Debate Mansion

   

Whos biggest threats to Pakistan? (Page 35)

Poll Question: Thaliban/Religious Extremism

Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
21 [75.00%]
2 [7.14%]
2 [7.14%]
1 [3.57%]
2 [7.14%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Post Reply New Post

Page 35 of 36

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20689

Posted: 09 October 2009 at 10:28pm | IP Logged
The biggest problem that really faces any country in the world today be it Pakistan or any other is denial. As institutions run by humans, all countries are flawed and subject to irresponsible behavior and decisions. The problem really begins when people start denying that there is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Speaking of brainwashing children into terrorism. I think the problem is more prevalent in Somalia, Rwanda rather than Pakistan. Irrespective of the country it takes place in, the fact is that selfish people are using innocent children for their own selfish purposes. Innocent children are being robbed of a childhood and are being either coerced or seduced into a life of violence.

Does it matter whether the cruel selfish humans are Somalian, Pakistani, Afghani or even Japanese for crying out loud - common humanity tells us mindless violence is wrong and one should fight it no matter what.

Dwelling on the past is never going to fix problems, nor is a current problem is going to be fixed by trying to repair past misgivings. It does not matter what traumatic life event made a person an alcoholic, nor can he travel back in time to make better choices. We have what we have and - we have the choice on what we want to future to be.

Pakistan has made mistakes in the past. Pakistan is at a fragile political state torn between two extremities, two conflicting views on the world and Pakistan's role in the world. As they say sometimes people are their own worst enemy - so it is with Pakistan. The country needs to awaken to the fact that it has a problem with extremists and extremism - and find a tangible solution.

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Whos biggest threats to Pakistan? (Page 35)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

chal_phek_mat

Senior Member

chal_phek_mat

Joined: 07 March 2008

Posts: 958

Posted: 09 October 2009 at 11:36pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by mahikhan

LOL itna tu Pakistan bhi argue nahi ker raheLOL
they find it more interesting in teaching to fire a AK-47 in crowd full of women/children


Edited by chal_phek_mat - 10 October 2009 at 12:37am

chal_phek_mat

Senior Member

chal_phek_mat

Joined: 07 March 2008

Posts: 958

Posted: 10 October 2009 at 12:36am | IP Logged
In a situation when someone feels hurt, it is not the person who is inflicting the hurt who gets to decide what is hurtful and what is not,
Originally posted by return_to_hades

The biggest problem that really faces any country in the world today be it Pakistan or any other is denial. As institutions run by humans, all countries are flawed and subject to irresponsible behavior and decisions. The problem really begins when people start denying that there is a problem that needs to be fixed.
 
Actually the biggest problem that faces a country is people like populism more than unpleasant actions, but that is another debateLOL

Speaking of brainwashing children into terrorism. I think the problem is more prevalent in Somalia, Rwanda rather than Pakistan. Irrespective of the country it takes place in, the fact is that selfish people are using innocent children for their own selfish purposes. Innocent children are being robbed of a childhood and are being either coerced or seduced into a life of violence.
Nope the Problem is more pronounced in nations and people that have a feeling that they are being prosecuted and any such person spreads that message and beleives in that message are the biggest culprits. As an example you will see colored folks scream racism rather than trying to accept everyone gets a bad break and it is not always about race or religion, but folks always do it

Does it matter whether the cruel selfish humans are Somalian, Pakistani, Afghani or even Japanese for crying out loud - common humanity tells us mindless violence is wrong and one should fight it no matter what.
People resort to voilence when someone ignores or belittles or refuses to addess their issues for a prolonged period of time
Dwelling on the past is never going to fix problems, nor is a current problem is going to be fixed by trying to repair past misgivings. It does not matter what traumatic life event made a person an alcoholic, nor can he travel back in time to make better choices. We have what we have and - we have the choice on what we want to future to be.
I am sorry that is a shifting attitude, when you are on the other side one always says that, and that irritates the victims further and do that long enough and they will lace themselves with RDX and blow you away

Pakistan has made mistakes in the past. Pakistan is at a fragile political state torn between two extremities, two conflicting views on the world and Pakistan's role in the world. As they say sometimes people are their own worst enemy - so it is with Pakistan. The country needs to awaken to the fact that it has a problem with extremists and extremism - and find a tangible solution.
 
Everyone has made mistakes, but they feel that have a valid gripe against all the external parties and if the external parties keep on ignoring the issues, Pakistan will keep on using the measures that make the other parties feel the pain. Pakistan knows they cannot fight the other countries straight on, they have to resort to these actions, unfortunately people started taking things seriously and started putting their mouth where their money was and this happens, you gotta admit, they atleast are trying to practice what they preach, which cant be said regarding a lot of the so called democratic nationsWink
 
On a side note, please remember this is a debateWink


Edited by chal_phek_mat - 10 October 2009 at 12:38am

chal_phek_mat

Senior Member

chal_phek_mat

Joined: 07 March 2008

Posts: 958

Posted: 10 October 2009 at 12:58am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by chal_phek_mat

I agree but Indira Gandhi and her cronies decided to utilize this opportunity to  do a divide and conquer. I dont fault her, but lets call a spade a spade and this is exactly what Pakistan did in Kashmir
When you say divide and conquer then two things come to mind. First, India only helped an oppressed group of people achieve their independence (and that too only after the oppressed asked for independence and the oppressor started killing them)
Even the Brits said similar things while illustrating how horribly we treated our minorities and women and inflicting Divide and Rule. That is the same as ever intervention that America does in another countryLOL
 
. Second, there was no conquering from India's side following the division.. Conquering the enemy is more fun, India basically managed to split the strength of the enemy in half by doing this, that is the biggest conquest
 
As far as likening it to Pakistan's role in Kasmir. India didn't send mercenaries to Pakistan to blow up people or to drive out Muslims from East Pakistan.
Again go back and check the RAW activities in that period. Indira Gandhi was notorious in using RAW for these reasons. Ask any Pakistani and they will say they got the inspiration of ISI from RAW and Indira Gandhi
 
India helped Bangladeshi freedom fighters legally through it's own army in uniform and not some terrorist.
One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, depends on which side of the debate you are on, they are just interchangeable terminoligies
India doesn't deny that help and neither do they deny that those who helped were from India. And ultimately the fact is it was Pakistan who attacked first both in case of Kashmir and Bangladesh. The same way India attacked in KargilPakistan even got a portion of Kashmir and then went ahead and gave a portion of it to China. That is their choice and shows their altruistic nature
Really, I don't see much similarity with India's position on Bangladesh in 1970s.
It completely depends where your sunglasses are made in LOL
 
Originally posted by chal_phek_mat

Well the Boatload of refugees change equation. India knew they either have to deal with the problem in their backyard in future in settling these refugees OR sympathize with them, win the war for them and get them to their homes, they chose the later
They could have easily thrown away the refugees and blocked their entry. Ultimately only because Pakistan attacked did the war start.

As I said Indians did not get caught with their pants downLOL, Go check the news accounts, India was planning to attack in Winter and Pakistan just attacked firstWink Atleast they were wiser than we were during the Kargil thingWink


Originally posted by chal_phek_mat

The original population of Jammu is Hindu and the original population of Kashmir is Muslim If you look at the population map of J&K in 1947. It was decidedly Muslim, that is why Sardar Patel and Nehru decided to go the backdoor to get the Maharaja's approval rather than do a simple count by religious lines And Nehru knew this b'cos that was his backyard.
 
The Radicalization of the valley started in 1990's and only around that period the kashmiri pandits were driven out.
I was actually speaking historically. Most of the muslims there had migrated from the other side. And many muslim rulers of the region started driving out Hindus. That started long back. Strangely and I don't know why but Hindus even when they became rulers never persecuted muslims for their religion.
It all depends on how far back in the history you want to go,If you go back 500 years ago, they were more Hindus, so we should declare India as a Hindu state. 2000 year ago we had half Aryan state and Half Dravidian state, so the first half should declare their affiliation with Nazi Germany
 
The fact is India Pakistan were divided on Religious lines, the terms and conditions were, more muslim majority goes to Pakistan, more Hindu majority goes to India. Kashmir in 1947 was more Muslim than Hindu and it belonged to Pakistan.
What happened in 1990s was just a repetition of history.
What happened in 1970 was Majabir Rehman won a election. Yahya Khan overturned a democratice decision of the E Pakistani people, there was resentment in E. Pakistan. India used that event to fan Anti Pakistan feelings
What happened in 1990 was Rajiv Gandhi overturned a democratic decision of the people of Kashmir, there was resentment in the J&K, Pakistan used that event to fan anti India feelings
 
So I agree it was a replitation of historyWink
 
And anyways, both Pakistan and India had decided that princely states will have the power to decide whether they want to join Pakistan, India or remain independent. Kashmir wanted to remain independent but Pakistan launched an attack on them.
Only then the Maharaja of Kashmir asked for India's help (and no India didn't interfere in their affairs to begin with). So, it was Pakistan who breached what was decided upon from the very beginning.
The King wanted to remain independant, the people wanted to join Pakistan. And India was a democracy meaning where you go by the will of the people
 
Sorry I wont have time to carry forward this debate, so I will give you the last word

ram92

IF-Dazzler

ram92

Joined: 15 June 2009

Posts: 3067

Posted: 10 October 2009 at 9:14am | IP Logged
Originally posted by hindu4lyf

Originally posted by ram92

Originally posted by mahikhan

Originally posted by hindu4lyf

Originally posted by mahikhan

Originally posted by rongna


@mahi: the reason why we are talking about the partition of 1947 between india and pakistan is because that is the very foundation reason of the animosity between the indians and the pakistanis. even though today the reason between competition and animosity between india and pakistan is no longer only due to religious differences, as india has the second biggest muslim population after indonesia in the world it is still very significant till today. many of the terrorist groups in pakistan who claim to be defender of the islamic faith argue that, the existence of their terrorist group is to spread islam and to annihilate indians.
Which terrorists are you talkin about,rongna?
The terrorist in Pakistan are not Pakistani's they are Afgani's secondly the terrorists in Pakistan those who happen to be paki civilians are Swatis who picture their wves and sis/mums being raped,picture their fathers and bros being killed i'm not supporting them since NOTHNG can justify terrorism still they ONLY kill police in Pakistan majority police is being killed coz of them regarding underlined NO ONE is spreading Islam they work for Pakistani govt just to get aid from the world.
And those who say they hate Indians they are ONLY a group of people who dont want to see Pakistan as an established state nither they want Pakistan to keep freindly relationship with its neighbouring countriesDead that's why they keep saying stupid things they DON'T defend Islam how can one defend its religion WHO DON'T EVEN KNOW THE A.B,C of their religion.
They are TERRORISTS and they belong to NO religion they find pleasure in killin innocent atrociously for no reason.Dead
 
Seriously, where did you gett he information from that ALL terrorists in pakistani are of afghani origin?Confused
Maybe the one's who are training them are from Aghanistan but the little young boys who are training to become terrorists are most definitely pakistani. I have seen enough documentaries on the BBC, ITV, panorama shows etc to get an insight on those who are training to be terrorists, the hate that they have for non-muslims is actually quite sickening. It's like they just wanna blow the whole world apart.
 
Like you previously stated, they may not be 'true Muslims', but they are definitely Pakistani and not just Afghani cos the afghani can train their people on their own soil without having to come over to pakistan and brainwash the kids there.
But i'm sorry but these people have read the Qu'ran, its just that they've made up their own interpretation of it, I don't think me or you have a right to judge them by calling them 'true' or 'untrue' muslims.
@Underlined i've relatives there they told me and i did mention that they are from Swat and swat happen to be a paki cityTongue
@Bolded Yes these kids are pakistani's but they are kidnapped they are hapnatised and they are told that this way they will be given a good place iheaven since kids around 15,16 are young enuff to get influenced by such things thats why they do it you'll hardly find any suicide bomber at the age of 20 or above 20Smile



I agree wid u completely. The fact is that most of the paki children r kidnapped and smuggle. The thing about getting place in heaven after doing these attacks is true. Let me clear my self its not true otherwise its just their fake idea so that these innocent children can get influence easily.

And one of the post here was saying that during partition time hindus were force to get out of pakistan. And same was the case in india. Many muslims were killed, children and women were raped, slaughtered. When trains carrying muslims came to pakistan, they were full of dead bodies, blood and slaughtered organs. U cannot deny this fact and awful truth. Tali ek hath se nai bajti!
 
Well then manhiji, I think you need to correct yourself when you say that all terrorists in pakistan are aghani's, because you yourself just said that they are indeed pakistani nationals even though you claim they have been brainwashed. A terrorist is a terrorist in my eyes? They may well just be little innocent kids who have been brainwashed, but they are still young pakistani nationals who have the capability to carry out suicide bombings right?Winkand erm, how do you know that there are hardly any suicide bombers above the age of 20? I do not need to have relatives in pakistan to know that this is not a fact.
@ram92: I agree that tali ek hath se nai bajti lekin there is a reason why there is less than 2% concentration of hindus in pakistan however in India the numbers have increased very rapidly don't you think? Forget about 1947, there are stories all the time how people are forced and converted as they are poor hindu farmers in karachi who did not have enough money to flee the country.
 
I am glad that my grandparents chose to flee pakistan when they had a chance, otherwise I wonder where I would be and how i'd be treated in the modern day pakistan.Ouch
anyway, my point was that I don't really care a damn if these so called 'kids' at the age of 16/17 are being brainwashed and that being used an excuse because to be honest, those 'kids' have the potential to take the lives of many many innocent ones.


Mana k india has more muslim population than pakistan has hindu population. But this does not demonstrate that all the muslims living in india r in peace and all the hindus living in pakistan r living a terrible life. Y r u forgetting that what happen to the common  muslims in gujrat incident in 2002. And whats happening to innocent  muslims living in kashmir. U must be knowing that y kashmiri muslims r protesting against indian soldiers. M not deciding this thing for myself that kashmir should come to pakistan or it should be with india. M really shock and disappoint to know about kashmiri Muslims lives over there. 


Edited by ram92 - 10 October 2009 at 9:15am

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13893

Posted: 10 October 2009 at 9:57am | IP Logged
Originally posted by chal_phek_mat

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by chal_phek_mat

I agree but Indira Gandhi and her cronies decided to utilize this opportunity to  do a divide and conquer. I dont fault her, but lets call a spade a spade and this is exactly what Pakistan did in Kashmir
When you say divide and conquer then two things come to mind. First, India only helped an oppressed group of people achieve their independence (and that too only after the oppressed asked for independence and the oppressor started killing them)
Even the Brits said similar things while illustrating how horribly we treated our minorities and women and inflicting Divide and Rule. That is the same as ever intervention that America does in another countryLOL
But the British established their rule over India and sucked it dry. India didn't do any such thing. Instead it was Pakistan who were using Bangladesh as a colony. Everything was from administration to industry were controlled by West Pakistan and East Pakistan was used as a supplier of raw materials.
 
. Second, there was no conquering from India's side following the division.. Conquering the enemy is more fun, India basically managed to split the strength of the enemy in half by doing this, that is the biggest conquest
Maybe so but it was Pakistan who initiated the fun.
 
As far as likening it to Pakistan's role in Kasmir. India didn't send mercenaries to Pakistan to blow up people or to drive out Muslims from East Pakistan.
Again go back and check the RAW activities in that period. Indira Gandhi was notorious in using RAW for these reasons. Ask any Pakistani and they will say they got the inspiration of ISI from RAW and Indira Gandhi
To be honest I've no idea what RAW did at that time. But I've never heard of RAW causing explosion in Pakistan, then or now. Whereas ISI links with terrorism is clearly established.
 
India helped Bangladeshi freedom fighters legally through it's own army in uniform and not some terrorist.
One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, depends on which side of the debate you are on, they are just interchangeable terminoligies
Bangladesh was clearly getting exploited and were treated as a colony with no rights. People in Bangladesh who demanded rights or freedom didn't resort to terror. They protested the exploitation and forceful foisting of Pakistani culture on them. Pakistan instead of giving them rights started killing them. I don't think the people of Bangladeshi can be termed terrorists under such circumstances. It was Pakistan who creating terror amongst the Bangladeshi people.
India doesn't deny that help and neither do they deny that those who helped were from India. And ultimately the fact is it was Pakistan who attacked first both in case of Kashmir and Bangladesh. The same way India attacked in Kargil.
India attacked Kargil to get it back that is defending one's territory. Kashmir was never a part of Pakistan but it deliberately attacked it. And in case of Bangladesh first it attacked Bangladeshi people and then attacked India from the western border which was nowhere related to Bangladesh.

Pakistan even got a portion of Kashmir and then went ahead and gave a portion of it to China.
That is their choice and shows their altruistic nature
Yeah sure, if you say so.
Really, I don't see much similarity with India's position on Bangladesh in 1970s.
It completely depends where your sunglasses are made in LOL
We were both giving reasons for our arguments. So, that doesn't really matter.
 
Originally posted by chal_phek_mat

Well the Boatload of refugees change equation. India knew they either have to deal with the problem in their backyard in future in settling these refugees OR sympathize with them, win the war for them and get them to their homes, they chose the later
They could have easily thrown away the refugees and blocked their entry. Ultimately only because Pakistan attacked did the war start.

As I said Indians did not get caught with their pants downLOL, Go check the news accounts, India was planning to attack in Winter and Pakistan just attacked firstWink Atleast they were wiser than we were during the Kargil thingWink

So, who do you say attacked first?? Wink We can never be sure who was planning what. I can say Pakistan govt. plans to attack India every day, will that prove anything.

Originally posted by chal_phek_mat

The original population of Jammu is Hindu and the original population of Kashmir is Muslim If you look at the population map of J&K in 1947. It was decidedly Muslim, that is why Sardar Patel and Nehru decided to go the backdoor to get the Maharaja's approval rather than do a simple count by religious lines And Nehru knew this b'cos that was his backyard.
 
The Radicalization of the valley started in 1990's and only around that period the kashmiri pandits were driven out.
I was actually speaking historically. Most of the muslims there had migrated from the other side. And many muslim rulers of the region started driving out Hindus. That started long back. Strangely and I don't know why but Hindus even when they became rulers never persecuted muslims for their religion.
It all depends on how far back in the history you want to go,If you go back 500 years ago, they were more Hindus, so we should declare India as a Hindu state. 2000 year ago we had half Aryan state and Half Dravidian state, so the first half should declare their affiliation with Nazi Germany
 
The fact is India Pakistan were divided on Religious lines, the terms and conditions were, more muslim majority goes to Pakistan, more Hindu majority goes to India. Kashmir in 1947 was more Muslim than Hindu and it belonged to Pakistan.
I was saying that Hindus had been made a minority because they were driven out over the years and not just in 1980s and 90s and Muslims have kept on influxing and breeding like bunnies. Anyways, lets stick to 1947. Even then Kashmir was a princely state and had the right to choose it's allegiance as the ruler saw fit. And he chose to remain independent.
What happened in 1990s was just a repetition of history.
What happened in 1970 was Majabir Rehman won a election. Yahya Khan overturned a democratice decision of the E Pakistani people, there was resentment in E. Pakistan. India used that event to fan Anti Pakistan feelings
What happened in 1990 was Rajiv Gandhi overturned a democratic decision of the people of Kashmir, there was resentment in the J&K, Pakistan used that event to fan anti India feelings

So I agree it was a replitation of historyWink
And anyways, both Pakistan and India had decided that princely states will have the power to decide whether they want to join Pakistan, India or remain independent. Kashmir wanted to remain independent but Pakistan launched an attack on them.
Only then the Maharaja of Kashmir asked for India's help (and no India didn't interfere in their affairs to begin with). So, it was Pakistan who breached what was decided upon from the very beginning.
The King wanted to remain independant, the people wanted to join Pakistan. And India was a democracy meaning where you go by the will of the people
Let's see... Bangladeshi people were not happy with their bossy West Pakistan administrators. They asked for freedom. West Pakistan started killing them. Then they attacked India. India retaliated and Bangladesh got it's freedom in the process.
Now we come to Kashmir. Kashmir was a princely state and not a democratic country to begin with. And both India and Pakistan knew that it can choose as it wishes. The Maharaja of Kashmir wished to remain independent. Pakistan didn't like the decision and mounted an attack on Kashmir, which was a breach of the contract. Maharaja sought help from India. India helped and the Maharaja decided to annexe his kingdom to India.
In 1980s and 90s anti-India sentiment flared up but by now Kashmir was very much a part of India. And although India is a democratic country but that doesn't mean sedition can also be decided by democratic voting.

 
Sorry I wont have time to carry forward this debate, so I will give you the last word.
What?? Again?? Anyways... even I won't have much time too. With Diwali coming in a couple of days I'll be travelling to Baramullah in Kashmir. LOL

Fair-n-luvly

IF-Sizzlerz

Fair-n-luvly

Joined: 29 June 2008

Posts: 11185

Posted: 10 October 2009 at 11:19am | IP Logged
Originally posted by hindu4lyf

I didn't realise a lil typo would come under scrutiny but thanks for pointing that out MAHI. Is that ok now?

Anyway people will always come up with silly excuses but this terrorism needs to go. I don't think I could stand something like another Mumbai attack. :(

And i dont think i could stand gujrat conflicts again i lost a best friends sister in MA i told you that earlier problem lies everywhere....annd thanks..for clearing your point on my name it wasnt that big though i was only kiddin...thanks...

rogna

IF-Rockerz

rogna

Joined: 30 November 2007

Posts: 5150

Posted: 12 October 2009 at 11:38pm | IP Logged
don't you guys think that terrorism within pakistan itself is also a significant factor in being a threat to pakistan.

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Pakistan has started a war against terrorists

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Summer3 77 4806 10 February 2010 at 6:35am
By Summer3
Chat with God on facebook - Biggest ROFLer !

2 3

.DontKnow. 21 1359 29 September 2009 at 7:33am
By .DontKnow.
After Pakistan, Sharia Law in Somalia

2 3 4 5 6 7

sameer.84 50 3300 01 May 2009 at 3:18am
By _Angie_
Can India Help Pakistan?

2 3 4 5 6 7

RUSmart 54 2354 01 May 2009 at 1:05am
By rogna
Every day person in India and Pakistan

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 11

Dazlingflower 82 4449 23 March 2009 at 2:58pm
By crossroads7

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.