conveying misinformation but the fact that you are leaving out important details. Throughout India and Pakistan's history, we have observed that most political confrontations are started by India, but Pakistan then responds in turn. India makes a big deal out of it and we find the world bearing down on Pakistan. Don't get me wrong again, the Pakistani government has problems of its own where it doesn't represent what the people would like to see down. India is no different in this respect. Has anyone asked the question why Pakistan was created from India? Well, since no news agency will mention this today I'll talk about it breifly. India was about 60-40 hindu and the minority being muslims. The problem was thay when the elections would come up, Hindu pro-nationalists would get elected and those politicians were hell-bent on driving out the Muslims. The Muslims should have fled to another country or should have smartened up and joined the politial arena. They did do this, and Muslims/future Pakistanis wanted their own country in which they wouldn't be deprived of their basic human rights. India massacred the soon-to-be pakistanis in the serparation. However, justice pre-vailed and Pakistan was created. Since then, India has done eveything it could to destroy Pakisan and reintegrate the land. Every heard of Bombay? Or East Pakistan? Pakistan was originally split on both sides of India. One side bordered with Afghanistan, and the other contained Bombay. India made sure that that East pakistan wouldn't succeed because it was smaller and easier to influence the people through propoganda. East Pakistan later reintegrated with India, and we see every year during the floods hundreds dying, yet do you hear of India helping out those people? Absolutely not, India doesn't send any aid, and checks the religious offiliation before even raising an eyebrow. Those people are being punished like this. Anyway, this latest tension between India and Pakistan is no different. Our conclusions were basically that India is stirring the muck at the bottom of the pot. The US and Europe support India because of its trade potential. For evey 1 PC they sell in Pakistan they sell 10 in India because the population in India is 10x larger. Secondly, and our catholic professor agreed, Pakistan is a Muslim/Islamic country. We see in today's world that the old enemy of Communism has been replaced with Islam. No one cares to read about the religion, we just all sit here and buy into the propoganda. It was an eye opener when we looked at headlines regarding this. Oklahoma City bombings were initally blamed on "Arabs seen running from the scene". Luckily for muslims in this country, the culprit was a "regular joe american". We are people need to realize that the conflict occuring in that region and many other places on this planet have been created by our own government to make sure we the citizens prevail. I know it is sick, but it has always been the way of the country/people in charge to secure their futures. Lastly, your comment on the Taliban is not true. The US isn't funding them, because they are promoting a different way of life. If you'd like to read a couple reports on what is truely happening their, I'll try to dig up a project we did in Pol Sci 160. There is a lesson in our foreign policy: no other country should follow it. I honestly believe we are making more enemies than friends. I don't want to see the "3rd-world" countries banding together to overthrow the "bosses". It'll make the life of my children misrable, and I can't afford that.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that you win this battle on the grounds on interpretation of the facts. Yes I did make some errors, however you believe too much of what you read in the media in our beloved US. I'd urge you to read non-bias sources (or as close as you can get to them). Just because some guy with a Pakistani or Indian sounding name says that Pakistan is breaching the line doesn't mean its _just_ Pakistan. I found it amusing that you chose not to address the problems of why Pakistan was created in the first place. Then when you say that the Maharaja signed to become a part of India, you totally miss the point. The Maharaja had close ties to India from the beginning, why wouldn't he side with India? He was a dictator ruling over people that didn't want his rule. Another point you miss about Kashmir is that the people their don't want India ruling them. THEY WANT FREEDOM. Yet the world tells them to sit down and shut up.
Let me apply this situation to our own situation in the 1700s. What if France hadn't helped us against Britian? We would probably have lot the war and still be British citizens. Now the Kashmiris are fighting the Indian army. They are out gunned, out manned, out trained. They asked Pakistan for help. Just like we asked France for help against Britian. How would you feel today if France had sanctions put against it by Spain? You'd think it was absurd because people should have the right to choose their own destiny and if a large enough population wants freedom, then they should get it. Am I wrong here? If you say yes, then you are a hypocrite and don't deserve to live in the US. If you say no, then your arguments are irrelavent. Your choice.
I'd like to see how much of what the Indian muslims want their government to do gets done. India is democratic only if your Hindu. Much like the US during the Civil Rights years. Blacks had the right to vote, but if they did, KKK type groups would come and get them. Or there were so many obsticles (like the Poll tax) that the poor Blacks couldn't vote. Please, I'd ask you to tour India and PROVE me wrong. Muslims are second class citizens in India too worried about how they'll find their next meal, India doesn't have much to worry about. Latly, if India is so open to religions, then why is the government funding a campaign to drive out catholics? Please explain. We have see reports about 6 churches being destoryed and christians being persecuted, please explain why India is doing this? I thought they were a democratic state?
About the PR, you are very wrong here. We see the Indian point of view in the news here. I don't care if they set up an office in DC and lobby from their, all they need to do is make some ridiculous claims on their national news, and our media jumps at every attempt to defame Pakistan. Tell me, why aren't CNN and CNBC reporting the human rights abuses that some of the biggest HR organization in the world are complaining about? Is HR just a thing our country adds on to sway the public when another country is disliked like China? Please explain.
I disgree with your statements on the Muslims of East Pakistan being abused by West Pakistan. It sounds like more FUD to me. Please provide reliable un-biased sources. I'd like to see them. You want my sources, I can give you a phone book of East Pakistan, you can call whoever you please.
SAARC... that's a whole 'nother article.
BTW, about the third-world banding together, I think it'll happen sooner than your prediction. I give our beloved US another 5 decades at most if our current foreign policy strategy continues. All it'll take is a little push from the Euro, the EU getting stronger in trade and FP, and us pissing off another country or two sitting on the security council.
Cheers...
- Is this an absolutely off-the-cuff remark, or is
/. a forum for political discourse? Pakistani armed forces crossed the ``Line of Control''(LoC) that was demarcated in a bilateral treaty in 1972. The Indian army was defending Indian territory. They went out of their way to prevent the conflict from spreading by not targeting supply depots or crossing over to the Pakistani side of the LoC. The answer to the rhetorical question is that there is no easy way to end conflicts. Responsible influential nations would do well to nudge adversaries towards talks, and back their words with even-handed action. The rise of Islamic militancy in central Asia can be linked almost directly to the US funding and supplying of the Taliban in Afghanistan. With that war over, many of the militants have had to turn elsewhere to continue their way of life. Many have turned back to bite the hand that once fed them. There are moral, military, political and social lessons in the United States' history of foreign policy interventions. Perhaps someone will learn them some day.
You mentioned in the above paragraphs that you don't really believe that any country can be trusted on the non-proliferation of nuclear arms, and I agree with that. However, in the above two paragraphs, your comments turn to a different stance that I don't agree with. I am in college majoring in political science and during last quarter (summer), our professor challenged the class to provide some sort of proof of wrong doing on one side or the other. We were required to use both U.S. and international outlets of news and were also required to interview people who have ties to the region. In our research we came up with some startling information. What we see on television here isn't completely correct. It seems like India is winning the propoganda war and that's all it takes to win a war in our modern era. Our research found that even though we were told that India and Pakistan had stopped fighting and withdrawn their forces, but it wasn't the case. Pakistani Mujahidins, civilians fighting for the principle of freedom, were stuck. They could either stay and fight and die, or leave and be killed from behind. India kept telling the world that they had widthdrawn and everything was fine. It wasn't, those poor people had no where to go, so they decided to stay and die fighting rather than retreating. Now, I want you to understand that our class has 80 students in it and we had to provide hard evidence of what we uncovered. Unfortunately, I can't point you to a URL with digitized camcorder video showing this situation, but it is heart wrenching to hear people calling for their mothers after being attacked on both sides. For you to say that the LOC was breached in 1972 and implying that is was breached at no other time is conveying misinformation but the fact that you are leaving out important details. Throughout India and Pakistan's history, we have observed that most political confrontations are started by India, but Pakistan then responds in turn. India makes a big deal out of it and we find the world bearing down on Pakistan. Don't get me wrong again, the Pakistani government has problems of its own where it doesn't represent what the people would like to see down. India is no different in this respect. Has anyone asked the question why Pakistan was created from India? Well, since no news agency will mention this today I'll talk about it breifly. India was about 60-40 hindu and the minority being muslims. The problem was thay when the elections would come up, Hindu pro-nationalists would get elected and those politicians were hell-bent on driving out the Muslims. The Muslims should have fled to another country or should have smartened up and joined the politial arena. They did do this, and Muslims/future Pakistanis wanted their own country in which they wouldn't be deprived of their basic human rights. India massacred the soon-to-be pakistanis in the serparation. However, justice pre-vailed and Pakistan was created. Since then, India has done eveything it could to destroy Pakisan and reintegrate the land. Every heard of Bombay? Or East Pakistan? Pakistan was originally split on both sides of India. One side bordered with Afghanistan, and the other contained Bombay. India made sure that that East pakistan wouldn't succeed because it was smaller and easier to influence the people through propoganda. East Pakistan later reintegrated with India, and we see every year during the floods hundreds dying, yet do you hear of India helping out those people? Absolutely not, India doesn't send any aid, and checks the religious offiliation before even raising an eyebrow. Those people are being punished like this. Anyway, this latest tension between India and Pakistan is no different. Our conclusions were basically that India is stirring the muck at the bottom of the pot. The US and Europe support India because of its trade potential. For evey 1 PC they sell in Pakistan they sell 10 in India because the population in India is 10x larger. Secondly, and our catholic professor agreed, Pakistan is a Muslim/Islamic country. We see in today's world that the old enemy of Communism has been replaced with Islam. No one cares to read about the religion, we just all sit here and buy into the propoganda. It was an eye opener when we looked at headlines regarding this. Oklahoma City bombings were initally blamed on "Arabs seen running from the scene". Luckily for muslims in this country, the culprit was a "regular joe american". We are people need to realize that the conflict occuring in that region and many other places on this planet have been created by our own government to make sure we the citizens prevail. I know it is sick, but it has always been the way of the country/people in charge to secure their futures. Lastly, your comment on the Taliban is not true. The US isn't funding them, because they are promoting a different way of life. If you'd like to read a couple reports on what is truely happening their, I'll try to dig up a project we did in Pol Sci 160. There is a lesson in our foreign policy: no other country should follow it. I honestly believe we are making more enemies than friends. I don't want to see the "3rd-world" countries banding together to overthrow the "bosses". It'll make the life of my children misrable, and I can't afford that.