Pakistan vs India
-
Here is a good article regarding the current situation. (though some may find it biased) Wars do not decide who is right. Wars decide who is left. Ammar There is a difference in knowing the path and walking the path.
I get an error We're sorry, but you've requested a page we can't supply at present. Is it being surpressed ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
-
I get an error We're sorry, but you've requested a page we can't supply at present. Is it being surpressed ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
what's the matter?i can open it easily! i will paste a few paragraphs: If war does break out between India and Pakistan, it will be an entirely unnecessary and avoidable disaster. There is not the slightest sign that the populations of either countries are clamouring for conflict. Nor is there any real reason for one. None of the "terrorist" incidents of the past few weeks, savage though some have been, warrants an escalation of tension to this level. After all, if India didn't launch retaliatory attacks after its own parliament had been assaulted in Delhi at the beginning of the year, why do so now because some soldiers have been killed in Kashmir? On this occasion at least, India can't even claim to have been directly provoked by the military regime in Islamabad. If anything, the opposite is the case. Despite Indian accusations of mere tokenism, President Musharraf has actually acceded to most of India's demands for outlawing the more militant Kashmiri organisations based in Pakistan. .......
-
Here is a good article regarding the current situation. (though some may find it biased) Wars do not decide who is right. Wars decide who is left. Ammar There is a difference in knowing the path and walking the path.
Realistic I suppose. Ammar wrote: Wars do not decide who is right. Wars decide who is left. Yes. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
-
Here is a good article regarding the current situation. (though some may find it biased) Wars do not decide who is right. Wars decide who is left. Ammar There is a difference in knowing the path and walking the path.
The following areticle is also awesome for people living far away from South Asia: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/05/20/siachen.kashmir/index.html
-
what's the matter?i can open it easily! i will paste a few paragraphs: If war does break out between India and Pakistan, it will be an entirely unnecessary and avoidable disaster. There is not the slightest sign that the populations of either countries are clamouring for conflict. Nor is there any real reason for one. None of the "terrorist" incidents of the past few weeks, savage though some have been, warrants an escalation of tension to this level. After all, if India didn't launch retaliatory attacks after its own parliament had been assaulted in Delhi at the beginning of the year, why do so now because some soldiers have been killed in Kashmir? On this occasion at least, India can't even claim to have been directly provoked by the military regime in Islamabad. If anything, the opposite is the case. Despite Indian accusations of mere tokenism, President Musharraf has actually acceded to most of India's demands for outlawing the more militant Kashmiri organisations based in Pakistan. .......
zhoujun wrote: what's the matter?i can open it easily! I couldn't get it too. It said no such page. zhoujun wrote: None of the "terrorist" incidents of the past few weeks, savage though some have been, warrants an escalation of tension to this level. After all, if India didn't launch retaliatory attacks after its own parliament had been assaulted in Delhi at the beginning of the year, why do so now because some soldiers have been killed in Kashmir? I couldn't read the all article, so I may understood it out of context. I don't understand the expression - some soldiers have been killed . Is the writer insane, or simply have no respect to life of soldiers? The writer tend to show simplistic view of reality. He (she?) ignores sequence of attacks and sees only the latest. He doesn't understand the accumulation effect of terror. The thing I don't understand the most is his comment on tension level. Of course military speaking terror acts and full war are asymetrical. But so is terror. Would he prefer Indiad commandos enter Pakistani barracks and massacre soldiers' children? Democracies don't employ dirty techniques (usually) like terror, they have no choice but use the army to fight. zhoujun wrote: On this occasion at least, India can't even claim to have been directly provoked by the military regime in Islamabad. If anything, the opposite is the case. Despite Indian accusations of mere tokenism, President Musharraf has actually acceded to most of India's demands for outlawing the more militant Kashmiri organisations based in Pakistan. India is 100% right. This is known technique of terror organizations. Once there is a tight pressure on terror group, or it wants to hide responsibility then a new group unknown to the world appears. Then the mother group denies connection, even though responsible. Arafat invented this technique and it became popular.
-
The following areticle is also awesome for people living far away from South Asia: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/05/20/siachen.kashmir/index.html
-
zhoujun wrote: what's the matter?i can open it easily! I couldn't get it too. It said no such page. zhoujun wrote: None of the "terrorist" incidents of the past few weeks, savage though some have been, warrants an escalation of tension to this level. After all, if India didn't launch retaliatory attacks after its own parliament had been assaulted in Delhi at the beginning of the year, why do so now because some soldiers have been killed in Kashmir? I couldn't read the all article, so I may understood it out of context. I don't understand the expression - some soldiers have been killed . Is the writer insane, or simply have no respect to life of soldiers? The writer tend to show simplistic view of reality. He (she?) ignores sequence of attacks and sees only the latest. He doesn't understand the accumulation effect of terror. The thing I don't understand the most is his comment on tension level. Of course military speaking terror acts and full war are asymetrical. But so is terror. Would he prefer Indiad commandos enter Pakistani barracks and massacre soldiers' children? Democracies don't employ dirty techniques (usually) like terror, they have no choice but use the army to fight. zhoujun wrote: On this occasion at least, India can't even claim to have been directly provoked by the military regime in Islamabad. If anything, the opposite is the case. Despite Indian accusations of mere tokenism, President Musharraf has actually acceded to most of India's demands for outlawing the more militant Kashmiri organisations based in Pakistan. India is 100% right. This is known technique of terror organizations. Once there is a tight pressure on terror group, or it wants to hide responsibility then a new group unknown to the world appears. Then the mother group denies connection, even though responsible. Arafat invented this technique and it became popular.
Felix Gartsman wrote: India is 100% right. This is known technique of terror organizations. Once there is a tight pressure on terror group, or it wants to hide responsibility then a new group unknown to the world appears. Then the mother group denies connection, even though responsible. Arafat invented this technique and it became popular. I think what you are saying is overly simplistic. It can also be that the mother group has come to the point where they realize that their goals have been met, unfortunatly in that time some of their members have been indoctrinated into hatred and although the main group sees it's goals achieve the splinter factions don't. They then go on to cause chaos in new groups. (I am not sure if this is the case with Arafat; but I think it is quite possible) Have fun, Paul Westcott.