Hang Guru, if that helps

That is in connection with another case, btw.

From www.asianage.com

?Mercy power of President subject to review? 10/12/2006 12:08:31 AM
- By Faraz Ahmad


New Delhi, Oct. 11: A two-judge Supreme Court bench of Justice Ajit Parsayat and Justice S.H. Kapadia held in separate concurring judgments on Wednesday that the powers of the President and governor to pardon a convict, or to reduce the sentence imposed, are subject to judicial review if there is an extraneous consideration in the exercise of that power.

The Supreme Court said this while quashing the decision of the then Andhra Pradesh governor, Mr Sushil Kumar Shinde, to remit the sentence of Gowru Venkat Reddy, a Congress activist whose wife Gowru Charitha Reddy is the sitting party MLA from Nandiputkur in Kurnool district.

The judgment per se has far reaching implications in the light of a petition pending before President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam seeking a pardon for Mohammad Afzal Guru, sentenced to death in the Parliament attack case, and the BJP opposing any attempt to condone the death sentence.

While setting aside the government order (G.O.) remitting the sentence of Gowru Venkat Reddy, the court held that the reports submitted by the district magistrate, superintendent of police and the district probation officer contain irrelevant and extraneous material and that the said extraneous and irrelevant material have entered into the decision-making process.

Therefore, while setting aside the G.O., the court held that the governor may reconsider the representation of Ms Gouru Charitha Reddy, dated October 10, 2004, seeking a pardon/remission, treating the same as pending, and to decide afresh in accordance with the law, if necessary by calling for any other or further material/documents from the authorities.

The Supreme Court has held that the powers of the President and governor under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution are royal, hence it cannot lay down any guidelines for the exercise of the same. However, it is subject to judicial review, albeit limited.

The judgment also said that while remitting sentences the President and governor have to keep in mind the effect of such a pardon on the family of the victim. Gowru Venkat Reddy was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, a sentence confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh high court. The Supreme Court, while upholding Reddy?s conviction, had reduced the sentence to 10 years? rigorous imprisonment.

In her petition, Ms Charitha Reddy had pleaded that he had already served three-and-a-half years, and if remittance on good behaviour were included, that would work out to serving five years.

The relatives of the victims, Epuru Sudhakar and the sons of the deceased, approached the Supreme Court against the governor?s decision. The Supreme Court held: ``Undue considerations of caste, religion and political loyalty are prohibited from being grounds for grant of clemency.`` It added: ``Clemency is not only for the benefit of the court. The President and governor have to keep in mind its effect on the family of the victim and society as a whole.`` The court observed that the exercise of executive clemency is not a privilege, but based on several principles, and that discretion has to be exercised in public consideration alone. ``This is an enumerated power,`` the court said, adding, ``The power to grant pardon is a prerogative power and not an act of grace.``

Observing that exclusive cognisance may not apply if the exercise was in derogation of the constitutional provision, the court said, ``It eliminates conviction without addressing the guilt.``

The Supreme Court has ruled that a pardon can be reviewed by the court and voided if found to be based on religious or political grounds.

Looks like the b@stard will hang.

#201 by zeemax

[Yes I said that. But did you have a question about it? Sorry if I missed it. What was it?]


No.

In your post that O quoted in #200, you supported Aslam`s position on Kashmir.

So when I posted an argument against it, both you and Aslam were silent.

That`s why I said:

[...when they have no arguments to offer, they shut up, and come back later to mouth the same arguments.]

That`s all.

#200 by krishna_abcd

Yes I said that. But did you have a question about it? Sorry if I missed it. What was it?

#199 by zeemax

[Huh? (Head scratching icon) ... which of your arguments I didn`t answer? ]


How about this post:

[#148 by aslam644

Aslam, this is excellent line of thought, and a principled one. If Britain (you gave the example of Jersey) can negotiate with even the most lethal of them all i.e. IRA because of their widespread support in Northern Ireland, and give them what they wanted, what`s wrong with India? And, BTW, IRA has still not disarmed ... just in case ... you know .. ``Trust but verify`` as that old SOB the 3rd rate actor now pushing up daisies said.

But of-course, if macacaland gives up the Kashmir valley, it will disintegrate. So be it. It`ll be good riddance. It is inevitable.]

#197 by krishna_abcd

...liars and cowards like Zeemax..is that when they have no arguments...they shut up

Huh? (Head scratching icon) ... which of your arguments I didn`t answer? Of-course I ignore stereo-typed moronic statements but a genuine question .. I always answer!

Please repeat your asking ~ ...

VRV #195
Thanks.

#190 by myself

The interesting thing about abject liars and cowards like Zeemax, Aslam etc. is that when they have no arguments to offer, they shut up, and come back later to mouth the same arguments.

No self respect.

[#185] From Washington Post article pasted in this:

...White House spokesman Tony Snow said the president, like his predecessors, ``lies awake nights asking himself the question: How can I get this done and get our people home?`` ...

My question: How can Mr. Snow know that Bush lies awake nights asking himself blah blah ..., unless next day morning he speaks on this to Mr. Snow or somebody? As per the article Bush does not do that. Bush does not speak, discuss, show etc his private feelings. I dont know why such articles are accepted for publication in papers like Washington Post? What exactly WP is trying to prove? That their readers are all chutiyas? If there ever was a war which was ``engineered`` it was this Iraq war. Why sensible people have to delude themselves into believing otherwise?

Re: # 174

Sadna,

That was an enlightening post :-)

Btw, some guys just cant stand ur analytical prowess, I think. They keep hitting u below the belt. Many a time I had thought of coming to ur rescue but after seeing ur fight-back, U R another Jhansi ki Rani, need no backup. (Either inlelluctual field or battlefield u dont need backup).

I guess Yasser wud start a thread calling me ur cheer leader. Just wait.

Re: # 192

I would prefer these Kashmiri Islamists hanged quickly ........All the mullahs must see this and know that they have gallows of the Indian secular state waiting for expediting their marriage to the black eyed ones....................

#189
The irony is that Afzal Guru did what he did primarily because he wants to be part of Pakistan.

Instead of hanging Afzal in Tihar jail at 6 am, he should be hanged at Lal Chowk in Srinagar at 12 noon.

There should be a couple of MI-17 helicopter gunships circling overhead so if the muthafu@$ing Kashmiris have any ideas about rushing the gallows and freeing Afzal, we take a couple of hundred of them along with Afzal.

#183 moronic_macaca in response to zeemax #170:

[...You mean these are Syrian jews/palestinian jews etc .. not European jews! ....Source please ...]

says:

....the following link that tells u that sephardic jews are a majority in Israel.
http://www.jewfaq.org/ashkseph.htm

Hmmm ... hell of an authentic source in JewFaq.org titled `Judaism 101`, but anyway it says:

``Sephardic Jews are often subdivided into Sephardim (from Spain and Portugal) and Mizrachim (from the Northern Africa and the Middle East) ... In Israel, a little more than half of all Jews are Mizrachim``.

Remove Spanish and Portuguese and you`re left with Mizrachim, who total 2.0 million out of total Israeli May 2006 est. of over 7.0 million.

Majority? Even with this malicious description which includes `Middle-Eastern Jews` within `Sephardic`?

However, at the same time Wikipedia says:

A Sephardi is a Jew originating in the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) , including the descendants of those subject to expulsion from Spain by order of the Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella (as codified in the Alhambra decree of 1492), or from Portugal by order of King Manuel I in 1497.

So what our friend the macaca is doing is to count all those jews kicked out of Spain and Portugal as `Arabs` after end of their `freedom & liberty` after Muslim rule . But even then, this `majority` contention is simply moronic. But nice try.

Happy googling macaca. You might find another jewfaq.org to argue further.

#148 by aslam644

[I am not suggesting that if five guys in a mosque in Bombay decide they don`t want to be Indian then India should be divided. What I am suggesting is that if a distinct region wishes to secede then it should be allowed to. If Kashmir, or Nagaland do not wish to be a part of India, why do you wish to force them to be? This is the impulse of a fascist state, not a democratic one. A democracy exists to serve its people, not to subjugate them. It seems to me that you do not believe in principles, but in some kind of nationalist myth. That is the seed from which war and suffering grow. ]


It seems that the standard Jehadi/Paki propaganda has seeped deep inside your brain.

Okay. Let me try one more time.

Kashmir and Nagaland are DIFFERENT issues. Do not try to obfuscate.

IF THE MAJORITY POPULATION IN KASHMIR WANT TO BE AN INDEPENDENT STATE, THAT IS INDEED A LEGITIMATE DEMAND.

BUT HERE`S THE EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE:

UNLESS - IF THE MAJORITY POPULATION BELONGS TO ONE RELIGION ONLY, OR ONE ETHNICITY ONLY etc.

This is the same reason why Kashmir and Nagaland are two different problems.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

Let me know.

If the president of India can meet the family of a man on death row -- for a crime that he participated -- why can`t the President of Pakistan meet with the family of Btirtidh kid Mirza Tahir Hussain to commute his death sentence -- Guru was not innocent -- Mirza Tahir Hussain is..

....why Mushrraf will not even meet with the British family......this is the difference between an educated learned president and an uneducated self promoter...

!187 Nasah

Sir, the point is – even this lady, who had the most personal reason to be upset with GWB – thinks that he is a person with the right heart. And she did not call him unintelligent, either. And believe me, GWB has gotten so far ahead in life precisely because (like the Laloo), people have always underestimated his intelligence.

Re: # 185

BJK the correct version:

``Halley said the meeting did not change either of their minds. She would still vote against him. But she said she appreciated that he opened himself up to her. ``I don`t think he`s a heartless man, he is a very unintelligent man`` she said. ``I think he`s pulled in a lot of different directions by very intelligent people.....``

Re: # 185

BJK the correct version:

``Halley said the meeting did not change either of their minds. She would still vote against him. But she said she appreciated that he opened himself up to her. ``I don`t think he`s a heartless man, he is a very unintelligent man`` she said. ``I think he`s pulled in a lot of different directions by very intelligent people.....``

#177 by nasah

[The President meets with the family of a death row inmate -- a great president of a great country -- can you imagine Dubya the Dimwit doing something like that....not in a million Iraqi deaths...!]

Nasah sahib, you are highly mistaken. GWB is no dimwit. Also, GWB has no personal animosity versus the people of Iraq and in fact, barring a few isolated events – the US troops have behaved like model professional soldiers! The true enemies of Iraq are the individuals who are out there blowing things and killing its civilians – as well as those Iraqis and foreigners who support such people.

Regarding how GWB feels privately, the following news account from the Washington Post comes closest to capturing it, in my view.

Please read and make your own judgment.

---

For Bush, War Anguish Expressed Privately

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 25, 2006; A01
FALMOUTH, Maine -- They sat on two frayed chairs in a teacher`s lounge, the president and the widow, just the two of them so close that their knees were almost touching.

She was talking about her husband, the soldier who died in a far-off war zone. Tears rolled down her face as she mentioned two children left fatherless. His eyes welled up, too. He hugged her, held her face, kissed her cheek. ``I am so sorry for your loss,`` he kept repeating.

She told him she considers him responsible for her husband`s death and begged him to bring home the troops. ``It`s time to put our pride behind us and stop the bleeding, for all of us,`` she recalled saying. The president demurred, unwilling to debate a mourning woman. ``We see things differently,`` he said.

But Hildi Halley, a self-described liberal antiwar activist who met with President Bush in Maine last month, said she believes he felt her grief. ``It wasn`t just a crocodile tear,`` she said in an interview at her home. ``I felt like I moved him. I don`t think he`s going to wake up tomorrow and say, `Oh my gosh, I`ve been wrong this whole time and I`m going to change all my policies because of my meeting with this woman.` I just hope that with each soldier, he remembers my pain.``

He has a lot of pain to remember. Now more than five years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush has served as a wartime president longer than any occupant of the White House since Lyndon B. Johnson. He has presided over more U.S. military casualties than any since Richard M. Nixon. While he travels the country defending his policy and arguing to stay the course in Iraq, he also confronts the human burdens of wartime leadership.

The two sides of Bush as commander in chief can be hard to reconcile. His public persona gives little sense that he dwells on the costs of war. He does not seem to agonize as Johnson did, or even as his father, George H.W. Bush, did before the Persian Gulf War. While he pays tribute to those who have fallen, the president strives to show resolve and avoid displays that might be seen as weak or doubting. His refusal to attend military funerals, while taking long Texas vacations and extended bicycle rides, strikes some critics as callous indifference.

Yet the private Bush comes across differently in the accounts of aides, friends, relatives and military family members who have met with him, including some who do not support him, such as Halley. The first question Bush usually asks national security briefers in the Oval Office each morning is about overnight casualties, aides say, and those who show up for the next round of meetings often find him still stewing about bad news from Iraq.

Bush seems to separate these aspects of war in his mind, advisers say. He expresses no regret even in private for his decision to invade Iraq, they say, while taking seriously the continuing consequences of doing so. ``Removing Saddam, he never revisits that in his mind or his heart,`` said one adviser, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because Bush does not want them to discuss his feelings. ``Sending troops into harm`s way, that`s something that weighs on him.``

If he does not show that publicly, it`s in keeping with a White House practice of not drawing attention to the mounting costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have killed more than 3,000 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of civilians. Advisers worry that sending the wrong signal would further sap public will and embolden the enemy and Bush`s critics. Aides say that Bush does not attend military funerals because the presidential entourage would disrupt solemn events and that, out of respect, the media have been banned from photographing coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base. But they also know it would focus a spotlight on the price of the president`s policies.

Bush is less reticent about public displays of grief for victims of Sept. 11. During the recent events marking the fifth anniversary of the attacks, he teared up several times and at one point had to concentrate just to finish a speech. ``Your heart breaks for somebody who suffered,`` he later told Charles Gibson of ABC News. ``Tears can get contagious as far as I`m concerned.``

For those who have suffered losses in the wars he initiated, Bush prefers to offer comfort in private. He writes letters to families of those killed, visits soldiers at military hospitals and meets with relatives of the dead. Altogether, according to the White House, Bush has met with 1,149 relatives of 336 dead service members. These sessions generate little attention because the White House bars journalists, but some relatives have described them.

``It`s absolutely painful for him,`` said Beth Karlson, 63, a retired school food-service manager whose son died in Iraq and who met with Bush in Wisconsin last month. The president hugged her and held her hand. ``He`s a genuine person. He wants to reach out to the families and let them know how he feels.``

Not everyone agrees. Cindy Sheehan, who would later launch antiwar protests near Bush`s Texas ranch, met with him in 2004 and left alienated. She said he came across as overly casual and immune to her pain, referring to her as ``Mom,`` yet uninterested in stories about her dead son, Casey, and calling him ``your loved one`` instead of by name. When she later sought another meeting, Bush refused.

Said Missy Beattie, a fellow member of Gold Star Families for Peace whose nephew died in Iraq: ``He only meets with people who support him. I don`t know what I`d say to him. I almost feel like he`s not worthy of time and thought because I don`t think he cares. I don`t think he has any human qualities. I don`t think he would listen to me or anyone who`s lost someone and feel any empathy.``

Many presidents confront the burden of ordering troops into danger. Johnson was tormented by the Vietnam War, padding down to his war room in slippers and robe at night to check on casualty numbers. Taped telephone calls, published by historian Michael Beschloss, reveal the depth of anguish. ``I want to be called every time somebody dies,`` Johnson declared. He took to bed, depressed. Aides consulted psychiatrists. ``He suffered,`` biographer Robert Dallek said. ``It certainly took a toll on him. You could see it in his face at the end of his term. He was so old and careworn.``

George H.W. Bush wrote an angst-ridden letter to his children before the Gulf War: ``I guess what I want you to know as a father is this: Every Human life is precious. When the question is asked `How many lives are you willing to sacrifice` -- it tears at my heart. The answer, of course, is none -- none at all.`` He did not sleep well before the bombing began and prayed that an Iraqi child shown on television would not be hit. ``There`s no way to describe the pressure,`` he said in a diary entry, later published in a volume of personal correspondence. ``I`ve been plagued with the image of body bags.``

Warren Finch, director of the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, said the former president`s service as a pilot shot down over the Pacific shaped his outlook. ``The fact that he had served in World War II and lost two crewmen meant he experienced it firsthand. That weighed heavily on him.``

His son never served in combat and gives no public indication that he anguishes like his father. White House spokesman Tony Snow said the president, like his predecessors, ``lies awake nights asking himself the question: How can I get this done and get our people home?`` But Bush controls his feelings around associates. ``He keeps a lot of that very, very locked up inside himself,`` said a longtime friend. ``I don`t raise it with him. I just don`t feel comfortable doing that.``

Bush is more open with confidants about his aggravation over events in Iraq. ``He`s unbelievably candid in person,`` said another person close to the president. ``Of course it frustrates him. You can`t not be frustrated by four car bombs a day and that sort of thing. But I think he`s confident it`s going to work out. I think he also thinks there`s not much of an alternative.`` Does the president confide much in his father? ``Nobody knows,`` the person said. ``It`s a steel wall.``

Bush deals with stress through vigorous exercise, working out six days a week. When he goes for long bicycle rides, he often invites others to join him, but he asks them not to ride in front of him so he can have the illusion of solitude. ``Riding helps clear my head, helps me deal with the stresses of the job,`` he told reporters last month after an 80-minute ride.

To those angry over the war, that can seem cavalier. ``It`s important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say,`` Bush said last year when Sheehan began her protest. ``But it`s also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life. . . . I`m mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I`m also mindful that I`ve got a life to live and will do so.``

Aides see the impact on Bush after meetings with ``families of the fallen,`` as the White House calls them. Bush typically meets each family separately, joined by one aide, often Deputy Chief of Staff Joseph W. Hagin. He offers commemorative coins, poses for photos or signs autographs. ``I do the best I can to cry with them or, you know, laugh with them if they wanna laugh, and hug them,`` Bush recently told Katie Couric of CBS News.

Karlson, whose son, Staff Sgt. Warren Hansen, died in a helicopter crash in Iraq in 2003, asked Bush for help in obtaining an investigative report. ``I just felt I was being stonewalled, I wasn`t getting anyplace,`` she recalled. ``He said it will be taken care of. And it was. The next Wednesday, the report was hand-delivered.`` In the end, the report confirmed what she had been told about her son`s death. ``It has brought some peace,`` she said.

After such meetings, aides said, Bush often seems drained. During a trip to Fort Bragg, N.C., last year, he spent three hours with dozens of relatives of troops who were killed. One of them, Crystal Owen, asked him to wear a metal bracelet in honor of her dead husband. He put it on, then went to deliver a nationally televised address. With the widows still on his mind, Bush seemed flat as he began to speak, aides said, and at one point his eyes became watery.

Halley, 41, lost her husband, National Guard Capt. Patrick Damon, also 41, in June in Afghanistan to what officially was ruled a heart attack. When Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) called to offer condolences and asked if she could do anything, Halley requested a telephone call from the president. Instead, when he came to Maine to visit his parents in Kennebunkport, the White House invited her to meet him at a school.

When Bush walked in, Halley told him about Patrick, how they had met at American University, moved to Maine and had a family. ``After I spoke about my husband for quite some time, I said, `And now he`s dead. For what? Why? I`ve lost my soul mate.` `` She asked her children, Mikayla, 14, and Jan-Christian, 12, to leave the room, then wept as she told Bush how hard life had become for them. ``He started crying. I said, `These two children do not like you and they have good reason for that. And I hold you responsible for the death of my husband.` ``

Bush seemed surprised that she opposes even the war in Afghanistan, and he cited the Taliban. ``And I said, `Who put them in power?` And he got a little defensive and said, `I`m really not here to discuss public policy with you.` And I said, `That`s probably wise, and I`m not here to talk about public policy, either.` ``

Bush said he hoped their meeting helped her healing. ``You know what would help my healing?`` she recalled responding. ``If you change your policies in the Mideast.`` Bush smiled, she said, but did not reply.

Halley said the meeting did not change either of their minds. She would still vote against him. But she said she appreciated that he opened himself up to her. ``I don`t think he`s a heartless man,`` she said. ``I think he`s pulled in a lot of different directions by very intelligent people. . . . I don`t think it`s going to change his policies, but I hope it does make him think about it. I hope I`m in his dreams.``

Ref zeemax #170

[Of-course they can, as they did for centuries before in Muslim lands .. but in an Islamic Palestinian state. Not the European jews though, not anymore after the bombing of Lebanon. These have to be kicked out.]

And what is the excuse for kicking out Hindu Sindhis and Punjabis from the lands they have lived in for millennia?

They are not Muslims. Right!!!!!

Re:zeemax #170

[...You mean these are Syrian jews/palestinian jews etc .. not European jews! ....Source please, as to how you make this assertion]

Zeemacaca, check out the following link that tells u that sephardic jews are a majority in Israel.

http://www.jewfaq.org/ashkseph.htm

So now do u support Israel?

#181
I don`t know what you mean. A few days ago, the President met with the families of the victims of the Parliament attack(11 people were killed) who went to urge him NOT to commute the death sentence.

The Indian President generally meets with the people who have things to say to him on decisions he has to take, in this case the mercy petition. He will meet with whoever comes to meet him from the concerned Central ministries too(which will make official recommendations). What is so difficult to believe about that?

#178 now you say #178 and then #180.
What for. For the president to tell them to their faces - sorry you treasonous fools your man hangs.
Or is he meeting them, so that it can be said the man was moved by their petition and etc etc that he commuted the treasonous idiots life.
sadna you can contradict yourself. you donot need rabies walahs to help you.

or are you two different people typing in responses from two different computers without thught and coordination!

#179
He is meeting them to give them a fair hearing on the mercy petition. It is all over the papers, where have you been?

#178 so why is he seeing them.....to pat them on the back say great your husband is going to die for a cause which was not worth it!

#177
The meeting might not lead to a commutation of the death sentence, though.

The President meets with the family of a death row inmate -- a great president of a great country -- can you imagine Dubya the Dimwit doing something like that....not in a million Iraqi deaths...!

Re: # 175
if you see zeemini`s original post, he was including all the lands we call Israel these days. H eenvisages a situation of peace happeneing only of the christians, jews and muslims live in this islamic state. If this state is not there, there will be no peace.

Its the usual blackmail crap from the stables of Zeemini`s jihadic mind.

iron_mask # 171

``Islamic Palestinian state.``

So long as a majority of Palestinians continue to call themselves Muslims (of any persuasion), why is an Islamic Palestinian state unlikely to materialize, iron_mask? Or do you see sufficiently strong enough external - Wesrtern and Israeli - pressures being maintained to keep the state secular?

If that happens, there will be more bloodshed AMONG Palestinians than has been between Israelis and Palestinians... :(

VRV#173
``I was going thru the speeches and statements of Liaquat Ali Khan (edited by Research Society of Pakistan). I was struck by the mentality of these leaders who ran their country with this attitude of perpetual enmity towards India since its inception. The statements on Kashmir are no different from what being stated by the contemporary rulers of Pakistan.``

VRV, the way I understand it - just like the modern Indian state was to a large extent a brand new construct so was the Pakistani state a brand new construct. Indian leaders used many rallying themes to convince Indians of widely varying interests to accept the brand new construct which was the modern Indian state.

Similarly so did Pakistani leaders. The Pakistan movement preceding had projected the threat of the Hindu majority as the very justification of the Pakistani state and vastly varying political, economic religious and ethnic interests which were to constitute Pakistan were united under this central theme aka the threat of the Hindu majority.

So after independence how were the vastly varying political, economic religious and ethnic interests which constituted Pakistan to be kept united? By playing on the same readymade theme of the threat from Hindu India, with Kashmir issue added as an evergreen issue to provide the living evidence of Hindu perfidy.

The Pakistani state couldn`t bridge the Bengali-West Pakistani divide with the Kashmir theme but still all Pak regimes have been relying on the above to legitimise themselves until radical Islam appeared on the horizon. Many observers say that the efficacy of Hindu Indian threat and Kashmir as props for Pak leadership to weild power is wearing off because the Pak population is more interested in improving their living standards or hating Umrika or both with Kashmir and Hindu India coming in a poor third.

IMHO the efficacy of Hindu Indian threat and Kashmir as Pak rallying point might indeed be losing its edge but the military regime and the siren call of radical Islam which they sponsor is keeping it artificially in forefront.

You are free to fit UP into this whereever :)

Re: # 127

Sadna,

The attack on Parliament is done by Pakistan thru` our Kashmiri guys. No doubt abt it.

What we do abt Pak? Pl look at what u do abt a pig in the the pool of mud. Avoid disturbing it. They live in fool`s paradise....

I read of Liaquat ridiculing India, coz we are secular (he meant godless country) and they are a great country, coz they are a Muslim nation.

Down the line we know that where they are and where we are AND where we are going and where they wud end up!

I was going thru the speeches and statements of Liaquat Ali Khan (edited by Research Society of Pakistan). I was struck by the mentality of these leaders who ran their country with this attitude of perpetual enmity towards India since its inception. The statements on Kashmir are no different from what being stated by the contemporary rulers of Pakistan. NO DIFFERENT AT ALL.

First they wanted Pakistan (in pre-47 India) and wanted to deal with Congress on the basis of Pakistan and told us/made us believe that once we give them Pakistan then Hindustan and Pakistan wud live in peace forever. Later they raised the goal-post of peace with India; they included Kashmir. Now, even if we give Kashmir on platter, they wudnt be satisfied. They wud raise another issue and expect people like u to work for them, speak for them and be perpetual enemies of Hindus.

The attitude of Pakistanis (san a few) towards u can be seen on UP. They expect u to be badmouthing India.

mouthing the mullah version of TNT with the Jehadic otherwordly version of ``killing-now-to get-an-everlasting-life-later-in-paradise`` is plain stupid!!!

Re: # 170 ``but in an Islamic Palestinian state. ``

And you seriously this will happen? PAL of Masadi, you are serious....or maybe one to many hookas and chillums have come your way....either way

#169 moronic macaca says:

1) Israel`s majority population is sephardic jews i.e. Arab jews

You mean these are Syrian jews/palestinian jews etc .. not European jews!

Source please, as to how you make this assertion.

2) Why cant jews and muslims of any ethnicities live and share a land in a democratic, secular nation in Palestine?

Of-course they can, as they did for centuries before in Muslim lands .. but in an Islamic Palestinian state. Not the European jews though, not anymore after the bombing of Lebanon. These have to be kicked out.

Re:zee#166

[.......and jewish seperatism would be fine if it was Arab jews and not European jews transplanted on Arab land .... you`re so ignorant that it is unbelievable.....]

Oh really? Why the hell would it be fine? Why cant jews and muslims of any ethnicities live and share a land in a democratic, secular nation in Palestine?

Also, Israel`s majority population is sephardic jews i.e. Arab jews.....talk about illiteracy...

#167 moronic_macaca bluthers:

India will never let go of Kashmir.

How long can you keep it? Really?

Re:pagal_kutta #165

[...Of-course the brave Muslim superior Kashmiri race does not want to live with you inferior dark-skinned dravidians....]

There you go!! Finally admitting the truth that Kashmir issue has no moral basis.

Thats why India will never let go of Kashmir. Good always wins over evil ideology.

...contd....

....and jewish seperatism would be fine if it was Arab jews and not European jews transplanted on Arab land .... you`re so ignorant that it is unbelievable.

#164 morinic_macaca blubbers....:

I have proved to you that the Kashmir struggle is based on TNT, which is pure religious separatism.

Abey of-course this is what it is ... Who ever disputed that? Of-course the brave Muslim superior Kashmiri race does not want to live with you inferior dark-skinned dravidians .. of-course ... do you need any confirmation? Did I dispute that?

Sheesh .... of all the illiterates .....

Re:zeemax#161

[..This post is so ignorant that it does not merit comment....]

You lost the argument which is why you cannot post a rejoinder. I have proved to you that the Kashmir struggle is based on TNT, which is pure religious separatism. It is completely immoral like apartheid (racial separatism) and zionism (jewish religious separtism). Come up with a moral argument against mine, if you can!!

Phat ke haath me aa gayi, mulley?

Hey macacas ... idiotic_moronic_fiendish_dumbasses_otherwise animalistic primates...

This board is about Kashmir, not Pak. So stop trying to change the subject because the brave Kashmiris are effing your puny little dark-skinned dravidian behinds ... LoL .....!

Re:zeemax#155

[...Kashmir Benga Pakistan .... Inshallah ... Eventually...]

Pakistan Banega American Kutta.......Inshallah......

Oh wait a second!!.....Pakistan is already an American Kutta......see how Bush kicks Mush around, gives him orders, makes him jump up and down, forces him to buy useless F16s...as if he is his pet dog....

Abey macaca_mullah, your beghairat country survives by being a dog to Bush. First get some spine and become at least a macaca, let alone a man. Then think about Kashmir.

moronic_macaca #157

This post is so ignorant that it does not merit comment. First go and look up how Israel came into being and on whose land it exists.

As for ``Some Kashmiri muslims want to separate purely on the basis of religion ..`` etc., :

sure ... macacas need to deploy 600,000 macaca army to dissuade these `some` Kashmiri muslims.

Hey gimme a break. Go and get an education.

mullah zeemax: that map has a better chance of becoming reality than Pakiland getting it`s hands on Indian Kashmir...

repeat after me...

KASHMIR BANEGA PAKISTAN err..eventually...