1
   

India or Pakistan

 
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 05:02 pm
er.... first get yor basics straight.

abdus salam is a punjabi from lahore. his ancestors were converted to islam.

iranians are zoristrians by default. converted to islam dont make them arabs.

"n" number of indians have been converted to islam. including our president who as authentic a dravidian tamilian as they come - and a top auronautical engineer to boot.

what have the arabs produced? and even if they have, one or two isolated instances prove nothing - pakistanis are not the highest earning community in usa. indians are. muslims are the lowest earning community in uk though - where the indian community is again amongst the richest if not The richest immigrant community. the percentage of muslims in india who are into our top educational institutes and top positions is in the lower single digits. where as christians, parsis are very fabourably represented for their numbers in the upper echelons of society.


in our underworld, 50%+ are muslims - though statistically they are about 15% of india.


so try disproving that the bangladesh genocide (of hindus) was second only to the holocaust, if you can.
0 Replies
 
mork
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 05:03 pm
Since we're onto Kashmir, here's a piece from Amnesty International on the Indian Army atrocities in that region, with lame attempts to cover up said atrocities. Some selected quotes

Quote:

Torture is a daily routine for the vast majority of thousands of men and women who have been arrested in connection with the campaign for Kashmir's independence or for the state to join Pakistan.


Quote:

The rape and sexual abuse of women has been widely reported in Jammu and Kashmir since the Indian security forces began counter-insurgency operations in 1990, although the stigma associated with rape and the fact that it often occurs in remote places means that this abuse is under-reported. Rape has been systematically used as a means of punishing women suspected of being sympathetic or related to alleged militants and as a weapon in the security forces' efforts to intimidate and humiliate the local population.


Quote:

One of the most widely reported cases of gang-rape took place in Kunan Poshpora village in February 1991, when at least 23 women, ranging in age from 80 to 13, were reportedly raped at gunpoint by soldiers of the 4th Rajput Rifles (Indian Army) who had raided the village.


Quote:

In October 1992 nine women and girls, one aged just 11 years old, were reportedly raped in the village of Shopian by an army unit searching for armed separatists. Despite detailed medical evidence supporting reports by civil liberties groups that the women had been raped, the authorities dismissed the allegations, informing Amnesty International that they "were trumped up at the instance of the militant outfit to malign the reputation of the security forces". They based their denials on two investigations, one carried out by the army and the other by a Superintendent of Police. Questioned by The Observer (London) shortly afterwards, the Director General of Police, Commander B.S. Bedi, also dismissed reports of rape with this characteristic response: "We carried out investigations of the allegations and they were found to be wrong. These women were wives of militants".


Quote:

Methods of torture

Doctors treating torture victims in clinics and hospitals in Jammu and Kashmir are so accustomed to seeing patients admitted from interrogation and torture centres with acute renal failure that they are now calling it "Physical Torture Nephropathy". They attribute this to a combination of dehydration during torture and breakdown of soft tissue. As with any form of acute renal failure, it can lead to death unless treated urgently and if the patient survives they may suffer chronic kidney damage.


Quote:

The "roller" is a common method of torture in Jammu and Kashmir. Victims are forced to lie on their backs and a round pole is rolled over their legs and bodies with great force, often by two of the torturers standing on each end of the pole and "walking" it over the victim.

The "roller" is just one of many methods of brutal torture which have been described by detainees who survived the experience.


http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/india/document.do?id=581C118E2499C73E80256D24003793B0

There's a lot more to add. Perhaps later. Toodles Very Happy
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 05:15 pm
your link dont show those !!!!


did you cook them up ???


kashmir has historically belonged to india, as has all of pakistan and bangladesh - here's what the jhadi's /pakistanis do in kashmir and pakistan -

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA330082001?open&of=ENG-PAK
and
http://ikashmir.org/Miscellaneous/Teng.html
and
http://www.genocidewatch.org/IndiaMilitantsKill24HindusinKashmir.htm
and (most importantly)
http://www.uscirf.gov/events/hearings/2000/september/panel1/SubPanelB/09182000_Sazawal_oral.html
and
http://panunkashmir.org/fundamentalism.html

and here's what the peace loving muslims do in the whole world -
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/14muslimconflicts.html
and
http://images.google.com/images?q=islam+terror&btnG=Search&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 05:17 pm
http://www.ikashmir.org/fundamentalism.html

the links at the bottom and side of this (^^^^^^^) page should go a long way.....
0 Replies
 
mork
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 05:53 am
mork wrote:
Since we're onto Kashmir, here's a piece from Amnesty International on the Indian Army atrocities in that region, with lame attempts to cover up said atrocities. Some selected quotes

Quote:

Torture is a daily routine for the vast majority of thousands of men and women who have been arrested in connection with the campaign for Kashmir's independence or for the state to join Pakistan.


Quote:

The rape and sexual abuse of women has been widely reported in Jammu and Kashmir since the Indian security forces began counter-insurgency operations in 1990, although the stigma associated with rape and the fact that it often occurs in remote places means that this abuse is under-reported. Rape has been systematically used as a means of punishing women suspected of being sympathetic or related to alleged militants and as a weapon in the security forces' efforts to intimidate and humiliate the local population.


Quote:

One of the most widely reported cases of gang-rape took place in Kunan Poshpora village in February 1991, when at least 23 women, ranging in age from 80 to 13, were reportedly raped at gunpoint by soldiers of the 4th Rajput Rifles (Indian Army) who had raided the village.


Quote:

In October 1992 nine women and girls, one aged just 11 years old, were reportedly raped in the village of Shopian by an army unit searching for armed separatists. Despite detailed medical evidence supporting reports by civil liberties groups that the women had been raped, the authorities dismissed the allegations, informing Amnesty International that they "were trumped up at the instance of the militant outfit to malign the reputation of the security forces". They based their denials on two investigations, one carried out by the army and the other by a Superintendent of Police. Questioned by The Observer (London) shortly afterwards, the Director General of Police, Commander B.S. Bedi, also dismissed reports of rape with this characteristic response: "We carried out investigations of the allegations and they were found to be wrong. These women were wives of militants".


Quote:

Methods of torture

Doctors treating torture victims in clinics and hospitals in Jammu and Kashmir are so accustomed to seeing patients admitted from interrogation and torture centres with acute renal failure that they are now calling it "Physical Torture Nephropathy". They attribute this to a combination of dehydration during torture and breakdown of soft tissue. As with any form of acute renal failure, it can lead to death unless treated urgently and if the patient survives they may suffer chronic kidney damage.


Quote:

The "roller" is a common method of torture in Jammu and Kashmir. Victims are forced to lie on their backs and a round pole is rolled over their legs and bodies with great force, often by two of the torturers standing on each end of the pole and "walking" it over the victim.

The "roller" is just one of many methods of brutal torture which have been described by detainees who survived the experience.


http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/india/document.do?id=581C118E2499C73E80256D24003793B0

There's a lot more to add. Perhaps later. Toodles Very Happy


Correct link - http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/document.do?id=130CC715AEA97B67802569A500714D22
0 Replies
 
mork
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 05:56 am
Some Indian websites (e.g. http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hindu_bangla.html ) think they "prove" that a Hindu genocide of 2.5 million Hindus occurred during 1971 in Bangladesh.

They all over simplify their calculations by not taking into account fertility and migrational differences between the Hindus and rest of the population at the time (other differences would probably affect the figures as well, such as floods and famines etc, but will be ignored for the time being).

The total population of Bangladesh in 1974 = 71.4 million
The total population of East Pakistan in 1961 = 51 million

Factor by which the population increased between 1961-1974 = 1.4

This factor is used to calculate the expected Hindu population of Bangladesh in 1974 from most websites claiming a Hindu genocide occurred
But this factor assumes similar fertilities of the Hindu and Muslim (majority) populations. This is not true as the following articles clearly show.

Quote:

The Association for Land Reform and Development (ALRD), an NGO based in Dhaka states that "the implementation of Enemy Property Act \ Vested Property Act has accelerated the process of mass out-migration of Hindu population from mid 1960s onward. The estimated size of such out-migration (missing Hindu population) during 1964-1991 was 5.3 million, or 538 persons each day since 1964, with as high as 703 persons per day during 1964-1971.……………………………..... during the same period, the fertility rate among the Hindu population was 13 per cent less than the fertility rates among the Muslim population (estimate based on recent contraceptive use rates). Due to the lack of any reliable fertility estimates, the rate for the Muslims was estimated using an indirect method (Mauldin measure), based on contraceptive prevalence rates……………

http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF13.htm


Another article from the Journal of Biosocial Science confirms that the fertility rates of Hindus and Muslims in 1970s Bangladesh was not the same

Quote:

Using a unique set of birth registration data from the Demographic Surveillance System of the International Center for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh, for the period 1974-77, ……The age-specific fertility rates by religion show that Muslims had higher fertility at all ages in 1974 and 1977 and at older ages in 1975 and 1976. Overall, however, fertility of Hindus is consistently lower than that of Muslims, but the relative differences are under 10%.………

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3972858&query_hl=2


So Hindu fertility rates were most likely between about 10 and 13% less than Muslim fertility rates between 1961-1974 (by extrapolating the information to the previous decade).

So take the higher of the Hindu fertility rates quoted (10%, Journal of Biosocial Science), and adjust the factor of 1.4 to accommodate for the lower Hindu fertility rate.

0.9 X 1.4 = 1.26

Hindu population in 1961 in East Pakistan (modern day Bangladesh) = 9.4 million
Expected Hindu population in 1974 =
1.26 X 9.4 million = 11.8 million
Actual Hindu population in Bangladesh in 1974 = 9.6 million

Unaccounted for Hindus = 11.8 million - 9.6 million = 2.2 million.

This figure does not include migration of Hindus out of Bangladesh during this period (very few Hindus immigrated into bangladesh during the same time and can be considered negligible)

Accounting for migration
The first article quoted above states that "The estimated size of such out-migration (missing Hindu population) during 1964-1991 was 5.3 million, or 538 persons each day since 1964, with as high as 703 persons per day during 1964-1971"

Between the 8 years of 1964-1971, around 703 Hindu emigrations per day from Bangladesh took place
Total Hindu emigrations between 1964-1971 = 703 X 365 X 8 = 2.1 million. This leaves only 0.1 million Hindus unaccounted for (2.2 million - 2.1 million)

Between 1972-1974, there were perhaps 480,000 more Hindu emigrations ([5.3 million - 2.1 million] / 20 = 0.16 million emigrants per year. (Figure of 20 is years from 1972-1991). This figure is based on the article above, stating that "The estimated size of such out-migration (missing Hindu population) during 1964-1991 was 5.3 million, or 538 persons each day since 1964".

This would completely account for any remaining Hindus expected to be in the population by 1974.

The Hindu "genocide" is a figment of your wishful imagination, and the ironic thing is you will be sad that it is not true! Shocked

Now run along to school, else you'll be late for class.
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 06:43 am
aha... so genocide-watch, amnesty international, wikepedia etc are all hindu websites???????
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 07:02 am
as for the amnesty i6nternational report - most of the "sources" are the muslims of kashmir themselves - who directly and indirectly support/harbour/nourish/protect the jehadi terrorist of pakistan. and come up with various concocted stories and self inflicted injuries to deface the security forces.

but still i would not deny that sometimes a non-terrorist or non-terrorist-sympathiser/helper kashmiri finds himself on the wrong end of the security men - but then during any insurgency anyhere, be it in israel or in today's iraq, a few mistakes are bound to happen amidst the chaos. "**** happens" as they say. take for instance the shooting of the brazilian by the scotland yard. but then what if they 6hadn't shot and the guy tu6rned out to be a jehadi islamist pakistani muslim suicide bomber ??
cant take chances with their type ya see. the problems of the indian security forces are compounded by the mulsims of kashmir themselves who go out of their way to help the lashkar - e- toiba, the jaish-e-muhammed and the other members of the murderers-e-jihad-on-india.



as for the ficticious bangladesh genocide, here's what the history books have to say -

http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~faisal/Genocide.html
http://www.asiabookroom.com/currentlists_xAsia/bangla.htm
http://www.globalwebpost.com/genocide1971/
http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/bd_hol11.html
(this last one being a site of the bangladesh govt)
http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html



are you virgin to the english language???
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 07:48 am
well i am sure the rest arn't....


http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/G_0075.htm
(pls. read the 2nd last paragraph.. what uno has to say)

http://65.18.218.137/genocide/ and http://65.18.218.137/genocide/index2.html
0 Replies
 
mork
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 08:08 am
brahmin wrote:
aha... so genocide-watch, amnesty international, wikepedia etc are all hindu websites???????


Amnesty international has never called what happened in Bangladesh a genocide, human rights violations yes, bit like what the Indian Army is doing right now in Kashmir and has been doing for years on end.

Wikipedia has never called Bangladesh's war a genocide. Here is the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War
Can you find where it says any other source but East Pakistan or India calls what happened a genocide? The answer is no, here is what you will find from wikipedia:
Quote:

Genocide: 3 million (Bangladeshi estimate), 26,000 (Pakistan estimate)
In Bangladesh, and elsewhere (namely India), the Pakistani actions are referred to as genocide.


From your own link:
Quote:

The reply form GB (letter no. 4. Date 22nd Feb 1990) was very disappointing. The GB refused to recognize the War of Independence as constituting a record of the highest rate of deaths (per day) since 1945. The GB had also mysteriously made no mention of my own little evidence. Therefore the doubt still persisted about the validity of the THREE MILLION. And since the casualties of the war did not amount to a record, the question remained as to how many really died during the War of Independence.

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman has used the number THREE MILLION on occasions in the first month of his victorious arrival from Pakistan In total, from 1972 to 1975 he used this controversial number on a dozen occasion. The THREE MILLION is mentioned in some patriotic songs and poems (which of course gives them a firm basis).
http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~faisal/Genocide.html


Here's a nice independent assessment from an Indian researcher no less:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-6-2005_pg1_2

Quote:

According to Professor Sarmila Bose of the George Washington University, "In all of the incidents involving the Pakistan Army in the case-studies, the armed forces were found not to have raped women. While this cannot be extrapolated beyond the specific incidents in this study, it is significant, as in many cases the allegation of rape was made along with allegations of killing in prior verbal discussions or in some cases even in written form in Bengali literature. However, when Bengali eye-witnesses, participants and survivors of the incidents were interviewed they testified to the violence and killings, but also testified that no rape had taken place." Prof Bose was addressing a conference on the 1971 conflict arranged by the State Department to mark the release of declassified documents from that period.

Prof Bose said there has been no systematic study of the 1971 conflict which, in turn, hinders "a true understanding of a cataclysmic restructuring in modern South Asian history."

Bengalis appear to be determined more by fewer opportunities rather than a principled stand, both sides are equal in terms of the nature of the crime. Equally, acts of humanity in the midst of a bitter conflict are found on all sides."

She said, "The civil war of 1971 was fought between those who believed they were fighting for a united Pakistan and those who believed their chance for justice and progress lay in an independent Bangladesh. Both were legitimate political positions. All parties in this conflict embraced violence as a means to the end, all committed acts of brutality outside accepted norms of warfare, and all had their share of humanity. These attributes make the 1971 conflict particularly suitable for efforts towards reconciliation, rather than recrimination."

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-6-2005_pg1_2

This was given at the following official conference:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/46059.htm

Why do you think no educational institution in America teaches that it was a genocide? There were "excesses", a polite way of saying war crimes as with the Indian Armies' crimes in Kashmir highighted above, but it wasnt genocide. The Awami league declared war on the West, not the other way round and hence were legitimate targets. They chose to initiate a civil war and fight a guerilla war resulting in inevitable casualties. There is no credibility to these claims and especially to most of the sites you come out with like "HinduAmerican Foundation" which still tries to roll out the ludicrous numbers that only a semi literate "virgin to the language" such as yourself would believe.
0 Replies
 
mork
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 09:11 am
brahmin wrote:
as for the amnesty i6nternational report - most of the "sources" are the muslims of kashmir themselves - who directly and indirectly support/harbour/nourish/protect the jehadi terrorist of pakistan. and come up with various concocted stories and self inflicted injuries to deface the security forces.

but still i would not deny that sometimes a non-terrorist or non-terrorist-sympathiser/helper kashmiri finds himself on the wrong end of the security men - but then during any insurgency anyhere, be it in israel or in today's iraq, a few mistakes are bound to happen amidst the chaos. "**** happens" as they say. take for instance the shooting of the brazilian by the scotland yard. but then what if they 6hadn't shot and the guy tu6rned out to be a jehadi islamist pakistani muslim suicide bomber


Do you not understand the word systematic?
Or that the Indian Army is committing war crimes in Kashmir? The Pakistan Army is not involved in atrocities against the Kashmiris.

The same Amnesty Report says of the Indian Army in Kashmir:

Quote:

Rape has been systematically used as a means of punishing women suspected of being sympathetic or related to alleged militants and as a weapon in the security forces' efforts to intimidate and humiliate the local population.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/india/document.do?id=130CC715AEA97B67802569A500714D22


Quote:

Torture has been described in thousands of media reports, analyzed in medical journals, recounted in testimonies from former detainees, and in numerous reports of investigations conducted by local and other Indian civil liberties groups, and by international non-governmental organizations such as Human Rights Watch/Asia and Physicians for Human Rights, Denmark (PHR/D), as well as Amnesty International. Torture has also been documented by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture. Nevertheless, the Indian Government routinely denies allegations that its troops are responsible for systematic torture, and virtually no soldiers have been brought to justice for torturing detainees in their custody.
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 02:58 pm
why i think no educational institution in usa teaches that it was a genocide - was couse pakistan had the full backing of usa when it was inflicting the genocide, just like suharto had the full backing of usa when it inflicted the genopcide on east timor.
http://www.masterliness.com/a/Indo.Pakistani.War.of.1971.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/indo-pakistani-war-of-1971
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Bangladesh+Liberation+War&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&linktext=Bangladesh%20Liberation%20War


the pictures are not morphed, and the entire world body knows what happened. euphemisms dont help.


as for the indians army's "crimes" in kashmir, there arnt any. the few wrongs that do take place are unintentional/unforced errors - just like the IDF sometimes makes a target out of a civilian by mistake. such things always happen while tackling state sponsored terrorism, be it in iraq, israel or kashmir. the real killing in kashmir is of hindus (called kashmiri pundits) who have been slautered indiscriminately by jihadi groups supported by the muslims of kashmir, and the ones who have survived have been forced to flee into rest of india, being rendered refugees in their own country.


finally the HAF is a group, that has the support and the backing of most of the senators in usa. there's no source that failks to call the killing of 3+ million a genocide, barring holocaust (in bangladesh) deniers like you.
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 03:05 pm
the pakistani army is not involved because they dont need to since the pakistanis are themselves involved, producing jehadis by the thousand. the ISI backs them to the hilt and trains them in terror camps in pakistan. jehadis = pakistan's army.

the indian army's involvement here, is the same and for the same reasons as the israeli army's involvement in countering the intifada carried out by the arabs/muslims (who for some reason seem to have the single point agenda of carrying out intifadas and killings and genocides and suicide bombins on all parts of the world they have gone to) - the indian army is there to get those pakistani jehadis. israel has to send its army to counter the hamas and such like because the jews arn't terrorist jehadis themselves and so cant take on terrorists without a trained fighting force. same here. and thats also the reason india and israel co-operates to such a high extent (india's defence and intelligence ties/co-operation with israel are second to only usa's ties with israel) - cos we face the same situations, the same merciless muslims who have the same agenda - of robbing the rightful owner countries of their land.
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 03:24 pm
http://preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/eastbengal/resources/
as you can see, the bangladeshi (muslims) themselves corroborate the genocide carried out on bangladesh, as for western observers and historians. only pakistan put the deseased at a 2 preferabbly 1 didgit figure, the way holocaust deniers puts the number of jewish victims at about 350 give or take some.


shame on amnesty is it doesnt call the butchering of 3+ million in bangladesh a genocide... in fact i dont believe you.
0 Replies
 
mork
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 06:10 am
brahmin wrote:
the pakistani army is not involved because they dont need to since the pakistanis are themselves involved, producing jehadis by the thousand. the ISI backs them to the hilt and trains them in terror camps in pakistan. jehadis = pakistan's army.

the indian army's involvement here, is the same and for the same reasons as the israeli army's involvement in countering the intifada carried out by the arabs/muslims (who for some reason seem to have the single point agenda of carrying out intifadas and killings and genocides and suicide bombins on all parts of the world they have gone to) - the indian army is there to get those pakistani jehadis. israel has to send its army to counter the hamas and such like because the jews arn't terrorist jehadis themselves and so cant take on terrorists without a trained fighting force. same here. and thats also the reason india and israel co-operates to such a high extent (india's defence and intelligence ties/co-operation with israel are second to only usa's ties with israel) - cos we face the same situations, the same merciless muslims who have the same agenda - of robbing the rightful owner countries of their land.


Not true. The background is that Kashmir is divided into two parts. One part is Pakistani-administered, the other is Indian administered. The Pakistani Army in the Pakistani-administered part of Kashmir does not have any problem with the locals. The Indian Army in the Indian-administered Kashmir is facing an insurgency comprising chiefly of the local Kashmiri population:

Quote:

Accepting Hizbul Mujahideen as genuine and indigenous Kashmiris was a moral victory for the militants. Delhi also offered dialogue with all Kashmiri jehadi groups without conditionalities. Even Farooq Abdullah forgetting his demand for autonomy stated that Hizbul Mujahideen's were sons of the soil, and his government welcomed dialogue with them and other like minded militants. Farooq Abdullah said that the Indian government was ready for talks with seven other militant organizations, whose fighters he said were sons of the soil. He pleaded with them to ceasefire, and start negotiations. Mr Vajpayee responded positively to the Hizb offer of ceasefire and dialogue by saying that the only conditionality is "Insaniyat" i.e. humanism and civility and not the Indian constitution. Vajpayee invited all militant groups to talks. The recognition by India that all militant outfits except Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Harkat-al-Mujahideen are indigenous Kashmiris is a moral victory for the Hizbul Mujahideen and Kashmiri youths fighting for freedom since 1989. India by accepting that the freedom fighters are native Kashmiris, has acknowledged its deception and propaganda that the freedom struggle was foreign sponsored.

http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/nov/hizb.htm


Even major Indian newspapers admit the fact that the major militant groups in Indian-administered Kashmir are indigenous Kashmiris themselves!! See here for example, it says that Hizbul-Mujahideen (the largest insurgent outfit in Kashmir is largely indigenous!!:

Quote:

The indigenous Kashmiri groups like the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) and large portions of the Hizbul-Mujahideen (HM) would probably participate in the later stages of any settlement as evident from the unilateral ceasefire declared by the HM in July 2000.

Sections of the forces, particularly those who have operated for extended durations in Kashmir, will argue that the Kashmiris will never embrace the Indian cause, being inherently pro-Pakistani.

http://www.expressindia.com/kashmir/kashmirlive/an20010525.html


The more dubious outfits, such Al-Faran, are not supported by the local population who recognize them as outsiders not helping their cause:

Quote:


The simple fact of the matter is that most of the Kashmiri freedom fighters are Kashmiris themselves with an honest cause of wanting independency from India. That this is true, is proven by the distancing (strikes, demonstrations etc) of the local Kashmiri population from the shady outfits that do not help their cause.

As to what the local Kashmiris want, which would be the democratic thing to do, call for a referendum, they do not want to be a part of India:

Quote:

Q: What do the people of Kashmir want?

A: At one time, most of the residents would have voted to join Pakistan. Increasingly, Kashmiris are calling for independence. A majority clearly would vote to leave India if given the chance.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/01/09/kashmir-qna-usat.htm


Pakistan is calling for a referendum there, India is not. India is breaking the Mountbatten agreement which states that accession to India (upon the 1947 partition) would only be temporary and a referendum would be held to determine the fate of Kashmir:

Quote:

At the insistence of the last British viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, Kashmir's accession to India was supposed to be temporary. After order was restored, a referendum was to be held in which Kashmiris chose between India and Pakistan. The United Nations passed several resolutions calling for a referendum. But India never allowed it to happen.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/01/09/kashmir-qna-usat.htm


India has ignored successive calls by the United Nations to hold a referendum in Kashmir to let the Kashmiris determine their path (the right of self-determination). It is ironic or perhaps hypocritical that the Indian Army's "excuse" for siding with the East Pakistani insurgency against the legitimate Pakistani government in 1971 (that led to a civil war in Pakistan), was the right of self-determination for a distinct group of people. The Kashmiris are the only Muslim-majority state in India and as such form a distinct set of people with their own traditions that want out of India. If Pakistan or any other country were aiding the Kashmiris it would in no way compare to the civil war that India encouraged and fostered in 1971 within Pakistan.

Finally a quote from Amnesty International that provides a minimal outline of the atrocities committed by the Indian Army in Kashmir:

Quote:

The brutality of torture in Jammu and Kashmir defies belief. It has left people mutilated and disabled for life. The severity of torture meted out by the Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir is the main reason for the appalling number of deaths in custody.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/india/document.do?id=130CC715AEA97B67802569A500714D22
0 Replies
 
mork
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 06:16 am
brahmin wrote:
as for the indians army's "crimes" in kashmir, there arnt any. the few wrongs that do take place are unintentional/unforced errors


....said with a large dose of neutrality and impartiality
0 Replies
 
mork
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 06:28 am
brahmin wrote:
finally the HAF is a group, that has the support and the backing of most of the senators in usa. there's no source that failks to call the killing of 3+ million a genocide, barring holocaust (in bangladesh) deniers like you.


Census figures do not suggest that "3 million+" were killed as you put it. If all you can quote are from the Daily Star (Dhaka) or the Independent (Chittagong) or from "The Hindu" or "Banglapedia" for your references, you do not have a leg to stand on. The figure of 3 million was repeated by the Bengali leader in 1971 (who was killed by his own people subsequently), and no independent, creditable institution or person will touch it. Think about it.

(PS, tthe Sisson and Rose reference is not bad, putting the dead at perhaps a few hundred thousand, many of whom were Urdu-speaking Biharis that were killed by Bengali mobs in the chaos of the civil war, for being suspected West Pakistani colloborators)

And while you're at it, i've provided you with two calculations, one which shows that the number of Hindus in Pakistan has increased dramatically from 1947 to the present day, the other which shows that the numerous "Hindu genocide" sites claiming 2.5 million(!!) dead Hindus during the 1971 civil war are not correct. You asked for them. Try disproving any one of them.
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 10:46 am
mork wrote:


Not true. The background is that Kashmir is divided into two parts. One part is Pakistani-administered, the other is Indian administered. The Pakistani Army in the Pakistani-administered part of Kashmir does not have any problem with the locals. The Indian Army in the Indian-administered Kashmir is facing an insurgency comprising chiefly of the local Kashmiri population:



The background is that kashnir was always occupied by hindus, nad has historically been a part of india. and that pakistan has eaten away one half of it, called POk - pakistan occupied kashmir, and has been trying ever since to make a grab at the other half, which rightfully belongs to india.

the pakistani army has the locals of POK under the hammer, so the locals can't protest against them. where as in indian kashmir, the locals are free to launch any ammount of suicide attacks they want - and so they do. and the indian army facing the insurgency from the local kashmiri population is true -= the local kashmiri population is predominately muslim - the jihadis having butchered and flushed away the kashmiri pandits (so that kashmir becomes a muslim majority place, like china allocates houses to chinese people in tivet, so that son tibet becomes totally chinese dominated), an they want to break away, being as they (kashmiri muslims) are jehadi muslims themselves. (as most muslims anywhere in the world are). india aint gonna allow that, else in all parts of india where the muslims have stayed back - instead of migrating to arabia or pakistan - they'll make similar separatist demands and soon we will have islands of pakistan in india (which is what muslims in india and also in the west want. we are likely to see a mini soudi arabia in holland and france son, nd a londonistan in london to). if the kashmiri muslims want to go to pakistan, hell if the3 indian muslims want to go to pakistan or soudi arabia, they are free to do so - what they cant however do is take our land with them, much is the same way the jews of europe and usa cant declare mini-israels all over the place.



mork wrote:

Even major Indian newspapers admit the fact that the major militant groups in Indian-administered Kashmir are indigenous Kashmiris themselves!! See here for example, it says that Hizbul-Mujahideen (the largest insurgent outfit in Kashmir is largely indigenous!!:




precisely.

which shows just how muslims put religion above the nation they belong to. much in the same way muslims in the west are against usa for bombing afghanistan. nearly all the muslims in india actually have one foot in arabia and another in pakistan. and hence they cheer and celebrate on the streets when pakistan wins a cricket match against india, and hence we have "death to usa and israel" type posters and protest marches right here in india.
the problem with muslims is that they dont understand nation or nationality - they understand only religion - their own. even after the london bombings, the muslims in london described the iraqis as their "brothers" though ethnically they arnt in any way related to iraqis and are probably white and thus european. similarly muslims in india cry river upon river for "palestanian victims" (never for jews who die under suicide bombers). they are just one narrowminded, irrational, anti establishment, undemocratic, unpatriotic, religious zealot of a people. no matter which part of the world they end up in. every fcuk-up in the world has muslims on one if not both sides of it.


needless to say the separist muslims in india have the full tactical backing of the ISI and the financial backing of the bin ladens of the world.

even the Ram tempe bombing attempt that took place a month or so back, was done by 4 pakistani muslims, trained in the jehad-camps of pakistan, and with the help of local indian muslims. the same way the LeT and JeM gets a hell lot of support from the local muslims population of pakistan.

your references themselves admit the fact that the local muslim population backs the millitants to the hilt and themselves produce more than their fair share of blodthirsty cut throats (which is but a step away from being muslim anyway)


as for the amnesty int, it is the same organization that condemns Israel trying to protect its land and people from the arab terrorists. man doesnt amnesty have better work to do than to side with terrorists ?? the problem is that when terrorists murder by the million, they get away with it cos they are self declared terrorists/muslims - so no one expects anything better from them in any case. but when an army goofs up by even a whisker while trying to tackle the separatist insusgency, all hell breaks loose and pinko organisations start condemning it. truely beautiful, this terrorist-pinko nexus.
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 10:55 am
mork wrote:


Census figures do not suggest that "3 million+" were killed as you put it. If all you can quote are from the Daily Star (Dhaka) or the Independent (Chittagong) or from "The Hindu" or "Banglapedia" for your references, you do not have a leg to stand on. The figure of 3 million was repeated by the Bengali leader in 1971 (who was killed by his own people subsequently), and no independent, creditable institution or person will touch it. Think about it.





yes i thought about it - and felt that when the muslim population and govt. of bangladesh admits in their official sites and their top news papers that the genocide of Bengali speaking hindus of bangladesh was exceeded in proportion and degree only by the jewish holocaust, then they know what they are talking about.

btw, bengali dont make them hindu, as i am sure you don't know. the leader in question is Mujib-ur-rehaman, a bangladeshi muslim. and they (bangladeshi muslims) witnessed and admit what happened to hindu bengalis in bangladesh under the pakistani army.

i quoted from a million sites already, each more trustworthy than the previous - no further proof is needed.
0 Replies
 
mork
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 05:55 pm
brahmin wrote:
mork wrote:


Not true. The background is that Kashmir is divided into two parts. One part is Pakistani-administered, the other is Indian administered. The Pakistani Army in the Pakistani-administered part of Kashmir does not have any problem with the locals. The Indian Army in the Indian-administered Kashmir is facing an insurgency comprising chiefly of the local Kashmiri population:



The background is that kashnir was always occupied by hindus, nad has historically been a part of india. and that pakistan has eaten away one half of it, called POk - pakistan occupied kashmir, and has been trying ever since to make a grab at the other half, which rightfully belongs to india.


Kashmir does not rightfully belong to India. The Indians have/had an obligation under terms agreed during the signing by the ruler of Kashmir in 1947, to TEMPORARILY hand over Kashmir to the Indians and then, at the insistence of the Viceroy Mountabatten to allow the Kashmiri people the choice of their future rule through a referendum. India in this respect is in breach of repeated United Nations resolutions on Kashmir. I have quoted all this above and you seem to have ignored it:

Quote:

At the insistence of the last British viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, Kashmir's accession to India was supposed to be temporary. After order was restored, a referendum was to be held in which Kashmiris chose between India and Pakistan. The United Nations passed several resolutions calling for a referendum. But India never allowed it to happen.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/01/09/kashmir-qna-usat.htm


As for your idiotic notion that Kashmir has always been occupied by Hindus, even you cannot mean that Hindus have ruled Kashmir for most of Kashmirs history as the majority of Kashmiri as well as Pakistani history is tied with invaders from the Mughals (modern day Kazaks) to the Arabs to the Persians and Greeks. The majority of the modern-day population of Kashmir converted to Islam in the 14th century and want out of India.

brahmin wrote:

the pakistani army has the locals of POK under the hammer, so the locals can't protest against them. where as in indian kashmir, the locals are free to launch any ammount of suicide attacks they want - and so they do. and the indian army facing the insurgency from the local kashmiri population is true -= the local kashmiri population is predominately muslim - the jihadis having butchered and flushed away the kashmiri pandits (so that kashmir becomes a muslim majority place, like china allocates houses to chinese people in tivet, so that son tibet becomes totally chinese dominated), an they want to break away, being as they (kashmiri muslims) are jehadi muslims themselves. (as most muslims anywhere in the world are). india aint gonna allow that, else in all parts of india where the muslims have stayed back - instead of migrating to arabia or pakistan - they'll make similar separatist demands and soon we will have islands of pakistan in india (which is what muslims in india and also in the west want. we are likely to see a mini soudi arabia in holland and france son, nd a londonistan in london to). if the kashmiri muslims want to go to pakistan, hell if the3 indian muslims want to go to pakistan or soudi arabia, they are free to do so - what they cant however do is take our land with them, much is the same way the jews of europe and usa cant declare mini-israels all over the place.


So let me get this straight genius. The Indian Army rapes women systematically, tortures men and women in Kashmir using "rollers" and amputating body parts of Kashmiris and yet they cant put down the insurgency against them, whereas the Pakistan Army has not been reported to have had any trouble with local Kashmiris, have not been reported to rape and torture the Kashmiris, but they somehow are brutally putting down the Kashmiris so they do not rise up against them???? You make about as much sense as a drunkard on a Friday night pub crawl Laughing

Let me help you out here because you're getting confused again. Kashmiris do NOT want to be governed by India. They would prefer to be governed by Pakistan, but ideally want independence. India is in violation of successive UN resolutions to call a referendum on Kashmir to allow these people the right to determine their future, and the Indian Army is also guilty of SERIOUS human rights violations in Kashmir as documented by every single neutral observer in Indian occupied Kashmir.

Pakistan and neighbouring Kashmir have NOT been a part of India for most of history as you put it. A tiny portion of Pakistan's and Kashmirs history is tied in with India from as far back as 3000 BC. A summary of this history is given here:


Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present

1. Indus Valley Civilization: 3000-1500 B.C. i.e. about 1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani Empire.

4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.

5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.

6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

7. Saka-Parthian period: 100 B.C.- 70 A.D. i.e. about 170 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

8. Kushan rule (1st phase): 70-250 A.D. i.e. about 180 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.

9. Kushan rule (2nd phase): 250-450 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st phase): 450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.

11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India.

12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D. i.e. 177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.

13. Ghorid and Qubacha periods: 1187-1227 A.D. i.e. about 40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

14. Muslim period (Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.

15. Nadir Shah and Abdali periods: 1739-1800 A.D. i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.

16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan: 1800-1848 A.D. i.e. about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.

17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e. about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.

18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan: 1947-present. Independent, not part of India.

The above reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian 'claim' that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west. This is true both commercially and culturally.
http://www.nawaetokyo.com/history.shtml

Hindu/Indian rule over Pakistan and Kashmir is a very, very small percentage of their respective 5000 year history.

brahmin wrote:

mork wrote:

Even major Indian newspapers admit the fact that the major militant groups in Indian-administered Kashmir are indigenous Kashmiris themselves!! See here for example, it says that Hizbul-Mujahideen (the largest insurgent outfit in Kashmir is largely indigenous!!:



precisely.

which shows just how muslims put religion above the nation they belong to. much in the same way muslims in the west are against usa for bombing afghanistan. nearly all the muslims in india actually have one foot in arabia and another in pakistan. and hence they cheer and celebrate on the streets when pakistan wins a cricket match against india, and hence we have "death to usa and israel" type posters and protest marches right here in india.
the problem with muslims is that they dont understand nation or nationality - they understand only religion - their own. even after the london bombings, the muslims in london described the iraqis as their "brothers" though ethnically they arnt in any way related to iraqis and are probably white and thus european. similarly muslims in india cry river upon river for "palestanian victims" (never for jews who die under suicide bombers). they are just one narrowminded, irrational, anti establishment, undemocratic, unpatriotic, religious zealot of a people. no matter which part of the world they end up in. every ****-up in the world has muslims on one if not both sides of it.


needless to say the separist muslims in india have the full tactical backing of the ISI and the financial backing of the bin ladens of the world.

even the Ram tempe bombing attempt that took place a month or so back, was done by 4 pakistani muslims, trained in the jehad-camps of pakistan, and with the help of local indian muslims. the same way the LeT and JeM gets a hell lot of support from the local muslims population of pakistan.

your references themselves admit the fact that the local muslim population backs the millitants to the hilt and themselves produce more than their fair share of blodthirsty cut throats (which is but a step away from being muslim anyway)


What part of "the majority of Kashmiris do not want India to rule them" do you not get? That is why the local Kashmiri population is fighting against the Indian Army. (PS Indians in England cheer when India wins a cricket match against England).

Kashmiri Muslims are their own type of Muslim. They are Sufis on the whole i believe. What goes on in one part of the world with Muslims bears no resemblance to the fight for freedom that is going on in Kashmir, which is a legitimate fight for freedom as i have described above. Your argument is based on 1) Denial of the human rights violations the Indian Army is reaping in Kashmir 2) Denial of the fact that Kashmir has not been a part of India for most of recent history and 3) Pre-pubescent name calling that resembles that of a giggling, acne ridden Hindu fundamentalist schoolkid. Exactly what you describe as bloodthirsty cutthroats(Gujarat massacres of Muslims, Kashmir etc), irrational (cow piss drinking), unpatriotic, religious zealots could quite easily apply to the Hindu fundamentalists that ruled India in the last decade and are present in other areas of the world, where fraud is their most useful contribution to any society!!

brahmin wrote:

as for the amnesty int, it is the same organization that condemns Israel trying to protect its land and people from the arab terrorists. man doesnt amnesty have better work to do than to side with terrorists ?? the problem is that when terrorists murder by the million, they get away with it cos they are self declared terrorists/muslims - so no one expects anything better from them in any case. but when an army goofs up by even a whisker while trying to tackle the separatist insusgency, all hell breaks loose and pinko organisations start condemning it. truely beautiful, this terrorist-pinko nexus.


So Amnesty.USA is a terrorist organization? That speaks volumes about how desperate you are to deny the reality of the "genocide" that is currently occurring in Kashmir as committed by the Indian Army.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » India or Pakistan
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 10:02:34