Progress against terrorism
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: But the gangs from across the border, Pakistani ones, Why is it that "terrorism" in India's context means only Pakistan? No, read it fully! You're 100% right about Pakistan, but.... But what about those ULFA (Assam) and Naga terrorist ba****ds who operate from Bangladesh? Considering the fact that you live in WB, you should be knowing (and maybe even have experienced) this stuff. Hasn't Kaledia Zia (isn't that her name?) OPENLY declared her support to those terrorists? And what about the Bangladeshi Muslims who infiltrate into India by the hundreds everyday? Agreed, they can be hardly called terrorists, but their intentions towards India are none the friendly. REMEMBER: Pakistan is our major PITA, but it is NOT THE ONLY ONE. Rohit Sinha wrote: We want love, not hatred. I don't want to hate anyone, nor be hated by anyone. I'm with you there.
Vikram. ----------------------------- 1. Don't ask unnecessary questions. You know what I mean? 2. Avoid redundancy at all costs. 3. Avoid redundancy at all costs. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design.Vikram Punathambekar wrote: Pakistan is our major PITA I disagree. The general Pakistani population wants peace as much as you and me, IMO. It's only the separatist/fundamentalist/whatever groups that are causing all the trouble. But since we are on the recieving end of terrorism, and it comes from Pakistan, we club all of them together and see them as our enemy number one. Not so. Of course, most Pakistanis also see us as their enemy number one, but just like with us, this is just a matter of perception. Get rid of the hate mongers and everything will be fine. It'll take some time, but it can be done. In fact, there are two missions in my life. Mission number two is to unite the two countries again. :-O (Read my sig) Mission number one is to get rich and live happily.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa -
I don't think all of the blame should rest on Pakistan. There is a bloody past between India and Pak. and I think that breeds hatred on both sides. Does India have subversive organizations working inside Pak? This is still no excuse for civilian targeting. Rohit Sinha wrote: The problem with these guys is, they are not afraid of death, so killing them is hardly a deterrent. It just breeds more hatred, and more of them come up. How many can you kill? I think the leaders are. To kill a snake you have cut off its head.
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Jason Henderson wrote: I don't think all of the blame should rest on Pakistan Of course. And politicians in both the countries fan the hatred to win elections, which is so sad if you think about it. But at least India keeps its activities inside its own borders and we don't go about killing people. Yes, we have a bloody past. During the partition, riots broke out everywhere. But that's not the cause of the hatred. The real cause is the Kashmir issue. Everything stems from this. And the fact that Pakistan has tried to invade Indian borders several times (and lost). And now they've started experimenting with terrorism for the past decade and a half. Actually, the terrorists are taking advantage of the situation. Jason Henderson wrote: Does India have subversive organizations working inside Pak? I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. The major reason being not my patriotism, but the fact that there have been no allegations from the Pakistani side about this. And besides, India has nothing to gain from this.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa -
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: But I have to say yes when Thousands are hurt vs a few things do change Probably true, and certainly sad. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: NO, The Murrah building in Oklahoma was a local issue, for example. Ah, ok. Issues are local when involving nationals only, aren't they? In the sample I gave local issues were exception . Most were related to the East-West confrontation or to the near/middle east crisis
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
KaЯl wrote: Issues are local when involving nationals only, aren't they? Almost. I would say many embassy attacks (and those you list) involved east-west but the operations were still generally within the confins of one nation, so I would say local. 911 was clearly a case that involved a long distance operation and enough people at once that it was noticed. This awareness changed the perception that individual nations could control what happens within their boarders. Seperate thread. KaЯl wrote: Probably true, and certainly sad. Agreed. :(( "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
Jason Henderson wrote: I don't think all of the blame should rest on Pakistan Of course. And politicians in both the countries fan the hatred to win elections, which is so sad if you think about it. But at least India keeps its activities inside its own borders and we don't go about killing people. Yes, we have a bloody past. During the partition, riots broke out everywhere. But that's not the cause of the hatred. The real cause is the Kashmir issue. Everything stems from this. And the fact that Pakistan has tried to invade Indian borders several times (and lost). And now they've started experimenting with terrorism for the past decade and a half. Actually, the terrorists are taking advantage of the situation. Jason Henderson wrote: Does India have subversive organizations working inside Pak? I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. The major reason being not my patriotism, but the fact that there have been no allegations from the Pakistani side about this. And besides, India has nothing to gain from this.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother TeresaIndian agencies are highly active in Pakistan (like vice versa). Daily India point out about the training camps and their locations which is not possible without intelligence (if they are right saying so). In 1965 Indian Airforce surprisingly attacked the secret Sargodha Airport in Pakistan which was not known to anyone else. RAW is and was actively involved in terrorism in Pakistan and people are daily captured. Rohit Sinha wrote: And the fact that Pakistan has tried to invade Indian borders several times (and lost). When they lost tell me ? In 1948 they occupied your territory, so called "POK" today. In 1965 you were unable to occupy an inch of Pakistan territory, when 5000 common people of Lahore laid down their lives when they stand infront of your tanks having explovies accompained with their bodies. (what you called terrorism becsuse it is a suicidal way). In 1971, no no this time you attacked Pakistan, your army generals admit that, and were successful though Bangalis were even not ready to join "you". And yes in 1985, you invaded Siachen without informing China or Pakistan.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Indian terrorists (if any), OK, since you raised this, and I'm glad you did, I'll say a few things. India is facing this problem on multiple levels. There are terrorists from Pakistan and there are terrorists from (in) India (wait, please read the whole paragraph). Those who are in India are from Pakistan actually. Then there is the Pakistani propaganda, which would like everyone to believe that the terrorism happening in India is actually being caused by either by Indians themselves, or the Indian army and such (this is so ridiculous that I don't even respond when someone posts such stuff here or elsewhere). The situation is actually much more complex than it seems on the surface. The side supporting terrorism (Pakistan) is also the one spreading propaganda. And yes, there is a small section of the Muslim population in India too, which supports the terrorists, sometimes providing them intel, money, goods, transport, etc. But then you get some of this kind everywhere. Jason Henderson wrote: I doubt if you can reason with them. Yes, me too. But I feel that if we somehow keep this generation of terrorists talking, or even members of the groups the terrorists claim to represent, maybe, just maybe the next generation will have a less number of them. Maybe we can even "win back" some of the borderline cases, or even some who are not borderline, but not too far into the territory of the terrorist mindset. The problem with these guys is, they are not afraid of death, so killing them is hardly a deterrent. It just breeds more hatred, and more of them come up. How many can you kill?
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother TeresaRohit Sinha wrote: And yes, there is a small section of the Muslim population in India too, which supports the terrorists, Hmm, so you mean that only muslims can support terrorists and not Hindus or Christains? Atleast their is no other word than "muslim" in your above sentence. This is what a propagenda ignited by India after Sep 11 that all muslims are terrorists. FYI, there is a so called "terrorist list" provided to Pakistan by India in which several non-muslim names are included. And what propaganda are you talikng about...i've only provided you the link to Indian sites or the neutral sites and not any Pakistani site. Chaudhri Raheel Muzaffarabad, AJK.
-
Vikram Punathambekar wrote: Pakistan is our major PITA I disagree. The general Pakistani population wants peace as much as you and me, IMO. It's only the separatist/fundamentalist/whatever groups that are causing all the trouble. But since we are on the recieving end of terrorism, and it comes from Pakistan, we club all of them together and see them as our enemy number one. Not so. Of course, most Pakistanis also see us as their enemy number one, but just like with us, this is just a matter of perception. Get rid of the hate mongers and everything will be fine. It'll take some time, but it can be done. In fact, there are two missions in my life. Mission number two is to unite the two countries again. :-O (Read my sig) Mission number one is to get rich and live happily.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother TeresaRohit Sinha wrote: IMO. It's only the separatist/fundamentalist/whatever groups that are causing all the trouble. Aren't there fundamentalists inside India, so dangerous that they can deny even the Supreme Court orders. There is no no separatist/fundamentalist involved or sponsored from Pakistan in the situation of Indian occupied Kashmir. The people involved are those who belong to what you called "POK" as your government frequently pointed their training camps are in what they called "POK". And yes, there is no cross border terrorism, firstly there is no common border in Kashmir and people can move freely from what you call "POK" to Indian occupied Kashmir, they do not require any passport, it is their own country. And the day is not far when Kashmiris will get rid from Indian occupation and have their own independent country.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I can clearly put those that blowup little children in an ice cream parlor as terrorists but attacking a military check point is totally different. Another dilemma: when an army bombs a city and kills civilians, is that a terrorist action or bearable collateral damages? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: It involves the statement "You are for us or against us." IMHO this statement is too much "Black and White". It could be perhaps more valuable by adding "You are for us or against us, at this time.": remember for example that Ben Laden was trained by the CIA. Treason is just a matter of date. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: 911 was how many thousands! Scale has changed and again it is no longer a local issue Do you believe the death of one as more acceptable than the deaths of thousands? I don't. Don't you think terrorism was in your opinion a "local issue" as long as the US weren't targeted?
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
I thought this deserved a second reply. KaЯl wrote: Another dilemma: when an army bombs a city and kills civilians, is that a terrorist action or bearable collateral damages? I would not call this a terrorist action. It was not done with the intent to harm civilians. I believe any terrorists action must be with that intent. Now I am not sure how to address the bearable option. It is definitly not a desirable option. A great deal must be considered with how much effort was taken to minimize those involved, with out expecting the troops to risk excessive harm themselves. This does not have a clear boundary. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
1. no, the war against terrorism is a joke 2. everybody is participating to this comedy in a form or another 3. changing people mentality, opening their eyes, things are not just black and white they have also gray nuances, identifying the causes and fight the cause not the effects. what i see from the current situation in the world are these: 1. war is peace. - saddam has WMD and he must be stopped, at least the intelligence said so and pretty convince Powell about it coz he was trying very hard to convince the UN security council about this and push them to agree with the military intervention in iraq. The UN security council didnt bought it tho so US violated the international law and went in Iraq to kick Saddam butt and take his WMD. - with surgical bombardment they hit alot of markets and with "surgical" cluster bombs (which were banned by geneva convention) they eliminated the cancer that poisoned Iraq and then they realized "oops the dog eat saddam WMD :~" but what the heck at least we free iraqi people. ok boys and gals work on this propagndistic (freedom war) idea and try to do a good job so the people to forget our reason why we attacked iraq in the 1rst place because saddam didnt had WMD after all. 2. freedom is slavery now the people of iraq are liberated from the dicattor that striped them of their freedom. now thanks to US and British troops Iraqi people are free as the wild cammels in the desert. No electricity, no water, no food well... cammels dont need electricity, they find their water, they find their food, how can u be more free than this. who needs a museum? who needs that old stuff anyway. the desert is enough for you beside u have alot of OIL u iraqi people could consider urself very ritch and free under beautiful ski of iraq and the dunes, hospitals pff.. wild free camels dont need hospitals... my fellow iraqi citizens, we are there to help u install a democratic regime and its members will be eleted by the iraqi people and with our aproval :)) 3. ignorance is strength in a democracy where people vote and the majority rulz, all u need to do is to make the majority dumber to be easier to lure them to think what u want to think and then make a fair vote. of course the majority will win, that dumb, blinded, hipnotized, easy controlable majority. who needs 100% smart people? the best is 49% smarties and 51% ignorants and we will have a democratic vote :) of course this is the right thing to do in a democracy no? IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!! B
Thanks. Unfortunately, I've only learned one thing from your post: you are ignorant. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
-
Perhaps should we first define, or at least agree, on a definition of the word "Terrorism". What's the difference between "terrorism" and "resistance", except a difference of point of view? For the "traditionnal" meaning of this word, it seems actually the number of terrorist networks is decreasing in Europe: No more "Red Brigades" in Italy or Germany, a peace process in Northern Ireland, ETA severly hit by police forces in Spain and France: the situation is evolving quiet good. Will we get totally rid of the threat one day? I don't think so. There will always be disgusted, hopeless or revenger people who will fall in extrem means. About international coopearation, I believe it works quiet well, whatever the "little disagreements" over the Iraq invasion. I hope our intelligence/police/security services are not stupid enough to fall in sterile quarrels. Police actions are palliatives to existing problems but aren't by themselve a solution. IMHO, the best way to reduce terrorism is prevention: reduce the poverty through the World (misery is a root for despair), enhance education (the solution) and ban violence from our acceptable behaviours.
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
KaЯl wrote: Perhaps should we first define, or at least agree, on a definition of the word "Terrorism". What's the difference between "terrorism" and "resistance", except a difference of point of view? Um, yeah. I'm not buying that for a second. World War 2: Do you call them the "French Resistence" or the "French Terrorists"? IMHO, the best way to reduce terrorism is prevention: reduce the poverty through the World (misery is a root for despair), enhance education (the solution) and ban violence from our acceptable behaviours. Yeah, I hear that worked really well in preventing Osama Bin Ladin (worth an estimated $800 million) from getting involved in terrorism. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
-
Indian agencies are highly active in Pakistan (like vice versa). Daily India point out about the training camps and their locations which is not possible without intelligence (if they are right saying so). In 1965 Indian Airforce surprisingly attacked the secret Sargodha Airport in Pakistan which was not known to anyone else. RAW is and was actively involved in terrorism in Pakistan and people are daily captured. Rohit Sinha wrote: And the fact that Pakistan has tried to invade Indian borders several times (and lost). When they lost tell me ? In 1948 they occupied your territory, so called "POK" today. In 1965 you were unable to occupy an inch of Pakistan territory, when 5000 common people of Lahore laid down their lives when they stand infront of your tanks having explovies accompained with their bodies. (what you called terrorism becsuse it is a suicidal way). In 1971, no no this time you attacked Pakistan, your army generals admit that, and were successful though Bangalis were even not ready to join "you". And yes in 1985, you invaded Siachen without informing China or Pakistan.
Chaudhri Raheel Ahmed wrote: RAW is and was actively involved in terrorism in Pakistan and people are daily captured. You are confusing international intelligence with terrorism. Of course RAW must be there doing its stuff in Pakistan. Just like ISI is here in India. But to say that spies are terrorists is fooloishness and naivety on your part. Chaudhri Raheel Ahmed wrote: When they lost tell me ? Each time you guys invaded us, you lost. Except 1948 of course, but that was in the very beginning. We weren't prepared. But then you tried invading us in 1965 and lost. You tried again in 1971 and lost. Kept trying every now and then each time to be chased away like chicken into your holes back again. The Siachen incident that you mention happened the other way round. Pakistan was trying to get inside Indian territory. Despite several warnings, you didn't go back. Natutrally we didn't want another 1948 so we chased you back like the chicken you are, and reclaimed our territory.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa -
Rohit Sinha wrote: And yes, there is a small section of the Muslim population in India too, which supports the terrorists, Hmm, so you mean that only muslims can support terrorists and not Hindus or Christains? Atleast their is no other word than "muslim" in your above sentence. This is what a propagenda ignited by India after Sep 11 that all muslims are terrorists. FYI, there is a so called "terrorist list" provided to Pakistan by India in which several non-muslim names are included. And what propaganda are you talikng about...i've only provided you the link to Indian sites or the neutral sites and not any Pakistani site. Chaudhri Raheel Muzaffarabad, AJK.
Chaudhri Raheel Ahmed wrote: Hmm, so you mean that only muslims can support terrorists and not Hindus or Christains? Of course not. Anybody can be a terrorist. However, can you give me an example of terrorism in the recent past caused by a Hindu or Christian? Be careful, we are talking about terrorism here, not religious turmoil or fights, so give only relevant examples, not bullshit like you did last time. Chaudhri Raheel Ahmed wrote: i've only provided you the link to Indian sites or the neutral sites and not any Pakistani site. The link that you provided from the Indian site is misleading and a lie. In the sense that it's not terrorism which you claim it to be. And since you mentioned Gujarat violence, here's a pop quiz for you: Who started it (Hint: those people came from outside India)? Besides you cannot classify religious violence as terrorism, especially when someone else started it. Just because some people got involved in it, you call them terrorists, and leave the others who actually perpertrated the violence (burnt two whole compartments in a train killing 65 people including kids and wounding I don't know how many) just shows that you are influenced by propaganda. As for the link on the other site, 1) This is a site I never heard about, so I'm a bit sceptical about accepting its content, since I know Pakistani propaganda is all over the internet talking about India. 2) It's a very old incident, and do you remember the full incident, or are you going to jump to your conclusions based on half the story? 3) I don't believe that Indian army would do this to its own people, and dismiss this whole report as non authentic and false and a blatant lie. So much for "neutral" sites.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa -
Rohit Sinha wrote: IMO. It's only the separatist/fundamentalist/whatever groups that are causing all the trouble. Aren't there fundamentalists inside India, so dangerous that they can deny even the Supreme Court orders. There is no no separatist/fundamentalist involved or sponsored from Pakistan in the situation of Indian occupied Kashmir. The people involved are those who belong to what you called "POK" as your government frequently pointed their training camps are in what they called "POK". And yes, there is no cross border terrorism, firstly there is no common border in Kashmir and people can move freely from what you call "POK" to Indian occupied Kashmir, they do not require any passport, it is their own country. And the day is not far when Kashmiris will get rid from Indian occupation and have their own independent country.
Chaudhri Raheel Ahmed wrote: Aren't there fundamentalists inside India, so dangerous that they can deny even the Supreme Court orders. No. Chaudhri Raheel Ahmed wrote: There is no no separatist/fundamentalist involved or sponsored from Pakistan in the situation of Indian occupied Kashmir That's what you say. Intelligence reports, however, have a different story to tell. Who do you think I'll believe? Chaudhri Raheel Ahmed wrote: And the day is not far when Kashmiris will get rid from Indian occupation and have their own independent country. How? Will you bomb more people to do that? It's going to achieve nothing, I tell you. Indian occupation indeed. But before that happens, all you hate mongers will be gone and sleeping with your 69 virgins in heaven anyway, so why bother? I'm getting tired of replying to your posts, because they contain no logic, reason or even a semblance of understanding. I'm all for a peaceful way out of the situation, and forget the past, and for friendly and brotherly relations between India and Pakistan. But people like you (there are your counterparts here too, who don't want to have anything to do with Pakistan) don't want it. Your kind thrives on hatred. I think you should either join politics or one of those terrorist gangs.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa -
Vikram Punathambekar wrote: But what about those ULFA (Assam) and Naga terrorist ba****ds who operate from Bangladesh? Those are different. I won't call them terrorists. They don't go about killing "innocent" people. True, they kill people too, but only if you do something to them, or are a government/military person. Like if you inform the police about them, etc. They are murderers, even mass murderers, but not terrorists. There is a difference. Vikram Punathambekar wrote: And what about the Bangladeshi Muslims who infiltrate into India by the hundreds everyday? Even they are different. And hey, they are not terrorists at all. They are just illegal immigrants who come here looking for work. They are very poor people who could not even get two meals a day in Bangladesh. True, some terrorists mingle with them to get inside, but the average Bangladeshi coming here is just a poor guy who wants to work for food or something. And please, don't call every PITA a terrorist. It'll only serve to take the credibility away from our position about the real terrorists. :)
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother TeresaOK, the NSCN is not going about killing people, but it indulges in harrasment and extortion and killing of policemen. So, it falls into the gray area. It's good, however, that Isak & Muivah have declared a ceasefire. But ULFA is definitely a terrorist group. Killing Binahri and UP laborers (yes, construction workers), blowing up trains and refineries, killing policemen- all that is definitely terrorist activity. Maybe I'm wrong about calling Bangladeshi infiltrators terrorists technically, but their intentions towards India are NOT friendly. Anyway, why should we let them come here? As thanks for letting ULFA use their country for terrorist training and providing a safe haven? I'm not a hardcore nationalist (really, I tread the middle ground and take a balanced approach); but you seem to be too soft in some areas. Vikram.
Vikram. ----------------------------- 1. Don't ask unnecessary questions. You know what I mean? 2. Avoid redundancy at all costs. 3. Avoid redundancy at all costs. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design. -
Vikram Punathambekar wrote: Pakistan is our major PITA I disagree. The general Pakistani population wants peace as much as you and me, IMO. It's only the separatist/fundamentalist/whatever groups that are causing all the trouble. But since we are on the recieving end of terrorism, and it comes from Pakistan, we club all of them together and see them as our enemy number one. Not so. Of course, most Pakistanis also see us as their enemy number one, but just like with us, this is just a matter of perception. Get rid of the hate mongers and everything will be fine. It'll take some time, but it can be done. In fact, there are two missions in my life. Mission number two is to unite the two countries again. :-O (Read my sig) Mission number one is to get rich and live happily.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother TeresaRohit wrote: The general Pakistani population wants peace as much as you and me. Much as I'd like to believe in it (really, I WANT to believe that), I can't- because I know it isn't true. Why else would they pour in their money for Jehad in India? Why else do Indian flags get burnt in Pakistan (and Sharjah, for that matter)? Now you're going to say we burn Paki flags- SO WHAT? I mean, we do it in retaliation, we can't keep twiddling our thumbs. Rohit wrote: Mission number two is to unite the two countries again. Do you know that not a single Paki will be pleased to see this? This will only fuel more hatred for us amongst their minds: 1. They have always suspected India of wanting to do this. 2. Pakistan is A NATION BORN OUT OF HATE. They became Pakis (as opposed to being Indians, that is) because they hated India (Hindus, to be more specific). 3. Why would people suffer bloody partition and lose thousands of their kith and kin, only to hug their erstwhile enemies? Do you remember that L K Advani said (a year ago or so) that his dream was to create an Indo-Pak confederacy? He said confederacy, not union or merger. This was instantly denounced by the Pakis as "part of their evil intentions on Pakistan" and as "India cannot accept an independant and sovereign Pakistan". Having read all this, do you still believe it's possible to unite India and Pakistan? I want to believe this, but I can't. I wish you luck in your effort, but I'm highly skeptical of it. All the same, I'd like to see you succeed. :Vikram flashes a thumbs-up sign: Rohit wrote: Mission number one is to get rich and live happily. Just like me, again :) Do reply to this- I'm curious to see what reply you can have. Plus, it's quite interesting to have these discussions with a fellow-Indian( or any person) who knows what he's talking. All that my classmates are interested is going to movies, boozing, cellphones and ogling (Hindi- sight maarna)
Vikram. ----------------------------- 1. Don't ask unnecessary questions. You know what I mean? 2. Avoid redundancy at all costs. 3. Avoid redundancy at all costs. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design. -
OK, the NSCN is not going about killing people, but it indulges in harrasment and extortion and killing of policemen. So, it falls into the gray area. It's good, however, that Isak & Muivah have declared a ceasefire. But ULFA is definitely a terrorist group. Killing Binahri and UP laborers (yes, construction workers), blowing up trains and refineries, killing policemen- all that is definitely terrorist activity. Maybe I'm wrong about calling Bangladeshi infiltrators terrorists technically, but their intentions towards India are NOT friendly. Anyway, why should we let them come here? As thanks for letting ULFA use their country for terrorist training and providing a safe haven? I'm not a hardcore nationalist (really, I tread the middle ground and take a balanced approach); but you seem to be too soft in some areas. Vikram.
Vikram. ----------------------------- 1. Don't ask unnecessary questions. You know what I mean? 2. Avoid redundancy at all costs. 3. Avoid redundancy at all costs. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design.Vikram Punathambekar wrote: I'm not a hardcore nationalist (really, I tread the middle ground and take a balanced approach); but you seem to be too soft in some areas. Being nationalist means acting in the best interest of one's nation, IMO. OK, replace nationalist with patriot. Patriotism is not about killing or denouncing everyone who doesn't agree with you. Being a patriot, I realise that there are certain groups in our country who are angry and feel deserted. We need to dissipate their anger. OK, so maybe their way of doing things is wrong. But we can't just throw them out. We can't just kill them all. We have to listen to them. I'm not soft, but I try to use my head instead of my heart. :) The heart tells me to get angry at them, the head tells me to act rationally and calmly.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa -
I thought this deserved a second reply. KaЯl wrote: Another dilemma: when an army bombs a city and kills civilians, is that a terrorist action or bearable collateral damages? I would not call this a terrorist action. It was not done with the intent to harm civilians. I believe any terrorists action must be with that intent. Now I am not sure how to address the bearable option. It is definitly not a desirable option. A great deal must be considered with how much effort was taken to minimize those involved, with out expecting the troops to risk excessive harm themselves. This does not have a clear boundary. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
War became terrorist when the goal changed from defeating the enemy to eliminating physically the enemy. This evolution (evolution doesn't mean progress) appeared during WW1, with the first massive uses of WMD. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I would not call this a terrorist action. It was not done with the intent to harm civilians. I believe any terrorists action must be with that intent. Playing the role of the devil's advocate, I could say the objective of the 9/11 was to shock the US. The death of civilians become no more a target but a mean, even a collateral damage: "Shock and Awe". In my opinion, the word "terrorist" doesn't mean anything: 9/11, and all the others, wasn't a terrorist attack, but a criminal action. Political motivations can't be considered as a cover for a crime.
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
-
Rohit wrote: The general Pakistani population wants peace as much as you and me. Much as I'd like to believe in it (really, I WANT to believe that), I can't- because I know it isn't true. Why else would they pour in their money for Jehad in India? Why else do Indian flags get burnt in Pakistan (and Sharjah, for that matter)? Now you're going to say we burn Paki flags- SO WHAT? I mean, we do it in retaliation, we can't keep twiddling our thumbs. Rohit wrote: Mission number two is to unite the two countries again. Do you know that not a single Paki will be pleased to see this? This will only fuel more hatred for us amongst their minds: 1. They have always suspected India of wanting to do this. 2. Pakistan is A NATION BORN OUT OF HATE. They became Pakis (as opposed to being Indians, that is) because they hated India (Hindus, to be more specific). 3. Why would people suffer bloody partition and lose thousands of their kith and kin, only to hug their erstwhile enemies? Do you remember that L K Advani said (a year ago or so) that his dream was to create an Indo-Pak confederacy? He said confederacy, not union or merger. This was instantly denounced by the Pakis as "part of their evil intentions on Pakistan" and as "India cannot accept an independant and sovereign Pakistan". Having read all this, do you still believe it's possible to unite India and Pakistan? I want to believe this, but I can't. I wish you luck in your effort, but I'm highly skeptical of it. All the same, I'd like to see you succeed. :Vikram flashes a thumbs-up sign: Rohit wrote: Mission number one is to get rich and live happily. Just like me, again :) Do reply to this- I'm curious to see what reply you can have. Plus, it's quite interesting to have these discussions with a fellow-Indian( or any person) who knows what he's talking. All that my classmates are interested is going to movies, boozing, cellphones and ogling (Hindi- sight maarna)
Vikram. ----------------------------- 1. Don't ask unnecessary questions. You know what I mean? 2. Avoid redundancy at all costs. 3. Avoid redundancy at all costs. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design.Vikram Punathambekar wrote: I can't- because I know it isn't true. Why else would they pour in their money for Jehad in India? Why else do Indian flags get burnt in Pakistan (and Sharjah, for that matter)? Now you're going to say we burn Paki flags- SO WHAT? I mean, we do it in retaliation, we can't keep twiddling our thumbs. Apart from pouring money into Jehad, everything is true for India too. Indians hate Pakistanis as much as they hate us. So, who is the bigger culprit? As for the Jehad, the average person on Pakistani streets has nothing to do with it. He is neither aware of who is running the show nor is interested. He is just a normal person like you and me. There are only a few people, the fundamentalists, the hate mongers, the terror lords, who are doing all this, and claim to represent the majority. Not so. The leadership and media over there are thriving on hatred for us, and keep fueling it by spreading propaganda. Just like our own media and leadership do it. As for burning flags, and other similar things, it doesn't matter who did it first. You burn flags and effigies to show your hatred and/or to protest. What caused it is irrelevant. If you hate someone, you hate someone. Reasons are there only to justify it later on. Hatred needs no reasons. Vikram Punathambekar wrote: 1. They have always suspected India of wanting to do this. I wasn't talking about gobbling up Pakistan. My intention/dream is a new country with both the countries combined. Just think. What a great Cricket team we could have! ;P We have similar culture, food, music, tastes, language, everything. They watch our movies. They listen to our songs. We watch their plays. We lift the tunes for our songs from many of their songs. The only difference is that they are an Islamic country and we are secular. If we become one, we can become a major player in the golbal scene. We can combine our talents, skills, and complement each other in a way that is only possible when we become one. And most of all, we'll not have to think about terrorism or the Kashmir issue, and can concentrate on things of more importance, like economy, infrastructure and health. There are several advantages of a united India + Pakistan, and will benefit both, not just one, of us. IMO, this is the only solution to the Kashmir problem. This has carried on too long to pretend that either of us is going to give up our claim on Kashmir. Vikram Punathambekar wrote: 2. Paki
-
Vikram Punathambekar wrote: I'm not a hardcore nationalist (really, I tread the middle ground and take a balanced approach); but you seem to be too soft in some areas. Being nationalist means acting in the best interest of one's nation, IMO. OK, replace nationalist with patriot. Patriotism is not about killing or denouncing everyone who doesn't agree with you. Being a patriot, I realise that there are certain groups in our country who are angry and feel deserted. We need to dissipate their anger. OK, so maybe their way of doing things is wrong. But we can't just throw them out. We can't just kill them all. We have to listen to them. I'm not soft, but I try to use my head instead of my heart. :) The heart tells me to get angry at them, the head tells me to act rationally and calmly.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother TeresaRohit Sinha wrote: I try to use my head instead of my heart. In that case, before you make any decisions, decide for yourself whether you have a better heart or better head. HEY, I'm being serious- don't think I'm trying to c-o-c-k a snook at you or trying to score brownie points. I was in a similar position once, and this advice helped me. [EDIT] Why does C O C K as in "c-o-c-k a snook" appear censored?" [EDIT] And one more thing- don't be overly afraid of doing wrong- (I'm not telling you to do wrong) it isn't the end of the world. It's better to take a quick decision and be wrong than to agonize at length and find out you were right too late. Regards,
Vikram. ----------------------------- 1. Don't ask unnecessary questions. You know what I mean? 2. Avoid redundancy at all costs. 3. Avoid redundancy at all costs. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design. -
KaЯl wrote: Perhaps should we first define, or at least agree, on a definition of the word "Terrorism". What's the difference between "terrorism" and "resistance", except a difference of point of view? Um, yeah. I'm not buying that for a second. World War 2: Do you call them the "French Resistence" or the "French Terrorists"? IMHO, the best way to reduce terrorism is prevention: reduce the poverty through the World (misery is a root for despair), enhance education (the solution) and ban violence from our acceptable behaviours. Yeah, I hear that worked really well in preventing Osama Bin Ladin (worth an estimated $800 million) from getting involved in terrorism. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
Brit wrote: World War 2: Do you call them the "French Resistence" or the "French Terrorists"? Most of them were executed of deported as terrorists, and few years later they were celebrated like heroes, and sometimes by the same people. Would the 3rd Reich have won the war would we all consider them as criminals. Undoubtly, some actions of the Resistance can be call "terrorist", like the assassinations "for the example", or some blind bombings. Brit wrote: Yeah, I hear that worked really well in preventing Osama Bin Ladin (worth an estimated $800 million) from getting involved in terrorism. I don't think Bin Laden is working alone, and that all Al-quaida members are millionaires! Would palestinians blow themselves as human bomb if they weren't so despaired? I see two reasons for such an extremist behaviour: fanatism and despair. Fanatism can be reduce by education, despair by giving a future.
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
-
Vikram Punathambekar wrote: I can't- because I know it isn't true. Why else would they pour in their money for Jehad in India? Why else do Indian flags get burnt in Pakistan (and Sharjah, for that matter)? Now you're going to say we burn Paki flags- SO WHAT? I mean, we do it in retaliation, we can't keep twiddling our thumbs. Apart from pouring money into Jehad, everything is true for India too. Indians hate Pakistanis as much as they hate us. So, who is the bigger culprit? As for the Jehad, the average person on Pakistani streets has nothing to do with it. He is neither aware of who is running the show nor is interested. He is just a normal person like you and me. There are only a few people, the fundamentalists, the hate mongers, the terror lords, who are doing all this, and claim to represent the majority. Not so. The leadership and media over there are thriving on hatred for us, and keep fueling it by spreading propaganda. Just like our own media and leadership do it. As for burning flags, and other similar things, it doesn't matter who did it first. You burn flags and effigies to show your hatred and/or to protest. What caused it is irrelevant. If you hate someone, you hate someone. Reasons are there only to justify it later on. Hatred needs no reasons. Vikram Punathambekar wrote: 1. They have always suspected India of wanting to do this. I wasn't talking about gobbling up Pakistan. My intention/dream is a new country with both the countries combined. Just think. What a great Cricket team we could have! ;P We have similar culture, food, music, tastes, language, everything. They watch our movies. They listen to our songs. We watch their plays. We lift the tunes for our songs from many of their songs. The only difference is that they are an Islamic country and we are secular. If we become one, we can become a major player in the golbal scene. We can combine our talents, skills, and complement each other in a way that is only possible when we become one. And most of all, we'll not have to think about terrorism or the Kashmir issue, and can concentrate on things of more importance, like economy, infrastructure and health. There are several advantages of a united India + Pakistan, and will benefit both, not just one, of us. IMO, this is the only solution to the Kashmir problem. This has carried on too long to pretend that either of us is going to give up our claim on Kashmir. Vikram Punathambekar wrote: 2. Paki
Rohit Sinha wrote: they are an Islamic country and we are secular Rohit Sinha wrote: We have similar culture #1 and #2 contradict each other. Still, your argument to my point #1 is nice. [NO sarcasm]What a pity it's going to remain just a dream.[/NO sarcasm] Rohit Sinha wrote: Doesn't mean we actually hate each other. Oh, yeah? So how come Indians and Pakis aren't running around hugging each other? The Sikh question is very different. Yes, there were riots; yes, there was bloodshed. But Sikhs are not very different from Hindus, and they had a common enemy- Muslim Pakistan, so they had to patch up soon. So, don't draw a parallel between Hindu-Muslim relations/riots and Hindu-Sikh relations/riots. Rohit Sinha wrote: Sounds like fun Actually, I'm not against the stuff listed there per se (apart from boozing, and I myself do none of the 4 )except it happens that they're CSE students, and they'll have NOTHING to do with computers except watch pr0n movies on their PCs. If forced to do a program (under threats of losing internal marks, mostly), they either use VB X| or Turbo C++ X| X| X| . Are they gonna become (my) managers? I'm not adopting a holier-than-them attitude, just stating facts. And I know facts about my classmates, don't I? And why the ;P when you mention that we'd have a great cricket team?
Vikram. ----------------------------- 1. Don't ask unnecessary questions. You know what I mean? 2. Avoid redundancy at all costs. 3. Avoid redundancy at all costs. "Do not give redundant error messages again and again." - A classmate of mine, while giving a class talk on error detection in compiler design.