Please back off, Benazir!

Bhutto's continuing tragedy was lack of scruples ... instead of trying to be some sort of a Napoleon meets Gemal Abdel Nasser holding a Pakistani flag... had he followed the man (Mahomed Ali Jinnah) he admired but did not have the integrity or character to emulate and who he defended more vociferously than I ever have (heck had he been around you would be calling him the "high priest of Church of MAJ" as well) ...

But somewhere along the way... Bhutto decided Jinnah's law abiding constitutional ways were too cumbersome for him to fulfill his ambition of becoming a third world Napoleon ... that having scruples and being honest like Jinnah was uncool... that Pakistan was Bhutto's personal fiefdom... that he could fool the people and play with the ignorance and foolishness... that instead of solving the basic issues and fulfilling the many promises he made to the people... he would do better by holding the Islamic Summit Conference and giving false hopes to an already demoralised people.... that if nothing else worked, it would be great to ditch the Ahmadis in the name of Islam.... that if that didn't appease the Mullahs... there would always be something more he could do to appease the Mullahs.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was basically an insecure people. As per Rafi Raza... Bhutto's "phenomenal election victory" in 1970 was engineered by the Pakistan Army to offset the Awami League-National Awami Party alliance...

On this website we have often done the exercise of what would happened if Nehru had not vetoed the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946... it is about time we consider what would have happened if Bhutto-Yahya coterie had accepted Mujib's 6 points...

My guess is that Pakistan would still be united... albeit as a confederation ... and military rule would have ended with Yahya Khan. This is precisely why the Army had to let East Pakistan go.

Manto mian,

Masadi sahib wrote:

"Fact: If ZAB was not butchered, Pakistan would be well ahead of South Korea in development and its people would be happier and healthier, poverty would be lower"

I suppose Masadi sahib is just cracking a harmless joke.

Regards

The High Priestess of the Church of MAJ, Manto, responds with the same old bs, he throws a name out but does not show how that "name" disputes even a single one of the indusputed facts that I presented. Those facts aren't in the ancient history, they are well known from PRIMARY documents, from newspapers and papers that are widely available. They are no secret and he repeats his bs about Fatima Jinnah. She LOST, people wanted to capitalize on the entire industry of legitimization of the Jinnah that the creation of Pakistan produced, as monarchial succession, they failed, that is all and that was it...

Manto writes "Just then, the driver stopped the car as one of the traffic lights on Murree Road turned red. Having heard me seconds before, he (Bhutto) told the driver, ‘Drive on, no one can stop me!’ This was the difference"

Pakistani scholarship at its best, Ad Hominem and he said she said and "look at his morals" while claiming to be "better than thou". Is that all you can muster fool?
One causes the death of over a million and relegates hundreds of millions to reactionary discrimination and misery, the other goes directly to the people, listens to them and tries to consolidate the resources of this nation for its people. The difference is crystal clear, ZAB any day!

Masadi mian,

"Not disputed by a single historian"

Read "Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan" by Stanley Wolpert. Let us just say your "facts" are not even considered facts. Since you've not quoted any historian per se... I think your claim- as with most of your "scholarship" is sham.

You still haven't explained why was it that people like Wali Khan - son of Ghaffar Khan- put their faith in Fatima Jinnah despite being Jinnah's doughtiest opponents? So much for your monarchial succession theory. It was because they realised that only Fatima Jinnah had the popular appeal (because she was the sister of Quaid-e-Azam) and integrity required for the job...

Ironic that of all the politicians you blame the one man - Jinnah- who did not create a political dynasty for "monarchial succession" ... just because a wide range of political leaders chose his sister.

Meanwhile Raja Dahir of Larkana... the avid law breaker Mr. Bhutto... self styled Napoleon Bonaparte of Pakistan is some sort of a "democrat" and a "populist". The only thing Zulfikar Ali Bhutto tried to be was Machiavelli's prince... and failed miserably at that because Zia-ul-Haq proved to be even more unscrupulous and dishonest than ZAB.

Fact: Fatima Jinnah was chosen because of MAJ (monarchial succession)- you don't disagree

Fact: The people rejected Fatima Jinnah, you claim Bhutto rigged the elections but provide zero proof, and you have none.

Fact: There were no direct elections so who would have won or not one cannot be debated as fact

In the 1970 election Bhutto for the first time ever in Pakistan carried the mandate of the people of the West, winning an overwhelming majority. For the reasons I have suggested which I recently (after I suggested them) discovered in his own words from his letter to his daughter (once again thanks for pointing me to the site bhutto.org which has the pdf of much of his work):

(quote, ZAB's words)"After years of suppression, once the flood gates were opened,
there was nobody capable of closing them without a catastrophe.
Mujib-ur-Rehman felt that “enough was enough”. He campaigned on
the manifesto of his famous Six-points which meant autonomy of
confederal character. On this battle cry he swept the polls in East
Pakistan. Our party obtained an overwhelming majority in Sindh and
Punjab to become the majority party in West Pakistan. We made it
plain to Mujib-ur-Rehman that we would not only be happy but
honoured to sit in the Opposition but in a federal structure. If it were
to be a confederation, both wings of the confederation would have to
participate in Government. It was a very simple and unassailable
proposition. If Mujib-ur-Rehman compromised his Six-points to the
extent of having a federal structure, he was welcome to form the
Federal Government. If he did not budge an inch and was determined
to create a confederation, he could not govern the confederation to
the exclusion of the majority party from the other wing. Mujib-ur-
Rehman would not budge an inch of Six-points. He adopted a “take it
or leave it” attitude. There was a genuine deadlock. General Yahya
Khan thought that the deadlock came to him as the opportunity of a
life time for self-perpetuation. He sought to break the deadlock by
military action. His military action unaccompanied by any sensible
political cover, created a pretext for India to march into East Pakistan
in November 1971. By 16th December 1971, Dacca fell to the Indian
Army, along with ninety thousand prisoners of war from West
Pakistan.
I was at the United Nations at the time making a desperate
attempt to save the impossible situation. When General Yahya Khan
surveyed the wreckage and was convinced that all was lost, that the
likelihood was that nothing could be regained, that the probability was
My Dearest Daughter Copyright © www.bhutto.org 41
that what little was left stood endangered, he sent a special
aeroplane for me to return to Pakistan. With blood-shot eyes and with
brandy beside him. Yahya Khan told me at 10:30 a.m. on the morning
of 20th December, 1971, that he had failed miserably and that I
should assume charge of an assundered Pakistan as I alone was
capable of saving what was left of the country. In those ominous
circumstances I was sworn in as the President of Pakistan
"(end quote)

Fact: Bhutto did not lay the foundation of what Zia built upon later, in fact the conspiracy in the name of Islam was hatched by the US and its occupation force long before. Bhutto tried adjustments to counter that for the sake of the people.

Fact: The Gibralter incursion was long after the Indian incursion at the Rann of Kutch, the incursion that Bhutto supported might have led to war across the International Border due to Indian belligerance but in his arguments that narrators say convince Ayub- the decision was his- ZAB told him that it would remain isolated in the Kashmir area. That he was brave and unafraid of the cutting off of US army aid to Pakistan says quite a bit against your "Islamic insurgency for the Americans".

Fact: Bhutto made peace with the neighbours and unaligned from the US. Your history of the Daoud and the Afghanistan situation is completely skewed. Pakistan/Afghanistan relations were at a sore point due to the Pustunistan issue, which was single handedly resolved with the proposed recognition of the Durand Line and peace in 1976, now before this when the so called "Islamic Insurgency" was pushed out by Daouds forces they sought refuge in Pakistan and being the enemies of the enemy who has set up camps to train Baluchi insurgents in Kandahar, Bhutto naturally welcomed them, but there was no training and arming and indoctrination of the Zia kind, backed by the Americans. In fact America was not interested in Daoud because he had gone to them with a begging bowl again and again and they had turned him away which forced him to go to the Russians.

Let me copy paste his own words

"In those ominous
circumstances I was sworn in as the President of Pakistan
I got moving energetically on all fronts. Among the first tasks I
turned to was Constitution-making with a democratic consenus on the
vexation question of autonomy. I revamped the economy. I
introduced fundamental social and economic reforms. I settled the
Bangladesh problem by recognition. I concluded the Simla
Agreement with India without any secret clause or understanding and
got over five thousand square miles territory in Sindh and the Punjab
back to Pakistan. I got the release of ninety thousand prisoners of
war in honour and without the threatened war trials. I held the Islamic
Summit Conference in Lahore. I got America to lift the arms embargo.
I modernized the armed forces. I put the country back on the track.
The recovery was spectacular. My greatest satisfaction lay in giving
the country an all-party constitution by democratic means. The
Constitution of 1973 was the first unanimously-approved constitution
by a democratic assembly to bless Pakistan with a fundamental
framework based on Islam, democracy and autonomy. It was the
voice of the people of the four provinces of Pakistan articulated in a
constitutional document by their chosen leaders. Autonomy, which
had defied solution for over a generation and which had been the
bane of the politics of the Sub-continent from time immemorial, was
at long last settled to the satisfaction of the people and their chosen
representatives. I experienced the kind of joy, the thrill of happiness
which brings tears to the eyes."

Fact: You cannot base your "facts" on the claims of his political opponents without a single shread of evidence. The guy might have made mistakes but those mistakes are pea size compared to what he was able to achieve both nationally and internationally. You have achieved nothing and so can copy-paste and "talk big" like the MAJ who was single handedly responsible for over a million deaths due to his shenanigans.

By the way, don't run away like a damn coward, what I had posted before were REAL facts, not disputed by a single historian, and you evaded EVERY single one, unlike me, who has addressed and has been addressing every one of your lying claims that are not based on historical facts but are your skewed interpretations that don't bear any relationship with the facts. You do it because you are the high priest (priestess) of the now routed Church of the MAJ.

Yawn... Masadi you know so little about Bhutto. Forget anyone else.

Now the real facts:

FACT: Fatima Jinnah was the consensus candidate of COP. COP included people like Wali Khan, Bhashani and Maududi who had no love for Quaid-e-Azam but knew it was Jinnah alone who resonated with the people.

FACT: ZAB was the architect of the election fraud of 1965. He was election manager of Ayub Khan- the imperialist Military dictator. He chose to be the B-Team of the dictator in order to fool the people.

FACT: Fatima Jinnah secured support in both East and West. Despite massive rigging by Ayub and Zulfi Bhutto... she managed to carry 30 000 Basic Democrats out of 80 000. According to most historians she would have won a direct election.

FACT: Bhutto refused to accept the mandate of the people in 1970 election. Bhutto, instead of siding with the democratic forces, hobbed knobbed with military in 1971 and was Army's frontman in the West.

FACT: Right or wrong Bhutto laid the foundation for what Zia-ul-Haq later built. His 1973 constitution played on Islamic sensibilities. He also played politics with the Ahmadi community and its status. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto carried out a series of "Islamic" reforms in order to protect his government - the result of rigged elections of 1977- before falling prey to his own doing.

FACT: ZAB was the genius behind Operation Gibralter which led to a full fledge war between Pakistan and India in 1965. ZAB had no small role in the events of 1971. He did not want peace with Pakistan's neighbors. He also started the Islamist insurgency in Afghanistan at America's behest.

FACT: ZAB's government presided over one of the worst military operations in Balochistan which was as bad if not worse than Musharraf's military operation today.

FACT: That Don Bhutto got his political opponents tortured, jailed and even murdered is one thing. He even got people like J A Rahim abducted in the middle of the night, beaten, abused and humiliated.

FACT: ZAB created the FSF which was a lot like the Gestapo. Bhutto was probably a fascist at heart.

FACT: Bhutto the genius also re-organised the intelligence services and created a politically-oriented ISI which to this day continues to haunt Pakistan's politics...


I could go on... but I'll leave it here for now.

Fact: Fatima Jinnah was pushed up to run because she was MAJ's sister (monarchial succession not people power)

Fact: ZAB had nothing to do with the "alleged" rigging of either the Fatima Jinnah or the 1977 elections.

Fact: Fatima Jinnah didn't have popular public support. Even the MAJ connection couldn't make her win, and she didn't know how to run a campaign

Fact: Bhutto was the very first populist leader of West Pakistan

Fact: The people love ZAB, the standard of living of the poor is on the rise, Pakistan is unaligned from the major powers under him, land reform after much power play by the thugs is finally under way in a very meaningful way. The Third world looks upto ZAB as leader. The West shudders when he speaks

Fact: ZAB is butchered by a military dictator who then completely makes Pakistan a whore of the West and brings his so called "Islamism" and drugs and terrorism to Pakistan by fighting a proxy cold war with the Soviets on America's behalf

Fact: ZAB made peace with neighbours, and started alliances with Iran, Turkey and the greater ME. This made the West pee in their pants.

Fact: If ZAB was not butchered, Pakistan would be well ahead of South Korea in development and its people would be happier and healthier, poverty would be lower

Of course Manto is High Priest (or Priestess) of the Church of MAJ and so will turn facts upside down to extract stupendous conclusions from his "you know where". Best to ignore his BS and claims of grand scholarship which would neatly fit in the "penny compartment" of any 28 inch waist jeans- you know the pocket on top of the pocket for your change? Yeah that penny compartment....

PS: READ THIS CAREFULY: Just because you say something doesn't make it true. You are certifiably insane. God save us from idiots like you.

Masadi,

That is a novel argument.

Fatima Jinnah leads a popular broad based people's movement and almost brings the dictator down.... she unites East and West Pakistan on one platform. That is "monarchial" succession according to you.

Then you have Zulfikar Ali Bhutto- a toady feudal from rural larkana... who bends over backwards to rig the elections of Ayub Khan... helps the dictator "win"... and later Mr. Bhutto refuses to accept the decision of Pakistan's majority in 1970.... and he is some sort of a democrat.

Brilliant logic.

In addition note this very very carefully: The other political parties that chose Fatima Jinnah as leader hoping that because of the MAJ (monarchial succession) she would evoke mass popular appeal, thought erroneously just like the Manto that MAJ had the mandate of the people of Pakistan (and by extension the Muslims of India). The results of that election showed that they were dead wrong. MAJ (or his monarchial successors) never had the mandate of the people of Pakistan let alone the Muslims of India. More evidence for what I had stated earlier. Unlike these shenanigans of using family ties ZAB had the real mandate of the people, he was the only populist, mass-appeal, people's leader that Pakistan has seen and which no historian worth the name disputes in this short history of Pakistan. Not ONE.

That was the last shovel of dirt on the now dead and buried Church of MAJ


Lot of facts there for you to chew on as you speed away on your motorbike, Manto....like the Mullah Omar

Manto writes "I also understand you were fired from your job from being an incompetent nincumpoop .... "

It is very easy to dismiss your opponents well know (indisputed) facts of history which he has joined together with fresh reason as "incompetence" when your only "competence" is copy-pasting from the internet and finding obscure narratives that don't amount to sh** in the real world of events that occurred. Your other "competence" is that you recognize the crimes of the MAJ, and acknowledge them as crimes but somehow you manage to turn the direct link to the MAJ on its head and say that he was against those crimes, that he was against division when he was the major catalyst that caused it to occur, that he was against the British when in fact he was totally pro-West in the institutions that he wanted in Pakistan and in popular rhetoric- details of one arrogant claim here or there means nothing...and then you are "competent" in taking your opponents and inventing lies about them like me getting fired, or being a CIA spy, for example or about Bhutto being " anti democracy" and "pro US" and other such BS. Your only competence therefore is that you are a damn liar and not an ordinary liar, a miserable damn liar who thinks that because he can copy-paste, people will think he is learned and a "new historian" who is debunking the old- ha ha very funny, your a miserable third rate liar who cries like a baby when confronted with the facts, and just like all dogmatists you worship an image of the MAJ that mythology has created. That image has been busted right here on chowk, your church has been routed.

Like all worshippers of people, and those people who have managed to kill millions and usurp their rights, Manto pulls another trick out of you know where, translating the use of "monarchial succession" of the Fatima Jinnah whose only strenght was that she was the MAJ's sister, and the sob has the audacity to blame Bhutto for her failure in the elections! I challenge him to produce one verifiable source that has any evidence that Bhutto was responsible for rigging those elections. Just one that can be verified. He cannot do it.

Now compare this to the people power that Bhutto managed to bring to the masses, not only repairing the damage done to their image, thanks to the colonials and the MAJ, whose own image was their very antithesis both in style of life and value placed on their culture, as well as in governmental decisions. Not one historian worth his name Western or otherwise will dispute with this, not one, other than this third rate lawyer who is actually high priest of the routed church of MAJ...

Re: # 178

Dear HP,

I agree with most of your analysis of these two politicians- who were very important and continue to remain etched in the memory of their followers.

However unlike Bhutto, Jinnah was never in the government camp. He did not make a u-turn. Even his evolution from an Indian nationalist to a Muslim nationalist was along the same trajectory.

When Jinnah entered politics in 1906, Congress Party was split into two broad camps i.e. Gokhalites aka Moderates and Tilakites aka extremists.

Jinnah obviously fell in with Gokhale, Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta etc ... gentlemen who stood for responsible self rule for India. On the other end of the spectrum was Tilak who was out and out rebel. Jinnah represented Tilak in the famous sedition case which was in many ways the CJP case of its time... and this case won Jinnah the wrath of the entire British establishment. According to Ian Byrant Wells' book "Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity", the British administration tried twice to deport Jinnah (and Gandhi together) to Burma in 1918 and 1919... but were frustrated that Jinnah never proceeded illegally. Jinnah's first public disagreement with Gandhi came over Gandhi's recruitment efforts. Gandhi wanted Jinnah to join him in recruiting efforts... while Jinnah was consistently arguing for officer status for indians.

Jinnah was a constitutional politician who formed oppositon to the government and who wanted India to win Self rule through constitutional means. He was also- contrary to perception- willing to adopt civil disobedience provided the plank was acceptable to all parties concerned. He was a constitutional mediator and a legislator and a staunch critic of the British government. His championing of Bhagat Singh's cause and the protests he organised against the Simon Commission show how he remained anti-establishment through out even after leaving the Congress. In the 1940s.. while he refused to join Congress' quit India movement because it would amount to blackmail and would puncture the anti-Nazi war effort... he also expelled several of his party members for joining the government's war council...

As Dr. Ambedkar said (and virtually everyone who knew him agreed) ... Jinnah was too incorruptible a politician to be accused of any venal motives. Whatever his perceptions, they were his own genuinely and not the result of some opportunism.

Could the same be said about Zulfikar Ali Bhutto?

Re: # 183

Well said - about Gandhi the racist casteist hindu fascist bigot.

Re: # 183

Well said - about Gandhi the racist casteist hindu fascist bigot.

PS: And even when ZAB managed to hijack the anti-Ayub movement started by Fatima Jinnah ... he did so only to divide it into a million pieces.

What a democrat indeed.

Masadi mian,

Don't count yourself so lucky.

I see that you've still not responded with a single piece of fact or evidence and have just repeated your abuse. I also understand you were fired from your job from being an incompetent nincumpoop .... which is clear from the way you've argued here.

When you grow up in a million years and read a few books for the first time in your life... you will realise that the man you respect as much as your dad ... Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was busy fudging the Presidential Election 1965 to make the US-Backed Military dictator Ayub Khan .. against Fatima Jinnah (Thats right the sister of Mahomed Ali Jinnah) who had managed to unite all of Pakistan and all of the various factions.... including people like Wali Khan... against the dictator and would have won the election hands down.

Then came Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who made several underhanded deals to bolster his imperialist masters.

Contrary to popular opinion ... ZAB did not empower the people... Fatima Jinnah did ... and did so because she was the sister of the one man whose integrity and selfless devotion was beyond question. Toadies like ZAB - Ayub Khan's B-Team- were thorougly anti-people though he did benefit from Fatima Jinnah's movement later on.

Long Live the Masadi and HP friendship for social justice!

Thanks for your patience HP, but some scores needed to be settled on Chowk, the High Priest of the church of MAJ is on the run (maybe on a motorbike) like Mullah Omar. That Church has been routed on Chowk, the people of this nation are waking up to a new day, where the old idols that had kept them enslaved will crumble....

Long live the brave people of India and Pakistan (not the perverts who have sold their souls to the West and want to enslave them). Long live the toiling masses of the Third World, those that give new meaning to human perseverance, and may the Immoral US elite, those that have degraded to the lowest of the low, perish in their greed....

In response to okhla's constant copy pastes based on lies about me which he has invented and pastes in most child like fashion because he cannot apporach intellectually what I write, let me reporduce one of the responses to the same post that he has now made from some weeks back:

----

#83 Posted by masadi on August 18, 2007 12:07:12 pm
The raving lunatic Okhla is lying about everything (except chowk censoring my articles) in the below reproduced BS diatribe, in fact it is quite pathetic that idiots like him have to invent bs to discredit my quite well established, well argued posts....like Madani sahib said these bastar** are just jealous because they cannot approach my posts except by inventing lies. Btw nobody deported me from the US or fired me from any US university, I came back to Pakistan of my own volition, away from the land of cheerful morons like okhla, slaves yet happy in their enslavement....Now go eff off okhla....

(Quote)Hugo Chavez hopes that the representatives of the rich classes or the “Oilgarchies”of Venezuela and the American rulers will respect the democratic decisions. But this fact is also well known that today the most prominent flag bearers of democracy are the biggest enemies of democracy.

In the second anniversary of the failure of the April 11, 2002 coup along with thousands of Venezuelan masses a hundred and fifty foreign delegates also participated. Speaking on the occasion the People’s Party member of the National Assembly Chaudhry Manzoor Ahmed drew the analogy of the present situation in Venezuela with the political revolution of 1968-69 in Pakistan. He said that the People’s Party became the largest party in the country’s history almost overnight on the basis of its anti-imperialist, anti-feudal and anti-capitalist founding manifesto. But the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto government while remaining within the confines of this system tried to carry out reforms against this system through the bureaucracy and hence failed. Due to the failure of fulfilling the tasks posed by a revolutionary political situation it was ultimately overthrown. Martial Law was imposed and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged at the gallows. On this occasion Manzoor Ahmed also read out a quotation from a page of the last book of Bhutto’s memoirs in which Bhutto had confessed his own responsibility in reaching this fate, that he had not paid enough attention to the contradictions in the interests of different classes. Manzoor Ahmed drew another analogy between Chavez and Bhutto: that both of them faced extreme hostility from the media that is in the control of the rich classes.

It is considered that the centre of anti-Chavez activities is the American Embassy in Venezuela. In the whole of Latin America a famous joke circulates that there is no military coup in the United States because there is no American Embassy in America. (end quote)http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/munoo_bhai_pakistan_venezuela_4.htm

In #231 read "Not only land reform by making sure that Pakistani industry was used for indigeneous benefit "

as "Not only land reform but making sure that Pakistani industry was used for indigeneous benefit

tahmed writes "masadi: OK, dont take the word of one man. Tell me this: After 7 years as prime minister, was landlordism reduced in any significant manner in Pakistan? If not, what does this say about ZAB's commitment to improving the lot of the poor in Pakistan."

The most significant aspect of it was that instead of doing "land reform" by slogan as Ayyub, which allowed large land holding to remain with landowners, he reduced the land holdings allowed per private party and did implement it but opposition was such that it could only be done incrementally, he was not king of Pakistan that he could ignore the shenanigans of power and move a magic wand. What 1977 does show is his continued dedcation to further land reform by reducing the ceiling yet further to maximum land held per private owner. Not only land reform by making sure that Pakistani industry was used for indigeneous benefit by not whoring it to profit makers and blood suckers was something else he managed to achieve. Your nonsense against him cannot take away from the fact that he was a leader of Herculean proportions the likes of which have seldom emerged in the neo colonial era...

Robert Fisk: Strange goings-on here in Lebanon ...Published:01 September 2007

Stories that just don't seem to make it into print.


Did you know that the Hizbollah "Party of God" has installed its own private communications network in the south of Lebanon, stretching from the village of Zawter Sharqiya all the way to Beirut? And why, I wonder, would it be doing that? Well, to safeguard its phones in the event that the Israelis immobilise the public mobile system in the next war. Next war? Well, if there's not going to be another war in Lebanon, why is Hizbollah building new roads north of the Litani river, new bunkers, new logistics far outside the area of operations of the Nato-led UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon?

Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah's leader, boasts of new weapons. The Lebanese suspect that these include anti-aircraft missiles. If this is true – and many Lebanese who have spent their lives under Israel's cruel air attacks, assaults which have often been war crimes, hope it is – then the next war will be anticipated with dark but keen anxiety. Since the Israeli army is incapable of fighting the Hizbollah on its own ground – its collapse when faced by Hizbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon last year proved this – what happens if their awesome air power is also neutered?
Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, ensconced in his little "green zone" in the old Turkish serail, can do little to alter the course of this coming battle. Supplied with bombs by the Americans so that the Lebanese army can continue to blast its way through the Palestinian Nahr el-Bared refugee camp – one of the most uncovered stories of the Middle East year – his government can do no more than wonder at the resistance of the ruthless non-Hizbollah Islamist insurgents who are still holding out there. The US ambassador watches approvingly as the Lebanese army continues to "advance" amid strongholds and bunkers at a cost of almost 140 soldiers' lives although, after four months of "advancing" – as one western NGO remarked to me a few days ago – they might soon, at this rate, reach Cyprus.
One can only reflect on how the US ambassador to Tel Aviv reacts when the Americans supply bombs to the Israelis which are then used on the Palestinians of Gaza. Weapons are always available to blast away at the Palestinians.
This is Fouad Siniora's predicament as Hizbollah tries to destroy his government and prevent the election of a non- partisan president next month. Locked into Washington's embrace as the latest Arab country to prove the spread of George Bush's fantastical version of democracy in the Middle East, powerless in a country where the only functioning institution is now the Lebanese army, the prime minister finds himself on America's side in the "war on terror" against Hizbollah's mentors in Iran. All Hizbollah needed now, poor old Fouad was quoted as saying the other day, was "a composer for a national anthem of their own".
But there are other fears creating shadows in Lebanon. One of them is the sectarianism of Iraq. Lebanon's Shias and Sunnis and Christians all have friends and family in Iraq. Many have visited their loved ones who have appeared amid the Iraqi refugee masses that have poured into neighbouring Damascus. For their care, of course, the Syrians have received not a scintilla of gratitude from the Americans who were responsible for creating the hell-disaster of Iraq in the first place. It's worth comparing the vital statistics (though not on CNN or Fox News): Syria has accepted almost one and a half million Iraqi refugees – caring for them, providing them with welfare and free hospital services – while Washington, when it isn't cursing Iraq's prime minister, has accepted a measly 800 Iraqis.
And Lebanon? No one realises that this tiny Arab country has accepted 50,000 Iraqis since the great refugee exodus began. Of course, the Shia Iraqis have moved into the Shia southern suburbs (home of Hizbollah), the Sunni into Sunni areas of Beirut and Sidon, the Christians into Christian east Beirut and the Metn hills. And because the Lebanese have always called the Iraqis brothers and sisters, there has been no friction between the different Iraqi groups – and this is truly wondrous because only last January, Lebanon's Shia and Sunni youths were stoning each other in their thousands in the streets of Beirut.
So what else do the Americans have up their sleeve for us out here? Well, an old chum of mine in the Deep South – a former US Vietnam veteran officer – has a habit of tramping through the hills to the north of his home and writes to me that "in my therapeutic and recreation trips ... in the mountains of North Carolina over the last two weeks, I've noticed a lot of F-16 and C-130 activity. They are coming right through the passes, low to the ground. The last time I saw this kind of thing up there was before Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan".
That was in early August. Two weeks later, my friend wrote again. "There were a few (more) C-130 passes... I know that some 75th Rangers have just moved out of their home base and that manoeuvres have gone on in areas that have been used... in the past before assaults utilizing [sic] aircraft guided by small numbers of special operations people."
And then comes the cruncher in my friend's letter. "I think that the Bush administration is looking for something to distract Americans before the mid-September report on progress in Iraq. And I believe that the pressure is building to do something about the sanctuaries for the Taliban and foreign fighters along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border..."

A few days after my friend's letter arrived in Beirut, the Pakistanis reported that the Americans were using pilotless drones to attack targets just inside Pakistan. But it seems much more ambitious military plans may now be in the works. An all-out strike inside the North West Frontier province before President Pervez Musharref steps down – or is overthrown? A last throw of the dice at Bin Laden before "democracy" returns to Pakistan?
Stand by for more disasters – from Pakistan to the shores of the Mediterranean. But don't expect to hear about them in advance.

RE:#227 tahmded32 wrote:

"And indeed, by bringing the flourishing Pakistan economy of the early 1960's to its knees, ZAB in fact made things much worse for the poor."

Is it remotely possible that the 1971 war and the loss of
East Pakistan had a little bit more to do with Pakistan's
economic problems than ZAB? The opening up of passports
and labor export to the Middle East certainly helped the poor of Pakistan.

and tahmed added..

"I used to see his children being driven in a limousine with the prime minister's insignia on it to the International School in Islamabad every morning, even as he went about nationalizing schools in Pakistan."

That is standard PM/Presidential protocol. I went to the
same school as ZAB's kids in Karachi. They used to arrive
in an old car but with a driver (no Limo).
True, his school nationalization did not work. But his attempt to provide free universal education to Pakistanis
was a step in the right direction.

and

"The man was as fake as his deal-hungry daughter."

The man was no fake. He was an intellectual giant with a
precarious emotional streak that did not help matters. To
this day a huge number of Pakistanis remember him with respect and vote for his daughter in his name. She still
heads the largest political party in Pakistan, in spite
of opposition from people like yourself. They know something about fakes...

Like I said before, I do not agree with most of what you write but please continue to add your energy to CHOWK as
often as possible. Pakistan's future will be decided by
a new generation of leaders. I believe that Benazir Bhutto understands that too (her comments to Omar Khan on GEO.

Ras

White faced liar Masadi.

Your #220 is pure BS. Try to answer the questions raised in #190. Try like a man.

1. Why did you return to Pakistan from US?
Was it not because the University simply refused to keep you any longer?? What is
the BS that you expect us to believe on this account? Come on. Answer like a man. No
hedging. The real complete truth.
2. Why are your articles consistently rejected by Chowk? Is it because the rest of the
world consists of intellects decidedly inferior to yours?
3. Why were you chased out of faithfreedom.org by Ali Sina? All your insane "theories"
were demolished in a flurry of logical arguments.
4. Why are all your books not published by any real publisher except the legendary
"Lulu.com"? McGraw Hill, Springer-Verlag, Prentice Hall etc are all purveyors of Bull-
crap as you had one time boasted. Do you still stand by what you had said then?

We at Chowk are willing to tolerate you. Up to a point. But we will not hesitate to weild the stick, like Ali Sina, like the US University which kicked you out or like Chowk editors who must have rejected over a hundred Masadi articles by now...

I stand by every word of #190. And every word above.

So come on Masadi. Turn on that brilliant intellect. Refute my questions with truth.
Or stay shut.

And then you have the gall to shove abuses towards all and sundry.

Ras: I agree to the extent that ZAB gets credit for making poverty an issue (see my post below to hamidm). The point I am making is that, having raised hopes, he did nothing about it once he came to power (and significantly, the waderaism with all its accompanying evils - private jails and oppression of the haris, continued unchecked in his native Sindh throughout the seven years of his rule and to this day). And indeed, by bringing the flourishing Pakistan economy of the early 1960's to its knees, ZAB in fact made things much worse for the poor. I used to see his children being driven in a limousine with the prime minister's insignia on it to the International School in Islamabad every morning, even as he went about nationalizing schools in Pakistan. The man was as fake as his deal-hungry daughter.

Re: # 224 What the main street is saying is correct but slogans should be moderated and decent.

RE: # 221 rozaiba:

I am tired of politics in general but will attempt to
put something together (I cannot promise when). It was
a time in my life that I want to forget (and have almost
succeeded). I loved living in Bengal and the Bengali people.


RE: 222 tahmed32

I know that your request was not directed towards me but
all that one can say is that ZAB made quite an impact on
the common man of Pakistan who for the first time realized
that he/she was somebody to reckon with. The rest of the
story you know better than us. I may not often agree with your views but continue to respect your contribution to CHOWK.

Echoboom #224: You are beyond help....
Please visit Phajjas and food street while in Lahore.
And for some old fashioned decadence......


Ras

The Kanjaroons have finally been recognised & are being outed on the street.

Maader-RATES, Maader-RUNS & roshan-khayali-pulaaO time is coming to an end

FULL report here:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tariq_ali/2007/08/sinking_together.ht ml
============================================================
"Peopl e's Party de ballay, ballay / ade kanjar, ade dallay" (Marvel at the People Party / half-whore and half-pimp)
__________________________________________________________

Th e mood among sections of the street - I am currently in Lahore - is summed up in a cruel taunt: "People's Party de ballay, ballay / ade kanjar, ade dallay" (Marvel at the People Party / half-whore and half-pimp). This is slightly unfair and could apply to all the Muslim Leagues as well. The fact is that people are disgusted with politics and see politicians as crooks out to make money and feed the greed of the networks they patronise and which double up as useful vote banks.

Re: # 221

"It was a victory for the feudal-fundo-fauji nexus/TRINITY of the West Pakistan elite who could now offset the challenges by eliminating 90% of the middle class vote".

Very well said dear Rozaiba!

The hope of the middle class lies today with the lawyers' movement for restoration of rule of law, justice and the constitution.

masadi: OK, dont take the word of one man. Tell me this: After 7 years as prime minister, was landlordism reduced in any significant manner in Pakistan? If not, what does this say about ZAB's commitment to improving the lot of the poor in Pakistan.

Ras writes:

"And as far as ZAB and the creation of Bangladesh is

concerned, I left there on March 8, 1971. Someday I will

write about my journey from our home to the airport. "


Ras, you need to write about how the majority of Pakistanis rejected Pakistan in 1971 and the reasons for it. Not 'someday' but NOW!

The characteristic of refusing to come to terms with our past, refusing to acknowledge the mistakes, remaining indifferent or ambivalent at best only entrenches negativity. That is one reason why even today we see national leaders like Sharif and BB (quite possibly) not coming clean of their past and may end up repeating their mud-slinging matches of the 90's and continue to undercut each other giving lots of room for back-door wheeling and dealing by the military.

Stories of the events preceding 1971 and the civil war itself should not be left to write 'another day'. 1971 did not result in a 'velvet divorce'. It was a victory for the feudal-fundo-fauji nexus/TRINITY of the West Pakistan elite who could now offset the challenges by eliminating 90% of the middle class vote.

The more we read and understand the nature of this parasitic trinity, the quicker the movement to crush it will become.

To assume that Pakistan will 'reform itself' with the process of time is the trinity's sponsored defeatist argument. It is as Faiz says:

'voh jang ho bhi chukee jis main rakha nahin hai kisee nay qadam...'

I look forward to your piece very soon.

ohkla writes "And notice... how he has run with his tail between his legs....
He has no answer to questions raised in #190 (all factually correct, all loaded, I stand by every word).."

Actually if you see this bast**** ilog he has copy pasted the same allegations multiple times and they have been answered by me multiple times. He has invented them all NONE not one is true, check the previous incident of that and read my answer, though personal stuff is not important, these sobs have mastered the illogical argument technique of Ad Hominem...

hamid writes " unlike masadi who whines about the american elite thousands of miles away, bhutto tried to fix the elite problem at home ..."

That is where you are wrong, the higher elites, i.e. the US elites work thorough the lower ones to keep a nation enslaved, Bhutto was aware of that as well, a constant theme was converting Pakistan from being the "most aligned" to the West to the "least aligned", and recently thanks to Manto who pointed me to a picture on the site bhutto.org, I was able to obtain a pdf copy of his book "If I am assasinated", now wonder of wonders he says the same thing that I have been saying about the Pak Army being the US occupation force in Pakistan, when he states that coup-hegemony (the coup addiction of Pak Army) is what the real hegemony (of the US elite) works through....

tahmed writes " From the man who came up with the land reform program, and who quit in disgust when ZAB refused to let the proposal"

When I am talking about your soul it aint pretty so I have to resort to those words to describe it, that goes for Feroz as well who even after being stumped and answered, still repeats the age old mantra of cowards by denying the answers.

So according to you the man who initiated land reforms as part of his agenda, did one up on Ayub by reducing the size of private land holding by individuals, and further upped it from 1973 to 1977 when the miserable Zia ul Fcuk stopped the program, you'd rather take the word of a person who "quit in disgust". Think about it, Hamid has said it, even though he did a lot of great things the greatest of them all was to infuse the spirt of democracy and worth into even the lowest of the low. Scan world history and let me know who besides the prophets (as a single individual) has been able to achieve that?

If that were the criteria, take my grandfather, who held a very senior position in both the Ayub and the ZAB govts, as part of the civil service and I have never heard him say a bad word about the guy even though he criticizes Ayub and the sickness he infused Pakistan with...But that would be no criteria for a thinking man... catch my drift?

Nanjil- sorry about the language, but these people have dirty souls that want to keep our people enslaved, sometimes I have to show them the real image of their morality. I will try to control myself

re: masadi

How does calling me names makes up for the fact that you have a superior intellect?

As to name calling, I am really disappointed in you. A professor of your calibre should have a more varied phraseology of insults, but you seem to be stuck with just one or two that you keep repeating. I hope you can improve and reach the next level in naming call, because as it is, you are just in the pee-wee league.

Governments are meant to rule and despite what ever the US declaration of independence said, the US government still believes in sovereign power as much as any other government.

Please answer my questions on Bhutto first and then insult me, but make sure that it is more creative than it has been in the past.

Maybe, English is your second language and you cannot think clearly, in that case; I apologise to you - please feel free to call me names in any language in which you are literate.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Ciao

Bring Benazir back

HP is totally wrong in asking benazir not to come.

Like her father she is the only one who can get back the soldiers, and declare NWFP as an independent country.

From dawn of today


A tribal elder claimed that only 20 militants were able to take hostage over 200 soldiers, 129 of whom were fully armed.

“It is difficult to believe that 200 soldiers surrendered,” he said while talking to Dawn. He said the administration had detained innocent people who were in fact fleeing the area for fear of militants.

Local people said the weather conditions were normal in the region and the government claims that the soldiers were stuck in the area due to bad weather was not correct.

Security experts believe that the kidnapping of such a large number of soldiers would affect the morale of security forces operating in the tribal region.

“So many security personnel getting captured without firing a shot affects the image of our forces in the country and also sends a negative signal to the international community,” a security analyst in Peshawar remarked.

With so much time available to the mad Mullah for making innumerable long posts to Chowk, a couple of plagiarised phrases here and there are bound to be found true and acceptable.

Hamidm is a decent individual and would not hesitate to give the devil his due... unlike the mad mullah.. for whom the rest of the world comprises of peons of the west.

And notice... how he has run with his tail between his legs....
He has no answer to questions raised in #190 (all factually correct, all loaded, I stand by every word)..

No intellectual honesty... some people.....I tell ya!!!

bhooto gaya, he was interested in only his own glory like every other leader, it is hilarious to sugest he was a great patriot, he back stabbed and misled Ayub, Mujib, Bengalis and Pakistanis, you have to read Khar and Madam durranis revelations about him, according to reports he used to get sons sodomized infront of the father.

Quaid despite all his flaws had a million times more integrity even the Hindians Gokhale and Ambedkar acknowledged that

Re: # 209

Hamidm Sahib:

"...... even though i am ashamed to admit this and it almost makes me want to puke, i must say that i agree with mad masadi on this one .... "

May be Massaddi Mian is very smart, and he knows how to even get you to agree with him.

Can it be, Hamidm Sahib, jhoont nahin bolna?

Z.A. Bhutto remains unmatched as THE leader of Pakistan

since its birth. MAJ was the founder of the country and

should not be compared in leadership abilities to ZAB

because (thankfully for him) he did not have to face the

wrath of powerful undemocratic forces like Bhutto Sahib.


ZAB was the leader of my generation. I still respect him

in spite of his faults. I sure wish that he were

around today to guide my country of origin. Pakistanis

owe him a great deal more than they admit to.


But I would humbly suggest that since neither MAJ nor ZAB

are around today, it is pointless to argue over who was

greater. I say thank God they were around at that time.


What is needed is for Pakistanis to now look at the present

and the future and quit spending too much energy on the

past.

I do not have a dog in this Pakistani power struggle

anymore. My priority is the US elections next year

in which I hope to back Mrs. Clinton. But as CHOWKIES

know in Pakistan my sympathies remain with the PPP.


masadi, I do not know who you are but do try to control

your temper. I myself disagree with ferozk and manto mian

on occasion and with tahmed most of the time but there is

no need to resort to insults.


And as far as ZAB and the creation of Bangladesh is

concerned, I left there on March 8, 1971. Someday I will

write about my journey from our home to the airport.


If you guys think that ZAB was responsible for the break-up

of Pakistan then I have some swamp land to sell you.


ZAB was the experiment did not succeed all of the time.

But do give him a little credit for salvaging the rest of

Pakistan after 1971. Again that is about the past.

The question that comes to mind today is "What now?"


Ras

Re: # 182

You know he is sher but a Kashmiri one, whereas Javed Hashmi is an ethnic Arab as his very name indicates.

Interestingly, Shujaat has tendered him a good advice that he should perform Umra before coming to Pakistan. The catch in it is too obvious. I don't think Nawaz will ever go that way despite his show of religionism.

hamidm #209 I agree that ZAB made poverty an issue in Pakistan, and that goes to his credit. He also made the shalwar kameez a respectable dress by wearing it himself on official occassions, and I used to thank him for that every time I would go to Pakistan in summer.

But words are cheap (as we all know on chowk), and it is results that matter. And ZAB delivered did not deliver on his promise to put poverty on the national agenda. He did this because he either deliberately reneged on follow-up in some matters (as in case of land reforms), or else wrecked key sectors of the Pakistan economy (banking, small enterprise) by nationalizing everything in sight. As for ZAB's concept of "fixing the elite problem", the less said the better - all he did was introduce a wadera form of government.

tahmed mian,

...... even though i am ashamed to admit this and it almost makes me want to puke, i must say that i agree with mad masadi on this one ......... zab was the man who introduced the concept of democracy to the common man in pakistan and gave him back his human dignity - you cannot take that away from the man .......... as my mother (god bless her soul) said when she got mad at the insolent cook or maid, "is kumbukht bhutto nay har dhobi, nai, chooray, chumar aur bawarchi ka damagh kharab kar dia hai !" ......... unlike masadi who whines about the american elite thousands of miles away, bhutto tried to fix the elite problem at home .....

sheikh rashid zindabad ! (i believe that all politics is local)

Your opinion about Bhutto’s polictics is based upon your self-acknowledged gradual political growth and learning the political society of Pakistan.

You have allowed your hindsight evaluation to take precedence over foresight politics of leaders who try to take their society forward.

Political leaders, like Bhutto, who worked for a social change in the makeup of Pakistan at a time of turmoil is rare. The mere fact that Bhutto was murdered under the flimsiest of reasoning by the military junta should be ample evidence of his political genius.

You very well know that politics is not an exact science. Why do you expect Bhutto to be a no-fault politican?

Finally, is it fair to murder a political leader and then malign him?

Re: # 188 Posted by hamidm2 on August 31, 2007 9:13:53 am

[echo,

..... the way i understand it, .............. am i wrong ?]

Trying to understand the mullah is impossible.

masadi:

you make good arguements and you are refreshing. but you can make the arguements without resorting to name calling. it is absolutely not necessary.

masadi #200 Where did I get my history? From the man who came up with the land reform program, and who quit in disgust when ZAB refused to let the proposal move forward. Not from pink elephants floating in air, which is where you conjure your theories about the "evil elite".

as for calling me a fool - a man who is incapable of conducting a discussion without adding some insults is hardly in a position to call anyone a fool.

masadi,

.... okhla is not the only one, i too am obsessed with you ........ you are like that scab that just won't go away and the more you scratch it, the uglier it gets ........

...... please get a job and stop bothering us ... maybe, if you are nice to ferozk he can get you a janitorial job at las or aitchison ......

This is from the other article that was taken off the front page so Feroz decided to slip back in and answer my post there accusing me falsely of "putting words in his mouth"
--------- (See, http://chowk.com/interacts/12463

Feroz writes "Read the read article carefully. I had suggested that governments are not created to bring happiness to the people, but to rule over them"

You're a liar anyone can read your article and it clearly says (quote)"The American Declaration of Independence, perhaps the most enlightened of all enlightened political documents, claimed that governments are created to bring happiness to their people and though it may be a laudatory aim.. "(end quote)

I didn't put any words in your mouth you miserable liar, i merely stated what you write above, and how idiotic that reading of the preamble was, it does NOT mean what you are making it say (as my previous post clearly explains) because it means something very different, you have an infantile intellect and then you lie to cover it up when it is exposed...

Check out Okhla's interacts, EVERY SINGLE ONE has my name in it. The sick bas#### is obsessed with me....somebody give him the # of a good shrink, he needs serious help

http://chowk.com/interacts/u/43728

Check out Okhla's interacts, EVERY SINGLE ONE has my name in it. The sick bas#### is obsessed with me....somebody give him the # of a good shrink, he needs serious help

tahmed writes "You mean the same wonderful "socialist" who refused to implement land reforms? "

Where are you getting your "history" from? Kissinger?

The land reforms were implemented and the further reduced ceilings of 1977 and increased taxes on large landowners agriculture income were also made part of the law. This by itself is quite enough considering a country where feudals weild great power. You saw the trend he implemented from 1973 to 1977 and that trend shows successive decision in favor of the people and the small farmer. You don't measure up to his ankle you little fool

Fool me once -------- Shame on you
Fool me twice ------- Shame on me
Fool me thrice ------ We are Pakistanis

These two folks - although they differ in their opinions - are just as much the experts on the topic as anybody else around here, and therefore need to have their cases presented as well.

Astrologers differ on what awaits Gen Musharraf

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: A British astrologer has predicted that the next two months are the most inauspicious for President General Pervez Musharraf, while an Indian astrologer thinks he may be emerging from his recent troubles.

The British astrologer, an advanced amateur who goes by the name of SH Shah, who predicts, “Considering the overall horoscope of Gen Musharraf, in my view it is highly unlikely that he could hold the power that he has enjoyed for the last eight years for any length of time. There is at least a 70 percent chance that by the end of this year, he will be out of power. In his horoscope there are also indications of his changing residence and perhaps settling abroad.”

According to the London-based astrologer, who spoke to Daily Times on Wednesday, since he does not know Gen Musharraf’s time of birth, he has had to depend on his date of birth. The Pakistani leader was born on 11 August 1943, and is under the influence of Leo, the fifth sign of the zodiac. Not only the Sun but also Jupiter, Pluto and Rahu - the north node of the Moon -were in Leo in his natal horoscope. In the coming months two aspects are very important and both throw a negative light on his destiny. From mid-November to August 2008, the planetary aspects of Gen Musharraf’s stars are not only tense but involve Saturn, which is considered the most malefic planet in astrology. This can be an extremely upsetting and tense period for him and it can create difficult circumstances over which Gen Musharraf will have very little control. These aspects also create a lot of inner and outer conflicts where the Pakistani military leader’s opponents will have an edge on him. These planetary aspects can bring about life changes beyond recognition. On September 29, Mars is moving into the 12th house of Gen Musharraf where it will stay until May 2008. The 12th house is considered the house of confinement and old Arab astrologers used to call it the house of enemies. Mars, which rules the military, is not good news in this house for the Pakistani leader.

However, the Washington-based astrologer, Ronnie Datta, also a serious amateur, believes that the British astrologer sounds too negative, since he ignores the exit of Saturn from Gen Musharraf’s sign Leo and the arrival in his house on September 5 of a confident and pushy collection of the Moon, Jupiter and Pluto. He is of the view that the solar eclipse and new moon on September 11 will “ignite” Uranus and there could even be a bit of hysteria or paranoia floating around.

#196 Masadi: So you agree with HP that you are one of the "Three most informed, enlightened and smart people". um...well..OK.

but then you continue and ruin it all by writing "malign that wonderful man" (ZAB). You mean the same wonderful "socialist" who refused to implement land reforms? or the great educational reformer who sent his own children to the International School in Islamabad?

And then you totally destroy what little hope one has of seeing something enlightening in your post by calling Ferozk and Manto names-that-cannot-be-published!!

HP writes "Three most informed, enlightened and smart people (Asadi, manto, and Ferozk) have chosen to compete in maligning two important politicians of Pakistan"

Appreciate your comments and respect your peace-making efforts but I wouldn't really call anyone (like manto) who threatens his opponents with getting them fired from their job (when he loses an argument) or libel when called a sob "enlightened", neither would I call anyone who tells the US elite that they should imprison Muslims in continent wide prisons a "corridor of security", (Feroz in his article you will recall)as being either smart or enlightened. They know the difficulty any populist leader would have in a setup like Pakistan, they should know that and they also know that the spirit of democracy, the worth of the common man in his or her own eyes in this country, was infused in them thanks to the work of one man, ZAB, they know this and then they pick on a thing here and there to malign that wonderful man. They are both a-holes in my book

In #191 read "Where are you take refuge in the slogans of those that have abandoned all kinds of civil rights (the US elite) and made people, the cheerful robots happy with the abandoned civil rights, I look at the real circumstances on the ground and also note through books of course how Iran and its legitimate governemnt was manipulated by the CIA/Brits on Mossaddeq who are quite similar ideas on resource use in his country."

As

Whereas you take refuge in the slogans of those that have abandoned all kinds of civil rights (the US elite) and made people, the cheerful robots happy with the abandoned civil rights, I look at the real circumstances on the ground and also note (through books of course) how Iran and its legitimate governemnt was manipulated by the CIA/Brits on Mossaddeq using political opponents, something similar occurred in 1977 when they used Bhutto's opponents to bring in the military who both (Mos and Bhutto) had quite similar ideas on resource use in their countries.

Feroz writes "Had Bhutto not refused the mandate of the people of Pakistan, there would have been no riots in the streets and the army would have had no reason, under General Zia-ul-Haq to take over power in a coup d' etat code-named Operation Fairplay on July 5, 1977. "

The accusitions against Bhutto of rigging were never proved, the "riots" you talk about were similar to the riots against Mossaddeq that were arranged by those that wanted to bring the coup to fruit, the losing political parties (don't forget that Bhutto won) played into their hands. The guy was warned by those "higher powers" and when know which one that if he didn't submit he would be made an example of and would lose power. Those "higher powers" work through the Pakistan Army, and they did, rather than your point, the entire history of Pakistan has borne witness to that. Bhutto tackled it, didn't give up his principled stand that was pro-people and was killed in a most barbarous way. What did MAJ do, he NEVER had the mandate of the people, he took the religious exclusion slogan, even though he didn't believe in what he claimed, and then abandoned the vast majority of Muslims in India, ensured that over a million got killed, and the rest were relegated to "suspect minority" existence thanks to a reaction that the MAJ shenanigans produced. That is the difference, one dies for the people and you malign him, the other polishes his ego and sets himself up as king while causing immense suffering that is caused by an "invented" claim which not only did he not believe in, he was supposedly against it in his early career. Who changed and who caused misery, it was MAJ and not Bhutto. Bhutto was the ONLY true leader this nation has seen. You on the other hand are a pathetic fool for using some "mistakes" that he made, mistakes that no one going through the mess thanks to colonization and the MAJ could ever avoid except at his own and at the country's peril. Bhutto's major mistake was that he didn't realize the shenanigans of the colonials and the MAJ fully or he would have tried to work with an amorphous and not a concrete Pakistan construct, he did the best he could and he achieved more than anyone else has in this country. May Allah bless him for his efforts

Re: # 192
masadi , with all your b.s - I believe okhla99?
so, whats the real story?

If you want to know what slander and libel (and that also based on lies) is you should read okhla99's post, that miserable sob has been repeating the same old bs for months now.

Feroz writes "I disagree, with you. There are certain principles that cannot be compromised. There is no reason to limit or even end civil rights even if there an invasion about to happen"

That is where you are being quite ignorant, talking about limiting "civil rights" is a mere claim that people make against those they disagree with. Abandoning civil rights when "an invasion is about to happen" is something very different than abondoning them when the civil society is being used, through their agents by a foreign power in order to subvert a legitimate government. Where are you take refuge in the slogans of those that have abandoned all kinds of civil rights (the US elite) and made people, the cheerful robots happy with the abandoned civil rights, I look at the real circumstances on the ground and also note through books of course how Iran and its legitimate governemnt was manipulated by the CIA/Brits on Mossaddeq who are quite similar ideas on resource use in his country.

Then he writes" agree, with you that Bhutto was the first one to champion socialism in Pakistan and he did appeal to the people. I have nothing against a leader appealing to the people."

That was my main point and since you do not disagree here there is nothing more I need to answer or address (though I will just to take care of your hypocrisy). That is the sum total of what a democratic leader is supposed to be and not only did Bhutto talk that talk he walked that walk moreso than Chavez, the champion of the Left these days. That by itself, fcuk everything else is enough for me to say that he was by far the greatest leader this nation has seen.


Then he writes "Bhutto, was also an evil genius, because his only character flaw, and the biggest, was that he could not hide his meglomania. His popularist policies caused more harm to the nation than they did good and his idea of nationalization ruined the economy of Pakistan"

Those are the claims of his opponents and they are based on character assessment and none of those "opponents" are in a position to pass psychological judgment on his personality. And why should he not have been "arrogant" when defending the rights of the downtrodden whom the other side has always been considering immaterial. He rallied the people, made them realize that they had some worth in a culture that had considered them worthless thanks to colonization and its political economy- was he arrogant with the people or with the powerful is what I am concerned with. That is the only way to govern when you want to alter the social structure, there are no feel-good ways to do that and he tried and any "moral" failure that people brought up to discredit him was in the "mullah" fashion, a distraction. No morality can be higher than giving worth and fulfilling needs of the downtrodden, every immorality falls way short of those that de-moralize through poverty the vast majority of humankind..

By the way nationalization was not bad for Pakistan, just like India and China are finding out today that it was not bad for them, just like the West is finding out today that cloaked nationalization, i.e. government protection and oversight made their industries strong and developed a higher level workforce in the Third World (India and China) that they can now exploit. We have tried the privitization and exploitation experiment and it has done the people no good. You might say that growth was down by the growth of the poor was certainly on the rise even though the coffers of the rich were not being filled to the same extent.

Feroz writes "As to the mandate in East Pakistan, your statement does not make sense...If Bhutto had any inkling of infusing the spirit of democracy in Pakistan, he would have accepted the wishes of the election of 1970 and restored the mandate to the people of East Pakistan.
"

IT makes absolute sense and it is an explanation which your historians of note have overlooked. Bhutto knew the institution that was in control of Pakistan, the rule of the East over the West could not be acceptible to that institution, rather than destroy the entire process forced upon the nation through a non-viable arrangement (of the MAJ), and harm the people, he was not only looking after the national interest but after the mandate of those who had voted for him. Did he not release Mujeeb even though he could have harmed him? Nothin strange that he started out his career under a military ruler either, the fact that he was able to challenge military rule and evoke popular support is what matters. When you have a dominant institutions, you cannot set up an alternative anew and then hope to get somewhere, you have to go through the same structure if you want to amount to anything, the fact that he kept his conscience intact and challenge the entire edifice on which the dictatorship was built, says a lot about his "leadership" as well. Saying that the army was not interested in politics because it was beaten in a battle, is ignorant as well. It is true that the army was weak at the moment but any restructuring had to proceed with extreme caution, and Bhutto was cautious, regarding the Baluchistan issue, I will let him argue with your allegations in his book "If I am assassinated", apparently he claims that the army was operating quite independantly, nevertheless, mistakes do not negate at all what I wrote about what he accomplished in the political mess Pakistan was in, when he appeared on the scene. Bhutto learned in his tenure in the Ayub government that alignment with the US is what was keeping Pakistan down, so he pulled out of SEATO, pulled out of the common wealth and sought alliances with the Thrid World, therefore you point about SEATO and CENTO is moot. Rest will follow later

Masadi you creep !!!! (Utterly & Completely Respected)

So you are still trying to spread your bullshyte notions that have been rejected by the rest of the civilized world!!!!

Will you never learn ???

Don't you remember the hiding you got on faithfreedom.org( at the hands of Ali) ???

Don't you remember the disciplinary meetings in the US University just before they deported you in spite of your pleadings???

Don't you remember your abject surrender and begging/whining tone in which you implored for a second chance to be allowed to stay in the US????

Don't you remember the unceremonious manner in which you were comprehensively rejected and kicked out of the US??

Don't you remember the impish grin on the face of the US immigration (INS) official as you were dragged kicking and screaming to the airplane????

Don't you remember the "evil" students in your Pakistani college who made open mockery of the ideas you tried to teach them???

Don't you remember the management committee meeting which unanimously declared you "unfit" to train young Pakistani students???

Don't you remember how you were thrown out of that college and the security staff alerted to never let you enter again ???

Don't you remember how all your pleadings for "outstanding claims" were met with derisive laughter???

Don't you remember how the Chowk staff has consistently refused to publish your bullshyte articles???

Don't you remember how even lulu.com would not accept your "works" any more???

And now, you are trying to insult Manto et al.

Perhaps now you have reached the nadir of your career.

Continue to rot in hell......

Re: Masadi # 151

I disagree, with you. There are certain principles that cannot be compromised. There is no reason to limit or even end civil rights even if there an invasion about to happen, as in the case of Cuba and the United States. For example, during the Second World War, the British courts and legal systems were operating even as German bombs were falling over London.

I believe, since you indulge in banal insults, sarcasm is something you are not quite familar with and if you re-read my post, you will notice the acidic sarcasm in my questions.

I agree, with you that Bhutto was the first one to champion socialism in Pakistan and he did appeal to the people. I have nothing against a leader appealing to the people. My only requirement is that such a leader be true to the nation and Z. A. Bhutto was only true to his own ambitions. My impressions of Bhutto are not based on historic books, but from talking with the people, who worked with and knew him. I can vouche for his intellect and vision and I do think, given the balance of facts, that he was a political genius, when it came to the messages of packaged appeals to the people.

Bhutto, was also an evil genius, because his only character flaw, and the biggest, was that he could not hide his meglomania. His popularist policies caused more harm to the nation than they did good and his idea of nationalization ruined the economy of Pakistan. My opinion of Bhutto went from idealism to realism and in the end, with the passage of the years, I understood that no matter how noble the aim or the cause, the end never justifies the means.

In my opinion, Bhutto in his actions believed in the discredited idea that it is alright to destroy the village in order to save it and he, in order to save Pakistan; he destroyed it. The nationalization of education in Pakistan, when bureaucrats took over schools and started to teach politics, was the start of the slippery slope for education in Pakistan. Bhutto's policy of lateral entry into the civil service of Pakistan destroyed the idea of the merit in the government on the basis of quotas.

As to the mandate in East Pakistan, your statement does not make sense. You said that Bhutto did not accept it, because it was the creation of Jinnah, a person whom you hold in low esteem.

If it was a wrong mandate and yes it was wrong, because the real democratic mandate was in favor of East Pakistan, with a large majority. If Bhutto had any inkling of infusing the spirit of democracy in Pakistan, he would have accepted the wishes of the election of 1970 and restored the mandate to the people of East Pakistan.

Instead, he only opted to continue with a system, that you call the creation of Jinnah, and the one which favored West Pakistan. In fact, Bhutto had an historic opportunity to set aright the mistakes of Jinnah, but for the sake of his own personal ambitions, he opted for power at the expense of a popular mandate.

Secondly, we should also remember that it was Bhutto, who allowed the re-enterance of the Pakistani military back into the politics, when he sought the army's help in Baluchistan. After the war of 1971, the Pakistan army was throughly beaten and it was not interested in politics, but Bhutto in order to settle his own political differences with the people of Baluchistan, asked the army to intervene in Baluchistan.

Under the rule of Bhutto, Pakistan saw a civil war as its army fought the people of Baluchistan; Pakistanis and killed them. Bhutto even arrested Baluch leaders, who opposed him.

How did Bhutto infuse the spirit of democracy in Pakistan by bringing the army back into politics by telling it to fight a dirty war in Baluchistan and how did his policies in Baluchistan, by killing the Baluch, amount to bringing social justice to the people of Pakistan?

Also, since as you mention that he was the greatest leader Pakistan has ever seen and if so, could you please tell me why the Greatest Leader Pakistan ever saw, continued to hold an Indian passport and only applied for Pakistani citizenship, when Ayub Khan offered him a position in his cabinet under the first martial law in Pakistan?

Strange is it not, that the greatest leader in Pakistan who wanted to bring social justice to the people started out his political career under the patronage of a military rule and a dictator? Where were his democratic principles and his idealism for social justice for the people, when he was being groomed for power by a dictator supported by the elites of the United States' power establishment?

Where were the principles of this Greatest of all leaders, when Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO?

Where were his concerns for the social justice for Pakistanis, when the Greatest of all great leaders, refused to allow the vote in the 1977 elections to be free?

If he had such a popular appeal and legitimacy from the people of Pakistan, what was he afraid of in not accepting the election results of 1977?

Had Bhutto not refused the mandate of the people of Pakistan, there would have been no riots in the streets and the army would have had no reas