Article

2007-12-26 India-Pakistan

Local villagers protest against Palnoo mosque siege

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ] Top

#1 I find it shocking that the people of Srinagar think that the terrorists have achieved "martyrdom" when in fact they are nothing more than kidnappers holding innocent people as hostages. I don't understand how these terrorists have gained sympathy from the people when they have kidnapped one of their own. What is more outrageous is that they are more concerned about the destruction to the mosque during the shootout rather than concern for the five poor souls held hostage in the mosque. Is religion more important than human life? These people might be angry with the SOG personnel for having looted their houses but how could they have been so misdirected as to join hands with the militants? Wonder if these people would have been so supportive if the militants had blown up one of their near and dear. Would they have still called the militants "martyrs" of the noble cause and held processions? At this rate it will be better if India accedes Kashmir to Pakistan. We will be better off without these people. They are truly a drain on the national resources.

Posted by priya 2007-12-26 07:46|| 2007-12-26 07:46|| Front Page Top

#2 SOG have better things to do than loot houses.

The separatists accuse the police of atrocities so that local area police (who won't act against the terrorists like the J+K SOG units) are deployed instead.

Many of the "separatists" actually don't really want accession to Pakistan. That would deprive them of the generous Indian aid and the secret ISI funding they simultaneously receive.

The gravy train would stop. That is why you have Kashmiri politicians who, when in opposition spout slogans about 'azadi' (independence) and meet with the Pak Ambassador but when in Government are pro-Delhi.

There are strategic reasons for keeping Jammu and Kashmir within India. Without the shield of the Himmalayas, the Gangetic plains would be vulnerable to China and Pakistan. By keeping the high ground, India shields its heartland.

It will never hand over J+K to Pakistan.

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 08:45|| 2007-12-26 08:45|| Front Page Top

#3 Not to mention that once Pakistan were to acquire the whole of Jammu and Kashmir, they'd immediately begin working on the next bit of India. The caliphate must be expanded to encompass the whole of Mankind, after all.

/end channeling

Posted by trailing wife 2007-12-26 09:01|| 2007-12-26 09:01|| Front Page Top

#4 Musharraf has actually said that even if Kashmir was settled, there are others issues - Hyderabad, Junagadh etc etc

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 09:19|| 2007-12-26 09:19|| Front Page Top

#5 Elsewhere in Jammu and Kashmir...