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
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.