Terrorism - In All Its Forms

[sigatoka]

Stating the facts as I & an increasing number of people see them, is not taunting.

I did not insult Mohammad or Allah or Aisha etc- merely pointed out that in its current state Islam is still prone to extreme acts of violence against anyone who impinges on its "borders"- either culturally or politically.

Every minute a woman is being raped in Congo, there are no muslims there. Extreme acts of violence is happening every where. Muslims are over represented in committing "violence" if you draw artificial distinctions between deaths caused by states and non-states.

The number of civilains killed by the Indian army in Kashmir far outweigh Indians killed by terrorists. So factually your statement is wrong that Muslims are killing more people. Muslim "terrorists" have killed more hindu civilians than hindu terrorists have killed muslim civilians; however it is equally true that hindus have killed more muslim civilians. (Since the bulk of the Indian army in Kashmir is hindu).

p.s. even the point about whether Hindu terrorists have killed less is debateble if those responsible for the gujarat massacres are considered terrorists.

"Facts" are like play-do, you can mould them to suit almost any argument.

Also lets please leave the religious angle to a separate thread, it doenst make sense to introduce it into every single thread.

 

[sigatoka]

Do tell us why the majority of the worlds conflict zones today have Islam in it. And how.

Well, we could say the same thing that U.S. is involved in a lot of conflicts.

Your trying to potray that Islam is a violent religion, however a counter argument could be that Islam encourages resistance against oppression. Therefore whether it be Kashmir, Lebanon or Iraq, muslims are trying to live without having to watch their children being ripped apart by explosives.

And please, leave the religious angle to a separate thread.

 

[Arrow]

Every minute a woman is being raped in Congo, there are no muslims there. Extreme acts of violence is happening every where. Muslims are over represented in committing "violence" if you draw artificial distinctions between deaths caused by states and non-states.

But why are Muslims overrepresented? How many excuses do we have here?

The number of civilains killed by the Indian army in Kashmir far outweigh Indians killed by terrorists. So factually your statement is wrong that Muslims are killing more people.

A factually incorrect statement & propoganda at that, given that the jihadis have killed far more civilians- Hindu & Muslim combined than the Army ever has. The casualty figures are available and monitored at satp.org for instance.

Muslim "terrorists" have killed more hindu civilians than hindu terrorists have killed muslim civilians; however it is equally true that hindus have killed more muslim civilians. (Since the bulk of the Indian army in Kashmir is hindu).

Note above.

p.s. even the point about whether Hindu terrorists have killed less is debateble if those responsible for the gujarat massacres are considered terrorists.

A massacre is one sided. Not like Gujarat where both sides engaged in violence and the numbers of deaths- 300 odd Hindus, 700 odd Muslims reflect that. (propoganda of 2k -3k deaths apart). If the Muslims had outnumbered the Hindus, the casualty figures would have been the reverse.

"Facts" are like play-do, you can mould them to suit almost any argument.

Sorry- facts are facts. What can be done however is to rationalize them away.

Also lets please leave the religious angle to a separate thread, it doenst make sense to introduce it into every single thread.

Ok.

 

[Arrow]

Well, we could say the same thing that U.S. is involved in a lot of conflicts.

Yes. But noone says "US is an icon of world peace" do they?

Your trying to potray that Islam is a violent religion, however a counter argument could be that Islam encourages resistance against oppression. Therefore whether it be Kashmir, Lebanon or Iraq, muslims are trying to live without having to watch their children being ripped apart by explosives.

I am not "trying to portray anything" - merely pointing out what you have noticed but are unable to discern from a realist viewpoint. Yes Islam encourages resistance against oprression, given that fundamentalist Islam sees many things, including secular laws to competing religious thoughts as "oppression".

Now if Muslims are indeed merely reacting to oppression- why are Shias & Sunnis massacring each other in Iraq? Why the sectarian clashes in Pak even?

My point may be offensive to you- but it is an undeniable fact & not meant to offend- that Islam does indeed have what Samuel Huntington referred to as "bloody borders". Wherever Islam is in contact with other civilizations or competing cultures or religions- its in conflict with them as well.

This is not Islam bashing- merely pointing out what many people have now resigned themselves to believe after realizing the same.

And please, leave the religious angle to a separate thread.

Ok. But I'll be tempted to reply if you do, human nature.

 

[sigatoka]

But why are Muslims overrepresented? How many excuses do we have here?

A factually incorrect statement & propoganda at that, given that the jihadis have killed far more civilians- Hindu & Muslim combined than the Army ever has.

A massacre is one sided. Not like Gujarat where both sides engaged in violence and the numbers of deaths- 300 odd Hindus, 700 odd Muslims reflect that.

They are overrepresented because Mr. Arrow, the manner in which you are drawing your sample ensures that. You only include deaths caused by sub-state entities. You are ignoring the numbers killed by the Indian Army.
This could be because you feel killings by the Indian army is more justified, regardless it ensures that your conclusions are flawed.

Thats Indian propoganda.

The third point is propoganda because of the way you have skewed the figures.

 

[Arrow]

They are overrepresented because Mr. Arrow, the manner in which you are drawing your sample ensures that. You only include deaths caused by sub-state entities. You are ignoring the numbers killed by the Indian Army.

Hardly- as I said the figures are well known and monitored by multiple agencies. Check satp.

This could be because you feel killings by the Indian army is more justified, regardless it ensures that your conclusions are flawed.

The Armies job is to protect the borders. If a Pakistani youth comes over from 'Pindi and is killed in Kashmir, its a waste of human life to be sure, but its what the Army is meant for. And that really doesnt count as any violation. Similarly, the police routinely shoots hardened criminals - militants of local extraction fall into that category.

If you live by the sword, you die by it as well- if I pick up a gun tomorrow, and the IA guns me down, its not their fault for doing what the state mandated them to do.

Thats Indian propoganda.

Hardly- its all very well to talk of mass depredations in Kashmir, but the reality is pretty blase. If India was truly doing what you believe it to be, Pak wouldnt have to run the insurgency from afar- it would be a massive local thing. All these lurid claims of Indian Army doing xyz etc, is a propoganda campaign & I trust you should know it, as compared to believing a PR campaign intended to put India on the defensive. Having been to Kashmir time & again, I can count on my fingers the years it will take before this thing blows over. Its done sir, gone, zilch, nada. The average Islamist freedom fighter is a lazy fata$$ in Srinagar. The rest are poor kids from the valley who join HM for a quick buck...thats it.

The third point is propoganda because of the way you have skewed the figures.

Not at all. Those figures are of public record & noted. I know the lurid claims made about Gujarat & the like- but frankly, it was by subcontinent standards, peanuts.

 

[sigatoka]

I am not "trying to portray anything" - merely pointing out what you have noticed but are unable to discern from a realist viewpoint.

Now if Muslims are indeed merely reacting to oppression- why are Shias & Sunnis massacring each other in Iraq? Why the sectarian clashes in Pak even?

Islam does indeed have what Samuel Huntington referred to as "bloody borders". Wherever Islam is in contact with other civilizations or competing cultures or religions- its in conflict with them as well.

lol, if "realist" viewpoint is submitting to yours, id rather remain undiscerning. (p.s. you know your trying to push an argument)

Civil wars are usually quite bloody, just read up on the U.S. civil war, the Chinese or the Spanish. I dont think in this Iraq is unique.

The clashes in Pak. results in far fewer deaths than in india due to riots.

Quae caret ora cruore nostro. All great nations have had bloody borders, from the Romans, the Chinese the Europeans or the Americans. This is not somehow unique to Islam.

 

[sigatoka]

The Armies job is to protect the borders. Similarly, the police routinely shoots hardened criminals - militants of local extraction fall into that category.

If India was truly doing what you believe it to be, Pak wouldnt have to run the insurgency from afar- it would be a massive local thing. The rest are poor kids from the valley who join HM for a quick buck...thats it.

I bet a lot of civilians would be categorised as militants by Indian army.

Pak. doesnt run the insurgency, it merely blows on the flame by providing training and weapons to those who wish to fight.

The poor buck thing could apply equally to Indian soldiers.

 

[Arrow]

lol, if "realist" viewpoint is submitting to yours, id rather remain undiscerning. (p.s. you know your trying to push an argument)

No, actually I misread your third point- so I edited the post, but anyways..

Civil wars are usually quite bloody, just read up on the U.S. civil war, the Chinese or the Spanish. I dont think in this Iraq is unique.

Is the Shia Sunni thing in Pak civil war? Are the attacks in Phillippines (the MILF) because of civil war? What about Thailand? Indonesia & the Bali attacks? London tube attacks? 9/11? What about the French rioting & the murder of that jew? What about the shoe bomber? What about the Taliban (Pak's strat depth)? What about Chechnya? What about the Arab-Israel conflict?

Its pretty obvious, isnt it?

The clashes in Pak. results in far fewer deaths than in india due to riots.

Sorry, try again. Indian rioters dont have access to AK's or grenades or explosives! As far as I am aware, the Indian Army has never had to take back a city like the PA did with karachi and the Mujahir Quami movement for eg.Indian rioters dont spray rival supporters & leaders with gunfire etc either.

Furthermore, Indian rioting occurs often b/w Islam & others, but in Pak, its within, why?

Quae caret ora cruore nostro. All great nations have had bloody borders, from the Romans, the Chinese the Europeans or the Americans. This is not somehow unique to Islam.

So are you saying Islam is a nation? Or is it a religion & a way of life? If the latter, why arent Hindus in the US pulled off from flights and frisked or (say) Buddhists in Denmark? These are great cultures as well, why dont they have bloody borders?

 

[Arrow]

I bet a lot of civilians would be categorised as militants by Indian army.

Not really. What you fail to understand is that the IA has beaten several insurgencies and it knows that targetting civilians makes its job harder. Yes, mistakes occur, but they are brought to light and rectified/ censured.

Pak. doesnt run the insurgency, it merely blows on the flame by providing training and weapons to those who wish to fight.

Come on, please. The bulk of the fighters right now in Kashmir are your boys. We know it, you know it, I know it.

The poor buck thing could apply equally to Indian soldiers.

Applies to all militaries, in fact.
Which is why the IA treats them humanely viz a viz the guests, who are almost always "eliminated".

 

[sigatoka]

Not really. What you fail to understand is that the IA has beaten several insurgencies and it knows that targetting civilians makes its job harder.

Come on, please. The bulk of the fighters right now in Kashmir are your boys. We know it, you know it, I know it.

Sugar coating.

The bulk of fighters are not Pak. Thats a total falsehood.

 

[Arrow]

Sugar coating.

The bulk of fighters are not Pak. Thats a total falsehood.

Should have been more explicit- what the Army calls "hardcore militants".

Not munna sheikh who throws a grenade for 3500 Rs/-.

However at one period of time ( 1999-2003), foreign terrorists were indeed predominating- per ratios of those eliminated. Apparently, after that infiltration has got harder.

 

[Neo]

The Kashmiri freedom fighters shall never rest until the evil hindoo forces are evicted from the beautiful vale of Kashmir.

The biggest vindication of Partition is the freedom movements in East punjab (Khalistan) , Tamil Nadu, Nagaland,,Daltistan and so on. Hindooism is an evil ideology and cannot co-exist with other humane religions. It must be eradicated.

Raptor,

Stop posting flamebaits, consider this your final warning!

Neo

 

[A.Rahman]

sorry Arrow I came late in this thread, whats goin on? what do you want to know about Islam?

please explain.

 

[Arrow]

sorry Arrow I came late in this thread, whats goin on? what do you want to know about Islam?

please explain.

A Rahman,

Irrespective of what I say or how politely I put it, you have the likes of Munir sneaking behind my back & deleting the posts, so whats the point?
I may reply to you- another moderator, but there is no guarantee that my post shall remain or that my effort was of any use.

http://www.pakistaniforces.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19697#post19697