-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pakistan trying to provoke India into a war
- Thread starter MD
- Start date
MD
qualiaphile
Yea...except Pakistan has a nuclear armed formidable army, so the only all out war they can ever have would be annihilation.
What's sad is that the U.S. supported an Islamist dictatorial Pakistan over a secular democatic India. The more I research this, the more obvious the disastrous impact the American military and foreign policy has had in the hot spots of the world.
Last edited:
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
"If only a fraction of the Indians lined up on the border with Pakistan and started urinating they could wash Pakistan away in a sea of urine
Probably would improve the odor situation in Pakistan"
Probably would improve the odor situation in Pakistan"
All joking aside, the current events could actually accumulate into a full-blown war. Obviously, both countries can't risk it in the long-run since both countries are nuclear powers. Therefore, the only option would be that of a conventional approach.
However, Pakistan has a horrid track record of being asymmetrical in pretty much everything it does militarily against India. Thus one can't really, at least not rationally that is, expect Pakistan to approach these escalations with a level-headed reserve---especially not when its the army and the ISI that practically run the country while Pakistan's politicians are, unfortunately, just regulated poster boys for purposes of preserving any international image that may be left to actually preserve.
Most important thing to consider, though, is the fact that India's current PM isn't someone who is of a placating nature. He strongly believes in the right to defend military encroachments with not reefs, which was the approach of the previous Indian administration, but rather with a response that is in more vigor and coordination than the initial barrages from the aggressor.
While I certainly wish for peace and socio-economic cooperation, that would be just too idealistic. The Indian government has often had a track record of being too wary of any Pakistani overtures of peace, regardless of how modest those overtures [may] have [actually] been, and understandably so. And the Pakistani government just can't seem to grasp the reality that India and Indians, overall, have largely moved on from 1947---especially after 1971.
... Thus let the two have at it! And as a proud Indian, I'll obviously root for India!
... Thus let the two have at it! And as a proud Indian, I'll obviously root for India!
MD
qualiaphile
If Pakistan didn't have nuclear weapons I would completely support a full out invasion and split it up for good. It's a terrorist state which has committed all sorts of garbage since its inception, driven by religious superiority complex and hatred of India.
Ignoring the fact that your assuming a position similar in nature to US Militarism, which was something you argued had contributed to this particular hotspot, and also ignoring the fact that they DO have nuclear weapons, I still find it hard to imagine welcoming war with the same sort of thought process as a sporting event.
Humans have done it throughout history, of course, with WW1 being a famous example.
Humans have done it throughout history, of course, with WW1 being a famous example.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
[youtube]n9y2qtaopbE[/youtube]
Michael Palin at the India-Pakistan border ceremony - BBC - YouTube
Michael Palin at the India-Pakistan border ceremony - BBC - YouTube
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Pakistan, however, is consistent in its childish condemnations:
Anything that goes wrong is almost always blamed on two things: Jews and [Hindu] Indians.
... you gotta give 'em credit for that. Heck, it's how Laal Topi makes his money.
Psst---don't you have re-runs of McGrath to watch?
I fail to see how anyone is treating this matter as one would with a sporting event. Pakistan continually perpetuates adversity through asymmetrical aggression. Anyone familiar with the current events, and those prior, can easily relay the fact that Pakistan usually engages in such a charade to enable the movement of Jihadis from Pakistan into Indian-administered Kashmir. It attacks point A in order to derive Indian attention to that point in order for asymmetrical elements to sneak through, largely unchecked, to point B. And when that winter season comes rolling, it gets difficult for Indian troops to get beyond point B in order to eliminate the source which almost always lies between point A and B.
MD
qualiaphile
Pakistan is not the middle east, it is south asia. It's not Afghanistan.
Although the U.S. has militarily supplied Pakistan and has supported it through intelligence operations, the country has taken this course on its own accord. It has started wars with India and has sponsored act after act of terrorism, the latest being the attack of the Taj in 2008. Enough is enough, if it weren't for nuclear weapons India would have made a last stand and broken up the country for good.
American militarism has more to do with profit and resource acquisition, than defense. Liberal bias like yours needs to be backed up by facts, rather than feeling sorry for a country just because it's the underdog.
Psst---don't you have re-runs of McGrath to watch?
Errr...depends. What the heck is McGrath? Might be lost in translation (I'm Aussie).
Fair enough, the flag waving and 'rooting' descriptors confused me then.
All for sensible discussion of the issues, and I don't particular care if said sensible discussion agrees with me or not.
I'm as across events as I can be from here given media bias.
(Not covered well locally, and if I source Indian or even Pakistani information, it get's more difficult to identify inherent bias)
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
I'd recommend Stephen P. Cohen's Shooting for a Century: the India-Pakistan Conundrum, published by the Brookings Institution Press. By the way, Brookings has historically been pro-Pakistani. But Cohen's essay is of a certain nature that is quite foreign to the usual stance Brookings [often] takes on issues of the Subcontinent: a stance that is neutral. Therefore, I'd suggest it as a "must-read"---especially if one is wary of native, biased sources.
Cool, appreciate the advice.
I am wary of media bias. It's just too hard to tell if an Indian source is left or right wing leaning (simplistically). I generally try and get a spread of information on an issue, so I can better balance out the bias.
If there are online media sources which are balanced, or at least if their bias could be identified, I'd be interested.
MD
qualiaphile
Indian sources are to Pakistani sources like Wikileaks is to Baghdad Bob
Last edited:
:biglaugh:
Yeah, I suspect you're right.
Australian, NZ, UK and US media I have some idea about. But I'm ignorant of sub-continent media. Combine that with a parochial issue and you have yourself a minefield.
But I don't think I'd bother too much with Pakistani sources. Showing my own bias there, of course.
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
I'd largely take Indian sources over Pakistani sources in most, if not all, situations. The reason for that is very simple: India is a professed and constitutional secular democracy. I can actually count on them, regardless of the fact that most Indian news and media outlets are pro-Marxist and anti-nationalist.
However, Pakistan gets tons and tons of apologetics---more than India, and from the most unlikely of sources. From ones that many would never have thought possible (e.g., the Nixon administration; post-Nixon USA; and the UK). I can understand support from China; I can understand support from Saudi Arabia. But why so many democratic countries glossed over democratic India in favor of Pakistan? That I have a tough time grasping.
It seems that many forget that Pakistan started all three major wars with India. One doesn't need a degree in South Asian studies to learn that fact. It's plastered in the annals of [recent] history. What many also forget is that India is a source of stability for Western powers; and if utilized as a progressive ally as many economists suggest, it would do a whole lot of good for Pakistan as well.
Here's the thing about Pakistan: many of its people don't really give a darn about India. But Pakistan's intelligence services and its army, on the other hand? India is to them what Pennywise was to Georgie---poor Georgie and his boat. And these are the dudes that practically run the place, that have control over Pakistan's military and nuclear arsenal; and these are the dudes that have funded and trained militants to engage in asymmetrical warfare not only in India but also in Afghanistan.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, I believe this is a legacy of the Cold War. The U.S. felt that India had fallen into the Soviet orbit. With that assumption the American government decided to throw support behind Pakistan to counter the U.S.S.R.
This illustrates one of the prime evils of the Cold War. Both the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in grand imperial projects to check each other in every corner of the globe.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that the Cold War is the reason for the current India/Pakistan hostilities. I only want to give an explanation for why historically America threw its support behind Pakistan even though it has been a military dictatorship for quite some time while India is an actual democracy. (Just remember, American interests have to do with open markets and "free" trade, not human rights or democracy, no matter how much they try to hide the fact...)