List of Terrorist Groups Produced in Pakistan

[Roshina]

Nothing wrong with having terrorist groups as long as they're terrorizing the right people for a beneficial cause

Majority of the groups on the list terrorize Hindu and Sikh aggressors who are occupying Kashmir and India, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that at all

Whoa! What a loaded post!

So, wait, who decides who the "right" people to be terrorized are? And who decides what the "beneficial cause" is? Rather, what IS the beneficial cause?

It's okay to terrorize Hindu and Sikh "aggressors"; what about terrorizing Muslim "aggressors"? Would that be acceptable to you just as it clearly is to terrorize Hindu and Sikh "aggressors"?

India is a huge country. Why is there nothing wrong in occupying it? And Kashmir?! Why is nothing wrong with terrorizing and/or occupying Kashmir?

[єѕαρχαι]

Kashmir is a muslim dominated area . according to partition rules it was supposed to be a part of pakistan.

[Roshina]

What's wrong with terrorism? As long as it's against aggressors it's perfectly fine, don't be such an emotional pansy

Everything is wrong with terrorism. Be it from a Muslim or a non-Muslim, terrorism is the worst curse that's been placed upon humanity. Whhat IS right about terrorism, in fact? And - what on earth - only "aggressors" suffer in terrorism?! Think again, and look around you: Innocent humans have been killed in the hands of terrorism (both in the hands of non-Muslims as well as Muslims), cities and villages have been flattened because of it, history has been repeated due to it, and generations have been wiped off for the sake of terrorism.

If you can support terrorism and give your own personal reasons for it, then we can pretty much justify any wrong thing that happens, including the brutal murders of people we just personally don't like.

...

Oh wait, that alreayd happens. That's exactly what the Taliban did to some of the most brilliant students in Swat recently.

Hindus and Sikhs are not a race of people, you want to try that again?

Actually, yes, they are a race. You know what a "race" is defined to be? Americans are considered a race as well. Muslims are considered a race as well. HUMANS -- all humans -- are considered a race as well. Pukhtuns are considered a race as well as an ethnicity.

So, yeah, the Hindus are a race as well as the Sikhs are a race.

Unless you are one of those people who use "race" and "ethnicity" interchangeably, in which case, I can imagine why you'd think the Hindus and Sikhs aren't races. But in that case, also, I'd say ... look into some identity politics books to get a sense of what a "race" is.

[Roshina]

Kashmir is a muslim dominated area . according to partition rules it was supposed to be a part of pakistan.

Religion should have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, and terrorism should have nothing to do with religion. We should never, ever support terrorizing a group of people just because of their race, religion/sect, ethnicity, nationality, opinions, etc. Hence, whether Kashmir is a Muslim-dominated area or not should be completely irrelevant to any discussions of terrorism.

I'm not at all claiming that your post thinks otherwise, thought, Sher Khan. That's just a general comment.

[єѕαρχαι]

mohammad pbuh did Jihad. Its our way to glory . you cant deny it

[Gaia]

mohammad pbuh did Jihad. Its our way to glory . you cant deny it

Hi, Sher.... the Jihad came in like... how? Mind to elaborate? Me curious!

[єѕαρχαι]

According to me. To support muslims wherever they are oppressed.

[Roshina]

mohammad pbuh did Jihad. Its our way to glory . you cant deny it

According to Muslim version of Islamic history, and according to the Quran, the Prophet did not kill just anyone and jihad cannot be initiated; it must be fought only to defend yourself, your people, your land, your property, etc.

So, unless you wanna discuss different versions of Islamic history, the Prophet actually never fought jihad just likethat; he had to have a reason, and, according to hadiths, women, children, places of worship (including non-Muslims' places of worship, like Churches and Temples), the elderly, animals, and plants were NOT to be destroyed during a jihad. Further, according to the Quran, a jihad may not be fought during the month of Ramadhan, and the Prophet never fought a jihad during Ramadhan either. BUT... let's be honest with each other and with ourselves here and ask how many people have been killed in acts of terrorism / in wars during Ramadhan? I have uncles butchered IN Ramadhan by the Taliban and others were imprisoned by the PK army.

So don't try to mislabel terrorism by calling it "jihad," at least for the sake of a good and peaceful future for Muslims.

[Roshina]

According to me. To support muslims wherever they are oppressed.

Oh, okay. In that case, you agree that jihad (or war) should be fought only against those who are oppressing your people. I totally agree, and it's perfectly reasonable -- even supported by the Quran.

[Gaia]

Ok, Sher... I'm asking, Jihad came into this discussion for what matter? I didn't even want to elaborate my question myself cause I was afraid of being jumping into conclusions... so, wanted to check with you. I'm sorry, I didn't get it just yet :S

[єѕαρχαι]

scroll up and you will get it

[Nokia_Apridy]

Ohhhhh Dar kha Awal da Link wagoray da kam site

wala source da...ofcorse INDIA

Ao bal BATULA Mased Group ya na da khudalay walay...

clear khbra da chay Warsra da WRUNA di.........

AO JIHAD kala hem ma sok nashey wesara walay.....

[Gaia]

scroll up and you will get it

Aw, thanks! Yeah, now I get you. And Jesus, don't like it!

See... I do want to believe the prophet had better reasons than being politically manipulated to urge Jihad in his time. To bring this concept in this discussion alone is, at least, an anacronism; a mistake, at last. And I sincerelly think it would give too much sacrality to purely political manipulation, while weakening the sacrality of the prophets' fight. As I'm not going to jump into a religious discussion, I refrain from going on.

I'm trying to understand the ways of your thought but, I'm afraid without a little help from you, my efforts will be useless. I still don't think Jihad would apply in the general of these terrorist groups reasons, justifications, goals and means.

[єѕαρχαι]

I am not justifying these groups. if its about kashmir . I condsider it jihad. Its a muslim majority land oppressed by hindus. They daily slaughter and rape them. So to help them there must be jihad.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Kashmir is a muslim dominated area . according to partition rules it was supposed to be a part of pakistan.

As per the partition rules, which were agreed to by the Muslim League as well as Congress, the rulers of the princely states had to decide whether to join Pakistan, India or remain neutral. Hari Singh of Kashmir decided to join India. The Muslim majority rule only applied to the administrative states of the British Raj.

However, that does not absolve India of anything. Kashmiris quite clearly don't want Delhi's raj in their country and an independence movement there has been suppressed for the last 20 years with some of the most violent means possible. Amnesty International unearthed mass-graves there last year and extra-judicial killings, as well as rapes and staged encounters, are common occurrences. Indians are doing to Kashmiris something similar to what Pakistan is doing to the people of FATA.