Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

21 killed as terrorists stage serial attacks to disrupt Kashmir polls

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Cactus
    Your presentation of your army and by extension your country is at stake here, and that will shape our perceptions.
    Presentation of the IA i leave to those in or were in uniform. I do not do that nor have i claimed to do so.

    What i am focusing on is perceptions in Kashmir. What the govt says, does and how it effects people living there. The context is the present elections which are ongoing. Big picture.

    When it comes to Kashmir I as a civvie am blind, deaf and have my hands tied, my position is very weak. The state and the army create the facts on the ground and the narrative. if you read the article i linked to, the youths, those that survived said they never went through any checkpoints. Who to believe ? this is very common. Two competing narratives and it isn't clear what is going on because there is a media clampdown and flow of information is restricted.

    The people in the valley went with the boys and kicked up a stink. They've been on the receiving end for a long time now. Can those perceptions be addressed or not ?

    So you see i'm not condemning Modi for his actions (yet) unlike some in this thread.

    Originally posted by Cactus
    Why do you want to compare your army's presence in Kashmir (a state in your country) with our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan (sovereign states where we are temporarily conducting counter-terror operations)? Is it an ignorance of our country's history because of which you cannot draw suitable parallels to your country's experiences? Or something else?
    What is the american equivalent to AFSPA ? SOFA was as close as i could come.

    The comparison between AFSPA & SOFA was made loosely in terms of legal protection for operating in a troubled area. When or Why does an army require such to operate within its own borders ? I said its like Kashmir was another country. Like is a qualifier. Same applies for currently troubled areas of the NE. Have to create these legal instruments so as to protect the people there otherwise, rights, freedom, justice and whatever else we hold dear becomes meaningless without security. Whether AFSPA stays or goes is the army's call. They have the task of protecting those areas.

    Your distinction whilst useful in moving away from occupier army in troubled state does not cut much with the people on the street. India's way of dealing with insurgencies is to defeat them militarily and then politically co-opt the adversary. These people then run their own rackets are corrupt as anything and deliver little to the citizen that voted for them.

    Originally posted by Cactus
    If it is just ignorance, then I've tried to help you with a few pointers. If you have any specific follow-up questions, I'm sure AR and others can do a much thorough job of explaining the context of the ACW and specific actions taken therein. As far as perceptions go, after 150 years there are still some Southerners who grumble about the "War Over States' Rights" and the "War of Northern Aggression". Methinks that General Sherman would've approved of that unknown Indian Major who coined the phrase, "Grab them by their balls... hearts and minds will automatically follow"
    Thanks

    Originally posted by Cactus
    Seriously?

    At the time of their inclusion into the India Union, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and North-Eastern states were mostly isolated and primitive communities. It was Mr Nehru's concern that their communities would be exploited by traders, money-lenders and land-sharks from "mainstream India" who were familiar with compounding-interest and land-deeds. Thus they were setup along the precedence of "Indian" Reservations* in the US; it was supposed to be a time-limited measure until government, schools and regulated institutions could be setup there.
    Point remains property ownership in other areas of the country besides Kashmir isn't open and is the case to this day. I was not even aware such rstrictions were in place for these states earlier.

    So how to develop these areas and empower lives. How to get the people to trust a govt that is intent on doing so. That is what the present election is running upon.

    Originally posted by Cactus
    While the same case could be made for Ladakh and Gilgit in Kashmir, Kashmir Valley and Jammu were hardly any more isolated or primitive communities than most other parts of India. Kashmir Valley was a major stop in the southern leg of the Silk Route. It has been exposed to traders from other parts of India, as well as Central Asians and Chinese, for centuries. Its people were well-traveled and had important links all over India (including Mr. Nehru's family which had migrated to Uttar Pradesh in 1800s). And they certainly knew the idea of compounding-interest and land-deeds! It had nothing to do with avoiding changes in ethnic composition; it was all about carving out a privileged feudalistic position. Just as the slave-owning Virginia landowners carved out a privileged feudalistic position for themselves when they got the Wilmot Provisio dropped as part of the Compromise of 1850.
    I don't deny that Kashmir has extra privileges. The point about ethnic composition refers to the other areas i mentioned. This is the person who said it in a recent talk. He comes from Uttarakhand.

    Originally posted by Cactus
    FWIW, when you scrap Article 370 in the Valley and Jammu, I think you should scrap the equivalent laws in Shimla, Dehradun and other other fairly developed districts of HP, UK and Assam as well.
    Oh, i don't know about scrapping article 370 yet. For now it remains a slogan. We looked into its feasibility a while ago and concluded the numbers in the upper house weren't there. In addition the requirement of constituent assembly was brought up.

    This govt has been creating all sorts of expectations, i hope they meet some of them.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 13 Dec 14,, 17:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by commander View Post
    Moral support and encouragement for what ? to kill innocent children,men or rape women and kill them ?
    Why not? Thought police is a billion times more scary than terrorists.

    Originally posted by commander View Post
    Recently in West Bengal state in India an entire village tried to protect a bunch of terrorists that were making bombs and were killing Indians. What do you say in that case. Are they responsible for providing safe hideouts or not ?
    Physically aiding and abetting? You've don't got laws dealing with that? Staying quiet? That's called freedom.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 13 Dec 14,, 16:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • commander
    replied
    For example this guy,

    ISIS twitter account operator ‘Mehdi’ arrested in Bangalore

    Eventhough he is not physically fighting in Syria I say treat this SOB properly and make an example of him.

    Leave a comment:


  • commander
    replied
    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    Inception like?
    Like, saying you will get 72 virgin girls to f*ck in heaven if you fight in the name of the religion and kill innocent people ;) .. Isn't that encouraging.. wow 72 eh... they sure have to keep em virgin girls coming at the rate ISIS is expanding. (jk)

    Leave a comment:


  • Oracle
    replied
    Originally posted by commander View Post
    I think everyone misunderstood me. I said the terrorists that planted bombs and killed people or beheaded people heck kill anyone in anyway possible deserved that treatment let it be a woman or man, doesn't matter. If they helped in anyway possible to aid those terrorists physically or mentally still they are terrorists.
    Inception like?

    Leave a comment:


  • commander
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Even if it just moral support or encouragement but no actual operational knowledge?

    Do you want to torture the mother who is proud of her suicide bomber son but who does not know the details of that bombing?
    Moral support and encouragement for what ? to kill innocent children,men or rape women and kill them ? Recently in West Bengal state in India an entire village tried to protect a bunch of terrorists that were making bombs and were killing Indians. What do you say in that case. Are they responsible for providing safe hideouts or not ?

    Leave a comment:


  • commander
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    The states of Uttarakkhand, Himachal and the NE also don't allow non-locals to own property to avoid changes in ethnic composition.
    People in NE or the other states aren't waving Pakistani flags or shouting "Pakistan Jindhabad".
    Last edited by commander; 13 Dec 14,, 15:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Even if it just moral support or encouragement but no actual operational knowledge?

    Do you want to torture the mother who is proud of her suicide bomber son but who does not know the details of that bombing?

    Leave a comment:


  • commander
    replied
    Originally posted by cataphract View Post
    IF they're terrorists eh? So how do you identify who is a terrorist and who isn't?
    Unfortunately I don't have much knowledge in discussing and classifying who is and who isn't a terrorist in detail. But if you ask me I will say every one of those brainwashed foot soldiers of these jihadist elements or the masterminds that operate them or those that aid these scums in any possible manner is a terrorist. This is only my opinion though. Again I am not defending the CIA , what they did was wrong in so many levels.

    Leave a comment:


  • commander
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Who the hell are these terrorists? Does this include the mother/sister/wife of the suicide bomber? Even when their facebook pages support Al Queida?
    I think everyone misunderstood me. I said the terrorists that planted bombs and killed people or beheaded people heck kill anyone in anyway possible deserved that treatment let it be a woman or man, doesn't matter. If they helped in anyway possible to aid those terrorists physically or mentally still they are terrorists.

    Leave a comment:


  • Oracle
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    The states of Uttarakkhand, Himachal and the NE also don't allow non-locals to own property to avoid changes in ethnic composition.
    A slight correction. In Assam you can own land if you're from outside the State, leaving a few areas mainly composed of tribals, like the district I belong too. Honestly, it smacks of discrimination.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Cactus
    Except Kashmir is not actually another country; it is a state in the Indian Union, where certain elements have tried to secede from the Union. The correct equivalence here is when the southern states tried to secede in 1861. President Lincoln then suspended the writ of habeus corpus (Habeas corpus in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and it was again suspended during the Reconstruction period (1865-1877) in the insurgency-hit areas of the South (Enforcement Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Mr Lincoln, like Mr Modi, also came up from an impoverished background and was a remarkable orator. But Lincoln was also a self-taught lawyer and a veteran of the Black Hawk War, and he generally took care not to let the rhetoric and the optic overpower logic and common-sense in his oratory; there are many things Mr Modi can appreciate and learn from Lincoln's life and career.

    Article 370 is like the Compromise of 1850 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850); it only defers the inevitable question -- does a common non-Kashmiri Indian have a fair and legally equal chance of making a living in Kashmir? The Indo-Pak Wars of 1948, 1965 and 1999 have shown that a common Indian is expected to fight and bleed for Kashmir, just as a free white Northerner was expected to fight and bleed in the Mexican-American War (1846-48) over the Mid-West and the Western territories.
    yes ok but the people on the street have to deal with the army on a regular basis. Their perceptions of the army and by extension the Indian state is at stake here.

    Originally posted by Cactus
    The lack of a common non-Kashmiri Indian's right to own property in J&K and the anti-women aspects of the Kashmiri laws put them in the same relative handicap as the possibility of slavery (without the Wilmot Provisio Wilmot Proviso - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in the Mid-West put the poorer white farmers moving westwards.
    The states of Uttarakkhand, Himachal and the NE also don't allow non-locals to own property to avoid changes in ethnic composition.

    Originally posted by Cactus
    You can only hope that Mr Modi and his advisers can see their situation in a proper historic context and craft their policies accordingly.
    They are trying to make a difference, new broom sweeps better and all.

    If his intervention creates as much of a stir within the electorate as it did with the rank & file then it has paid off. We will know in a couple of weeks time.

    More importantly what about the future, was this an ad-hoc tactical call (as i suspect) or does it set a precedent, remains to be answered. Nine soldiers were (recommended to be) court martialed within a month as a result of those kids. The rank & file (going on hearsay) thinks this is a new precedent. What will Modi do in the future.

    What do the people think. Yes, there is AFSPA but there are also army tribunals that act. This is not new, and if so what makes it different.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 13 Dec 14,, 15:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • cataphract
    replied
    Originally posted by commander View Post
    Did I say that CIA can run around torturing all the people it can lay it's eye's on? I only talked about the terrorists, don't twist my words. Again IF they are terrorists they deserve the kind of treatment they received. Period. Not the innocent one's.
    IF they're terrorists eh? So how do you identify who is a terrorist and who isn't?

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by commander View Post
    Did I say that CIA can run around torturing all the people it can lay it's eye's on? I only talked about the terrorists, don't twist my words. Again IF they are terrorists they deserve the kind of treatment they received. Period. Not the innocent one's.
    Read the paper, as a result of a US senate report detailing use of torture on detainees. The CIA chief is in the dock. That's where its coming from.

    LT, this is yet another fine example of of how the USG treats its soldiers. First they say get the bad guys, then it becomes why did you do this. All these arguments were raised years ago, but there was political and legal cover. Well, where is it now.

    A lot of this has resonance in Kashmir. Army operates under AFSPA. This is like SOFA to protect US soldiers from legal prosecution. Kashmir is like another country. Modi has to reach out to those people.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 13 Dec 14,, 05:16.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by commander View Post
    Did I say that CIA can run around torturing all the people it can lay it's eye's on? I only talked about the terrorists, don't twist my words. Again IF they are terrorists they deserve the kind of treatment they received. Period. Not the innocent one's.
    Who the hell are these terrorists? Does this include the mother/sister/wife of the suicide bomber? Even when their facebook pages support Al Queida?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X