A Just War?

Thanks, It was nice discussing all this stuff with you.
And yes, faith can be a dangerous affair.
But then no faith at all can also be as dangerous as believe in God and the urge to finish God's bussiness.
Maybe in some other thread we can discuss it.

Thanks tahmed32 too for the welcome.

Re: # 45
I actually agree with you more than you think. I am trying to make a point, that belief in individual rights and individual freedom, aka liberalism, does not necessarily mean that you must always be opposed to war and the accompanying 'collateral damage'

'In the name of Islam' is an overused phrase. If someone is doing something in my name, then I'd want to do something about it. Second, I think its 'faith' in general, and the belief in an afterlife in particular, that is the major problem. For some reason, in current times, Muslims tend to have more 'faith' than other religions.. More fundamentally, I think that the belief that there is some 'greater' interest than individual self-interest is dangerous, because it devalues human life.

As far as I know, the United Nations may make resolutions, but it has no 'ultimate' authority over national sovereignty.

"One lesson learned, is that America has not lost a single life on US soil since 9/11."

That is because America has no shared border with either Iraq or
Afghanistan. It should not have been so hard to miss.

"India has continually suffered at the hands of these monsters, and something must be done."

I agree that something must be done. But the focus should always be on
the monsters. You can't hold people responsible for the actions of
the monsters. Doing this will not be very different from what
the monsters do.
To heal the sufferings of Mumbai, you can't put the
entire human spectrum of the subcontinent to sufferings.
With all the difference between radicalism and irrationality, the
point of the previous post was that the terrorists justify their actions
the same way you tried the justification of the war on people of
Pakistan.

"As much as people don't want to admit it, there is something peculiar about Islam which allows such despicable acts."

It is unfortunate that the terrorists use the name of Islam. But the
rational people like you should not forget that close to quarter of
the world population believes in Islam, and Islam is there for some
1400 years. If something peculiar about Islam made 10 kids create a
hell in Mumbai that spanned 3 days and engulfed 200 lives, then how do
you explain the humanity on the face of the earth in the presence of a
billion believers of Islam?

"The right to secession is not present in the Indian constitution"

Indian constitution does not apply to the territories that are
recognized disputed by the United Nations.

"First the fact that the opponents have nuclear weapons is irrelevant
to whether the war is Just. Nuclear weapons only come into play in
determining strategy, not justification."

I liked it. But waging a war against the people who support the
government that is unable to control the militants is not very
different from waging a war against the people that support the
governments that are unable to solve the political problems.

Re: # 41
I think I've been pretty clear that force should never be used blindly. At the same time, justice must be served. One lesson learned, is that America has not lost a single life on US soil since 9/11. India has continually suffered at the hands of these monsters, and something must be done.

Terrorists are people who respond to political problems in a non-discriminatory irrational manner, not radical. The American revolutionaries were radical for the time, but they were not terrorists although they fought by force of arms, rather than politics. Its easily arguable that the situation of India/Pakistan before Independence was far worse than that of the Kashmiri's, Palestinians or other so called 'freedom struggles,' yet the response then was expressly non-violent. Even the 'terrorists' of the time, like Bhagat Singh (an atheist), went to great lengths to avoid killing civilians. As much as people don't want to admit it, there is something peculiar about Islam which allows such despicable acts.

The right to secession is not present in the Indian constitution, and therefore in order to achieve 'freedom' Kashmiris must act through the democratic process and alter the constitution through national consensus. Otherwise, the Indian government, as representative of the people, has NO AUTHORITY to surrender an inch of land. It is especially required to guarantee human rights and democracy within Kashmir for eternity.. I agree its not doing a good job right now, but to leave it to its own fate is unlawful.

"A war between two nuclear powers isnt a just war"

First the fact that the opponents have nuclear weapons is irrelevant to whether the war is Just. Nuclear weapons only come into play in determining strategy, not justification.

Second, a war between two nuclear powers need not turn into a nuclear war, if the correct strategies are used. In fact, this is highly unlikely in a war between rational actors, since to use nukes is to ensure self-destruction. Every other option is preferable to death for rational people, including being conquered. Now.. the only question is whether the Pakistani government consists of mainly rational individuals.

you cant be serious . A war between two nuclear powers isnt a just war . its a catastrophe . Effective diplomacy an international pressure on pakistan to act on the "non-state actors" is the only credible solution .

@ arjunb

"This does not mean that force should never be used in self-defense"

Force must never be used blindly. In order to catch handful of culprits, entire human communities should not be put into fire. There are lessons to be learned in America's war against terrorism before India starts its war.


"ultimately someone has to be held accountable. If not the terrorists.. the State which harbors them.. if not the State.. the people who tolerate the State."

Terrorists are the people who respond to political problems in a radical manner.
And some of them might be justifying their actions using the same reasoning that you have put forward.


"If the terrorists were really hated by the citizens, even if only as much as the Danish cartoonists were hated, terrorism would be on its last legs. But it isn't"

It is. The terrorists are as much hated as you can imagine. Unfortunately certain inappropriate actions by the international community in repose to handful of terrorists have pushed a considerable more number of people toward terrorism.



"The 'Freedom Fighters' of Kashmir DO have a level of support as well."

It's true. But the way the terrorist-attacks harm the freedom struggle in Kashmir and push it to background, is sufficient evidence that the terrorists are not interested in the freedom of Kashmir.
Moreover the Mumbai incident after the announcement by Mr. Obama that he will be interested in resolving the Kashmir conflict also raises certain doubts.


"The 'Terrorists' may not have popular support, but the 'charities' and 'schools' and other institutions by which they gain recruits and financial backing do have some level of popular support."

The only support these organizations had, was due to the fact these were involved in welfare activities, and because these identified themselves with the Kashmir cause.

Re: # 38

right... but don't expect pakis to understand and acknowledge this simple fact... they hate india more than they love pakiland and they are not going make amends unless forced to do so...

Another note.. I don't believe that India can act with impunity and expect no consequences. Severe consequences, of the most bloody type, flow from any decision to use force. This does not mean that force should never be used in self-defense. Violence is only appropriate when all non-violent methods of recourse have failed. But this rarity of cause is precisely why, when appropriate, force is also a requirement.

"Terrorists do not have popular support."

The 'Terrorists' may not have popular support, but the 'charities' and 'schools' and other institutions by which they gain recruits and financial backing do have some level of popular support. The 'Freedom Fighters' of Kashmir DO have a level of support as well. I agree, it would be BETTER if Pakistani citizens rose against these institutions and euphemisms which provide the foundation for terrorism, but it is also unlikely. If the terrorists were really hated by the citizens, even if only as much as the Danish cartoonists were hated, terrorism would be on its last legs. But it isn't, and ultimately someone has to be held accountable. If not the terrorists.. the State which harbors them.. if not the State.. the people who tolerate the State.

Re: # 35
"I don't see the point here. You handed over plenty of suspects (Paki citizens at that) to the US, even though the country's judicial system has the OJ Simpson case to its credit."

Firstly, a mistake is no justification to repeat the mistake. Secondly, inspite of all her glory, democracy, values and respect, India is not America.
It's true that we are on the receiving end at the moment and have to cope with it, but things would have been very different if it would still have been Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

"yet no one is prepared to even admit Pakistan's role despite conclusive evidence that the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks came from their country"

If I go to a pub tonight and beat up some poor chap over there, will you say this is Pakistan's role as ocean has come from Pakistan?
The only reason some people doubt the story told by India is the fact that India had lied previously on similar occasions. If this is not a lie this time, we stand with you and demand that the culprits be brought to justice, irrespective of their nationality, ideology or religion.

"As for your insinuation that India is behind the violence in Balochistan, why don't you come up with proof instead of just guessing?"

It will be an insult for your secret services if a poor chap like me could come up with the proof of their wrong doings. No? But rest assured. The people who run the governments and secret services know a lot more than what we two can discuss on this forum. And obviously guns and money do not grow on trees.

The point of the previous post was that the people of Paksiatn (and hopefully that of India) accept each other, and are willing to live in co-existance, and so the mullahs, politicians, and leaders on either side should stop creating hatred and governments should address our real problems instead of making missiles and bombs.

#35 harish_hyd #35 "You handed over plenty of suspects (Paki citizens at that) to the US"

...and it was this lawless handing over of suspects to the US was one of the driving forces behind the movement that led to musharraf being forced out of office. India and Pakistan dont even have an extradition treaty.

PS: Welcome to chowk, ocean.

#34 by ocean

It would have been a lot easier if the past record of India in this matter would have been clear.

I don't see the point here. You handed over plenty of suspects (Paki citizens at that) to the US, even though the country's judicial system has the OJ Simpson case to its credit.

I have this request to make to Indian people. The people of Pakistan condemn any terrorist attacks on Indian soil. If there are some crooked people in our secret services(*), and are involved in this matter, we stand with you and demand that these be brought forward and punished. But please stop associating the people of Pakistan with these terrorists. This only helps their evil cause.

(*) not to forget that some elements are providing weapons and money to the people who are creating problems in Baluchistan and NWFP. It's not very hard to guess who these elements can be.

Agreed, the people of Pakistan may have very little say in this, but isn't it a fact that when Danish newspapers printed the Prophet Mohammad cartoons, virtually every city/town in Pakistan went up in arms, yet no one is prepared to even admit Pakistan's role despite conclusive evidence that the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks came from their country and the lone survivor Ajmal Qasab came from the village of Faridkot in Okara district. Many Pakis (at least on this forum) actually denied that there is any village by that name and instead pointed to the city of Faridkot in Punjab, India.

As for your insinuation that India is behind the violence in Balochistan, why don't you come up with proof instead of just guessing?

Re: # 29

"If Pakistan fulfills its obligations and hands over the suspects to the Indian judicial system"

It would have been a lot easier if the past record of India in this matter would have been clear.

", including those individuals who may have popular support,"

Terrorists do not have popular support. (Ironically, the way the Indian media, and the people from India on these forums are behaving, the focus is shifting away from the terrorists).

"However if Pakistan does not go through, then I say war is not only justified, it is imperative to wage it.. regardless of the costs to any parties involved."

It will be playing in the hands of LeT, becuase this is exactly what they want. It will be a dream come true for the terrorists.

I have this request to make to Indian people. The people of Pakistan condemn any terrorist attacks on Indian soil. If there are some crooked people in our secret services(*), and are involved in this matter, we stand with you and demand that these be brought forward and punished. But please stop associating the people of Pakistan with these terrorists. This only helps their evil cause.

(*) not to forget that some elements are providing weapons and money to the people who are creating problems in Baluchistan and NWFP. It's not very hard to guess who these elements can be.

"But Pakistan was created for wrong reasons (besically for people of one religion for fear of another religion that they have been ruling before)"

If a lot of people on your side share the same opinion, then this justifies the creation of Pakistan.

" and it exists for wrong reasons (more for giving nuclear bomb to Islamic world and promoting Arab slavery than for any human cause or value)..."

How do you value human cause? What will you have to say for the home, identity, existence of 160 million human beings?

Naddem-Shahzad ji

You see when you push a nation between the Rock and the Hard place that is what is going to happen and you Constantly make threats about "Jihad", "Bleeding through thousand cuts", "killing the Kaffirs and Islam ruling the world" and blah, blah, blah...People are going to get very pissed off and they will take this attitude.

regards