India: Pakistan Fires Across Kashmir Line

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2005-01-20 06:12am

In the same way Kansas is near Mississippi.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2005-01-20 10:06am

Robert Walper wrote:
Stofsk wrote:
Robert Walper wrote: More violence between Middle East countries? Aren't they holding hands singing with love yet?
India and Pakistan are not middle east countries. They're a subcontinent of Asia, hence why it's usually called South Asia.
Geography was never my strong point...obviously. But they are in that general area...

Well not really, they are many thousands of miles apart.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2005-01-20 10:19am

The Shadow wrote:
Geography was never my strong point...obviously. But they are in that general area...
Well not really, they are many thousands of miles apart.

*consults atlas* Hmm...yeah. Guess they are slightly farther away than I thought. *shrugs*

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2005-01-20 10:51am

Slightly ? That seems like an understatement.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-01-20 12:40pm

The Shadow wrote:
Mange the Swede wrote:When will this stop? I thought that Pakistan and India had been moving forward with this issue. And I fail to see why a few rocks and mountains are worth fighting about.
Well it is not about the mountains really but the state of Kasmir. When the Indo-Pak partition happened in 1947 Kashmir joined India even though it was a muslim region because the king was hindu. The residents did not like it. One third of Kashmir joined Pakistan. Pakistan wants Kashmir to join it and funds seperatists waging insurgency there. Since 1988 a bloody guirilla war is being conducted there that has so far killed around 35000.

Yes, I'm aware of that. It was just a tint of irony.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2005-01-20 01:02pm

The Shadow wrote:Slightly ? That seems like an understatement.

Hey! The map was small on my monitor!

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-20 01:12pm

Isn't the Vale of Kashmir, or whatever it's called, actually a fairly fertile piece of land? Besides the strategic position it enjoys (or suffers from), it does actually have some economic value to wrangle over, doesn't it?

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2005-01-21 03:10am

Chmee wrote:Isn't the Vale of Kashmir, or whatever it's called, actually a fairly fertile piece of land? Besides the strategic position it enjoys (or suffers from), it does actually have some economic value to wrangle over, doesn't it?

Well Kashmir used to be a major tourism spot due to it's scenic beauty and mountains before the insurgency.