₦airaland Forum

helinues:
India and Israel, they always trespass because they are regarded as top countries which can't be questioned.

India started the oppression in Kashmir

AngelicBeing:

AngelicBeing:
What's your own in this matter

You have started again with your jugunu questions

lexy2014:
which question are you referring to?

AngelicBeing:
[/quote][quote author=AngelicBeing post=135319194]What's your own in this matter

You have started again with your jugunu questions

Wickedlywicked:
Where did you get the report that several Pakistani civilians were killed in that attack? Any pictural proof?
Do you even know that the Chadian army have killed more Boko Haram terrorists on the Nigerian soil more than any other army and do you think Nigeria would take that as an act of aggression towards the Nigerian state? If truly Pakistan is not a terrorist/terrorist-sympathetic state, it won’t make itself a breeding ground and safe haven for terrorists to launch attacks on India and in fact, a terror-detesting country and people would swiftly fish out those terrorists. I would do the same if I noticed that you are not capable of controlling your country and especially once I feel and know that your inability to check terrorism in your country would ultimately spread terror to mine.
The question remains: why does Pakistan not show seriousness when it comes to stopping terrorists from attacking India if truly, they aren’t state-sponsored?

Originalsly:
Does Kashmir belong to India or Pakistan? Does India or Pakistan control Kashmir? ...or is it Kashmir is divided with India in control of one part and Pakistan the other? How can you be explaining and not include these crucial points? A bias person can never set the record straight ... the information he puts out would be to support his view and what is not in support he will suppress. It's like a Tinubu or Obi hater .... he will see and say only negative things... will never be fair or objective.
Kashmir is the contested area claimed by both India and Pakistan. Part is controlled by India and the other part by Pakistan ...but both lay claim to the entire area so there has been a stalemate going on for decades with several flare ups. Like North and South Korea border with a heavy military presence.... the same scenario is at the dividing lines in Kashmir. There had always been flare ups but this one was different. A terrorist group from the Pakistan side attacked a tourist site on the Indian side of Kashmir killing dozens. India's head of state condemned the attack and blamed it on Pakistan ... claiming the terrorists were sponsored by Pakistan and vowed to retaliate.
Pause. Let's say terrorists from Chad came across the border (we know they do) yesterday and launched an attack in Borno killing dozens. As President ... would you send the NAF to do some bombings in Chad?
Continuing. India's head of state responded by launching attacks in Pakistan. Right there is a violation and can be considered an act of war ..an attack on the country. To this ...Pakistan retaliated by launching a counter attack on India and things escalated.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.... respond to the message and not about the messenger who you know nothing about.

GreenCovering:
There is always an open wound. Essentially a Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, gifted a land of over 70% muslim population to Hindu British India, mostly HIndus, in October 26/27, 1947. Meanwhile, when a similar thing happened earlier when a muslim ruler of an 80% hindu population of Junagadh acceded to Pakistan, British India brought in the military and occupied the region. Eventually a plebiscite was held that returned Junagadh to India. The case of Kashmir remained unresolved because India results to military power whenever the people of Kashmir ask for self determination or when backed by Pakistan to do so.

Wickedlywicked:
Just like you stated above, a biased person will always be biased. I’m not supporting either side but I can remember that India made it clear following the retaliatory attacks that THEY DIDN’T AIM TO CONFRONT PAKISTAN. They made it clear that their attacks were aimed at the terrorists residing there. Do you think the Nigerian army would start directly attacking the Cameroonian military should the later attack boko haram terrorists residing in the sambisa forest?
If truly it wasn’t state-sponsored, highest they (Pakistan) would have done in response would have been to warn India to respect its territorial integrity next time or to prove to the world that THE SITES INDIA STRUCK DIDN’T BELONG TO THE TERRORISTS THEY (INDIANS) WERE LOOKING FOR. You reacting harshly to an attack targeting terrorists shows you know something we don’t know. Pakistan could have as well LIED that the Indian air strikes did hit some of its military men and that would have been a valid point and excuse to attack India back.

Botragelad:
You're clearly confused about this whole situation, just here to chase likes on my post.

Permit me to educate you a bit. In 1947, the Maharaja of Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession, making it legally part of India. Pakistan didn’t like that, so they sent armed raiders in, starting the first Kashmir war. Just like Arabs did to Israel and lost within a few days. Since then they've been screaming genocide each time they attack Israel and end up losing.😂😂

‘Occupied’? Don’t make me laugh. 😂 If Kashmir is ‘occupied’, then what’s Pakistan doing in Gilgit-Baltistan?

Why do you folks scream oppression when things don't go your way. Lol. Let’s talk about Pakistan’s ‘freedom fighters’, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed. These are UN-listed terror groups behind attacks like Uri (where Indian soldiers were killed). That’s your idea of ‘freedom’?

Half-baked knowledge is dangerous, like you crying about India while ignoring Pakistan’s ‘Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts’ military policy.

I'm gonna ask you. If Pakistan cares so much about Kashmiris, why no autonomy for Gilgit-Baltistan?
Also, why fund UN-banned terrorists and call them ‘freedom fighters’?
Please, put up a real argument or stop embarrassing yourself. 😂🤦🏼

Great0ne1:
Mumu ronu peddling lies. Why don't you travel to Israel and say this to there PM.

Luckysbab:
I have nothing to feed your bigoted minds.

You'd run circles and waste my time. There's no game for you to win here. But keep it up.

Wickedlywicked:
Just like you stated above, a biased person will always be biased. . Do you think the Nigerian army would start directly attacking the Cameroonian military should the later attack boko haram terrorists residing in the sambisa forest? [color=#990000][/color]
If truly it wasn’t state-sponsored, highest they (Pakistan) would have done in response would have been to warn India to respect its territorial integrity next time or to prove to the world that THE SITES INDIA STRUCK DIDN’T BELONG TO THE TERRORISTS THEY (INDIANS) WERE LOOKING FOR. You reacting harshly to an attack targeting terrorists shows you know something we don’t know.

1000angstroms:
Will Nigeria accept referendum from Igbos?

torqque7:
The bias fanatics should just answer the question you asked about Nigeria and Cameron attacking Boko Haram in Nigeria..so Nigeria will now start bombing Cameroon because they attacked terrorists?if that happens then it just means the terrorist are sponsored by the state,which is EXACTLY the situation with that Pakistan terrorist country.Thats how Osama was kpaied in that same country where they were hiding him. It is only religious and specifically Islamic terrorists sympathizers that support Pakistan..left to me sef they should be given the Palestinian Gaza treatment..

ElevationD:
There was never a game to learn. There was only history and deeper knowledge of historical events to learn between the two countries. No circles to run, but historical information for the basis of better knowledge for everyone. That’s why we have a forum like this.

You had no time to waste as you had no information to share. No knowledge on the events. You just shoooooked your mouth into matter.

There was nothing to win and nothing to lose. It was not about football matches, but knowledge.