Balakot: Pakistan vows to respond after Indian 'air strikes'

Aug 2014
1,122
pakistan
#2
Balakot is in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, not so far from Azad Kashmir. I dont know about today but it did have a training camp for 'mujahideen' in the past.. But whether they really have destroyed a training camp for 'terrorists', is doubtful.

Any way since when targeting army personnel in an insurgency, is terrorism?
 
Last edited:

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,608
USA
#3
Isn't Pakistan currently having an economic crisis, with a currency meltdown? Is it going to fix that or get on to the nerves of India with a tit-for-tat to satisfy its wounded ego? Any conflict escalation will make its economy even more worse, and loans Pakistan is seeking more difficult to get.

In my opinion, Pakistan should not seek parity with India in every aspect. It needs to abandon efforts to get Kashmir through violence, either military or terrorism. If it seeks a more accommodative attitude towards New Delhi, the country will prosper. Otherwise I expect only troubles.
 
Aug 2014
1,122
pakistan
#4
Isn't Pakistan currently having an economic crisis, with a currency meltdown? Is it going to fix that or get on to the nerves of India with a tit-for-tat to satisfy its wounded ego? Any conflict escalation will make its economy even more worse, and loans Pakistan is seeking more difficult to get.

In my opinion, Pakistan should not seek parity with India in every aspect. It needs to abandon efforts to get Kashmir through violence, either military or terrorism. If it seeks a more accommodative attitude towards New Delhi, the country will prosper. Otherwise I expect only troubles.
I highly doubt Pakistan will respond tit-for-tat, the statement is satisfy the people. May be some shadowy attack, but not the surgical strike of Air force.
 
Aug 2014
1,122
pakistan
#6
Civilians attacking army, especially not in combat, is terrorism.
Insurgents of separatist movement attacking army-men, is not terrorism. Army is legitimate target in an insurgency. If insurgents attack civilians to spread terror, then they are terrorists. If the state kills civilians to suppress insurgency and spread terror, then its state terrorism.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2016
8,634
USA
#7
Insurgents of separatist movement attacking army-men, is not terrorism. Army is legitimate target in an insurgency. If insurgents attack civilians to spread terror, then they are terrorists. If the state kills civilians to suppress insurgency and spread terror, then its state terrorism.
Terrorism:

The unlawful use or threat of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or society to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals.

The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

The unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives

the use or threat is designed to coerce and intimidate or overawe the Government or the public or a section of the public or community or sect or a foreign government or population or an international organization or create a sense of fear or insecurity in society or the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a religious, sectarian or ethnic cause or intimidating and terrorizing the public, social sectors, media persons, business community or attacking the civilians, including damaging property by ransacking, looting, arson or by any other means, government officials, installations, security forces or law enforcement agencies. Provided that nothing herein contained shall apply to a democratic and religious rally or a peaceful demonstration in accordance with law.

Note, the last definition is from your own country and defines terrorism as being used against security forces/govt officials.

Furthermore, since when are the activities of insurgents, non-lawful combatants, judged as lawful? Are India and Pakistan in a declared state of war? What allows JeM to be considered lawful blowing up a bus full of security and civilians?
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,608
USA
#8
Insurgents of separatist movement attacking army-men, is not terrorism. Army is legitimate target in an insurgency. If insurgents attack civilians to spread terror, then they are terrorists. If the state kills civilians to suppress insurgency and spread terror, then its state terrorism.
If the insurgents hide among civilians with their covert support, and attack, it is fair game for the military to attack both as terrorists. Both are equally guilty. That is what is happening in Kashmir. Actually Indian army has been a lot more careful compared to the Sri Lankan army against the Tamils, even though Tamil insurgents were like a military with its uniforms and so on.

In this case, the attacker was trained in Pakistan with their military support, and that takes it to a different level. If civilians (insurgents or others), attack anything for an ideological cause, it is considered terrorism. If Kashmiri militants don't want to be branded as terrorists, they should declare it an independent country and call themselves its military with uniforms and such. Otherwise they are in no man's land, like the Talebans in Afghanistan.
 
Aug 2014
1,122
pakistan
#9
What allows JeM to be considered lawful blowing up a bus full of security and civilians?
I dont need to repeat myself to explain what exactly is terrorism. You Americans use the word "self-defence" whenever you invade any country so lets not debate endlessly about definition of terrorism. I dont accept official definition of 'terrorism' issued by states/governments.

I dont understand this hue and cry over death of 44 Indian soldiers (all of them were soldiers, not civilians, correct yourself). If the attack is carried out by local Kashmiri, then he is not a terrorist but an insurgent. In the same way Pakistan army is a fair game for Baluch insurgents. 9/11 attack was a case of terrorism, so was nuking of two cities of Japan a case of terrorism.
 
Jul 2016
8,634
USA
#10
I dont need to repeat myself to explain what exactly is terrorism. You Americans use the word "self-defence" whenever you invade any country so lets not debate endlessly about definition of terrorism. I dont accept official definition of 'terrorism' issued by states/governments.

I dont understand this hue and cry over death of 44 Indian soldiers (all of them were soldiers, not civilians, correct yourself). If the attack is carried out by local Kashmiri, then he is not a terrorist but an insurgent. In the same way Pakistan army is a fair game for Baluch insurgents. 9/11 attack was a case of terrorism, so was nuking of two cities of Japan a case of terrorism.
LOL, I literally provided the word for word definition of terrorism according to Pakistani law and you attack my nation? Wow. Tell me more about how evil America is while Pakistan has legit terrorist camps in its nation.

Or used to.

Thanks India!