| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| State and non-state actors |
| 2016-01-14 |
| [DAWN] 'WE will not allow our soil to be used against any other country for terrorism.' This oft-repeated cliché in our official statements has almost become a national embarrassment. A solemn pledge loses all credibility when major murderous Moslem attacks in other countries are allegedly traced back to our territory. It is not just cross-border involvement but also the activities of banned outfits at home that raises questions about how much control the state really has within its own domain. Then there is also the question of whether or not we are really serious about getting rid of all violent non-state actors that have become a pervasive challenge to state authority. The Pathankot air force base terrorist attack has yet again brought the issue of non-state actors to the fore. Surely, it is too early to confirm or deny the Indian allegation of a Pak murderous Moslem group being involved in the incident, but such possibility cannot be completely ruled out given past experience. Pakistain has once again been put in the dock by this latest terrorist incident across the border. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #1 IMA thinking all terrorism is 'state sponsored' to one degree or another. No terrorism of any kind can reach across borders, continents or oceans without some form of state sponsorship, whether willing or unwilling. Nor can localized terrorism survive long without some form of internal or external sponsorship, willing or unwilling. Link |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-01-14 10:21 |