Rehan Ansari November 8, 2001
#487 Posted by bong_dongs on November 19, 2001 6:29:46 pm
Ref tahmed
``What we need is to put the Zico`s and the mullahs of the world in one room and have someone provide them with ``I`m OK, You`re OK`` therapy``
But Ahmed saheb, that is what a large number of people (if not a majority) think on both sides of the Radcliff line. How many people will you lock up?
``What we need is to put the Zico`s and the mullahs of the world in one room and have someone provide them with ``I`m OK, You`re OK`` therapy``
But Ahmed saheb, that is what a large number of people (if not a majority) think on both sides of the Radcliff line. How many people will you lock up?
#486 Posted by soysauce on November 19, 2001 6:29:46 pm
#473 tahmed321
Wow, what a kneejerk response!
Here`s what i did NOT say: India is superior; India does not have a military; India is the greatest country on earth; Pakistan is c..p & on.
You have given stock answers to stuff you have dug up from who knows where, certainly not anything i said even tho you quoted me.
Every country, except for costa rica, has a military. That does not mean that they are dictatorships or that the military dictates political decisions or that their parliament is a show piece with no real power or that their legal branch has been emasculated - all that`s true of pakistan today and has been for a large part of pakistan`s existence.
If Vajpayee ordered the military to withdraw from kashmir tomorrow, there will be no mutiny or a military coup tho Vajpayee would pay a huge price politically. But a withdrawal could be arranged. Can you say the same for Musharraf? Could he give up kashmir without risking a military coup or give up kashmir at all? Why is the military such a big part of pakistan? Is it the threat that india poses? Is it to keep pakistan intact? How about some serious answers instead of the usual ``pakistan is no better nor worse`` pablum that you usually dish out.
Wow, what a kneejerk response!
Here`s what i did NOT say: India is superior; India does not have a military; India is the greatest country on earth; Pakistan is c..p & on.
You have given stock answers to stuff you have dug up from who knows where, certainly not anything i said even tho you quoted me.
Every country, except for costa rica, has a military. That does not mean that they are dictatorships or that the military dictates political decisions or that their parliament is a show piece with no real power or that their legal branch has been emasculated - all that`s true of pakistan today and has been for a large part of pakistan`s existence.
If Vajpayee ordered the military to withdraw from kashmir tomorrow, there will be no mutiny or a military coup tho Vajpayee would pay a huge price politically. But a withdrawal could be arranged. Can you say the same for Musharraf? Could he give up kashmir without risking a military coup or give up kashmir at all? Why is the military such a big part of pakistan? Is it the threat that india poses? Is it to keep pakistan intact? How about some serious answers instead of the usual ``pakistan is no better nor worse`` pablum that you usually dish out.
#485 Posted by Rdesikan on November 19, 2001 6:29:46 pm
Re harimau 495
My dear chap, you left out whiskey.
My dear chap, you left out whiskey.
#484 Posted by ali1 on November 19, 2001 6:29:46 pm
I think Bagpipe should ask his soldiers to stand up and fight and not run hither and thither like slaughtered chicken.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/01190005.htm
13 Armymen, 3 civilians killed in `fidayeen` attack
The militants hurled a number of grenades and then resorted to heavy firing at the soldiers. Sources said 10 soldiers died on the spot while one succumbed to injuries on way to hospital. The identity of the three civilians killed in the crossfire is yet to be ascertained. Around 30 soldiers were injured in the attack and were rushed to various hospitals. Some of the seriously injured were airlifted to the Army hospital in Udhampur, sources said. The condition of some is stated to be critical.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/01190005.htm
13 Armymen, 3 civilians killed in `fidayeen` attack
The militants hurled a number of grenades and then resorted to heavy firing at the soldiers. Sources said 10 soldiers died on the spot while one succumbed to injuries on way to hospital. The identity of the three civilians killed in the crossfire is yet to be ascertained. Around 30 soldiers were injured in the attack and were rushed to various hospitals. Some of the seriously injured were airlifted to the Army hospital in Udhampur, sources said. The condition of some is stated to be critical.
#483 Posted by shammi on November 19, 2001 6:29:46 pm
Re: Fuzair (response to me)
I agree with you -- and the `might is right argument` is the logic that is prevailing in the Valley currently (from both sides, I must say). Stability (regional and domestic) is an important consideration as well (this is where your arguents regarding the viability of a landlocked Kashmiri state with 4 million inhabitants, and no industry kicks in). In retrospect, granting independence to Khalistan would have been a major mistake. When you said, ``You are still arguing ``once in, never out``, there is a nuance - you may be surprised to hear this, but deep inside many Indians would not mind any future settlement of Kashmir (including independence) as long as it is not prejudicial to India`s security, and to further regional disharmony. This can only be done through dialogue, not through guns. The current movement in Kashmir, is doing anything but that.
Regards
I agree with you -- and the `might is right argument` is the logic that is prevailing in the Valley currently (from both sides, I must say). Stability (regional and domestic) is an important consideration as well (this is where your arguents regarding the viability of a landlocked Kashmiri state with 4 million inhabitants, and no industry kicks in). In retrospect, granting independence to Khalistan would have been a major mistake. When you said, ``You are still arguing ``once in, never out``, there is a nuance - you may be surprised to hear this, but deep inside many Indians would not mind any future settlement of Kashmir (including independence) as long as it is not prejudicial to India`s security, and to further regional disharmony. This can only be done through dialogue, not through guns. The current movement in Kashmir, is doing anything but that.
Regards
#482 Posted by ylh on November 19, 2001 6:29:46 pm
For those of you who think that the Northern Alliance (evil as it is) will become a pawn in India`s game once it controls Afghanistan, are mistaken.
Mark my words. Pakistan has absolutely nothing to fear when it comes to the Northern Alliance. Russia and India are soon going to be dumped by the Alliance, while they will improve relations with Iran, and Iran will patch up things between Pakistan and Northern Alliance... after all Pan Islamism has its benefits, if on the other hand it has been the cause of all our problems...
My concern is for the women of Afghanistan, who have temporarily been left alone because Afghanistan is in the eye of media... but if RAWA is any judge, then these guys: The Northern Alliance are not better than the Taliban... I just hope a broad based Government is formed with women playing a central role.
-YLH
Mark my words. Pakistan has absolutely nothing to fear when it comes to the Northern Alliance. Russia and India are soon going to be dumped by the Alliance, while they will improve relations with Iran, and Iran will patch up things between Pakistan and Northern Alliance... after all Pan Islamism has its benefits, if on the other hand it has been the cause of all our problems...
My concern is for the women of Afghanistan, who have temporarily been left alone because Afghanistan is in the eye of media... but if RAWA is any judge, then these guys: The Northern Alliance are not better than the Taliban... I just hope a broad based Government is formed with women playing a central role.
-YLH
#481 Posted by sadna on November 19, 2001 1:43:40 pm
Karakoram #498
``I think the UN resolutions need to be addressed. Either they need to be revised, the issues reviewed again, and then action steps followed through on. The UN & its resolutions need to be respected. Some form of world political governing body needs to enforce its decisions using the resources of member nations. Conflict resolution being one its primary aims. I think thats what the UN was setup to do.``
Want to review UN resolutions? Inspite of all the sound and light expended as well as sending their citizens over to kill on their behalf, I don`t think Pakistanis have taken the trouble to know what they are talking about.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/08arvind.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jun/27arvind.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/aug/17arvind.htm
Again, you want UN resolutions to be `respected`? Well, thats a legal or moral issue between Pakistan and the UN. Again I`d advise you to find out what exactly you are asking for, it maynot be what you expect.
By bringing up the UN resolutions based on threats of violence which Musharraf refuses to give assurances on(what other leverage does Pakistan have with India except violence in Kashmir?), he wants to go down to basics, ie Partition and tooling of the relations of two new nations.
Well then India can get down to basics ie Partition too and junk all `gains` toward peaceful coexistance in 54 years of mutual dealings.
The fact that Indian leaders have not started talking the same Partition-era language as Musharraf and disowning everything that was agreed upon since like Musharraf does, IMO, is just because its hard to believe Musharraf can be so stupid as to reopen the question of every Indo-Pak settlement or issue since then.
``I think the UN resolutions need to be addressed. Either they need to be revised, the issues reviewed again, and then action steps followed through on. The UN & its resolutions need to be respected. Some form of world political governing body needs to enforce its decisions using the resources of member nations. Conflict resolution being one its primary aims. I think thats what the UN was setup to do.``
Want to review UN resolutions? Inspite of all the sound and light expended as well as sending their citizens over to kill on their behalf, I don`t think Pakistanis have taken the trouble to know what they are talking about.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/08arvind.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jun/27arvind.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/aug/17arvind.htm
Again, you want UN resolutions to be `respected`? Well, thats a legal or moral issue between Pakistan and the UN. Again I`d advise you to find out what exactly you are asking for, it maynot be what you expect.
By bringing up the UN resolutions based on threats of violence which Musharraf refuses to give assurances on(what other leverage does Pakistan have with India except violence in Kashmir?), he wants to go down to basics, ie Partition and tooling of the relations of two new nations.
Well then India can get down to basics ie Partition too and junk all `gains` toward peaceful coexistance in 54 years of mutual dealings.
The fact that Indian leaders have not started talking the same Partition-era language as Musharraf and disowning everything that was agreed upon since like Musharraf does, IMO, is just because its hard to believe Musharraf can be so stupid as to reopen the question of every Indo-Pak settlement or issue since then.
#480 Posted by tahmed321 on November 19, 2001 1:30:18 pm
hamzad afaqui #489 The quotes you provide from ali (see note below) seems to have include insightful words (e.g. ``The days of your life pass away like clouds, so do good while you are alive`` and ``Opportunity is swift of flight but slow to return``) that I agree with you people from all times and all cultures can benefit from. Others that you quote seem no longer applicable to modern society (e.g. ``Pride, cowardice and miserliness are bad for man but good for women.`` although they may perhaps have made sense for the times he lived in.)
Note: In leaving out the title ``Hazrat`` I am breaking tradition, but not denying him the respect that is due to any person. I do this consistent with my view that as muslims we should not treat any individual as being more elevated than any other individual, and consider all individuals to be equally worthy of respect and thus not requiring any special prefixes or suffixes to indicate that we respect them. And sometimes we can learn from less well known people than ali, and sometimes from well known people from other religions.
Note: In leaving out the title ``Hazrat`` I am breaking tradition, but not denying him the respect that is due to any person. I do this consistent with my view that as muslims we should not treat any individual as being more elevated than any other individual, and consider all individuals to be equally worthy of respect and thus not requiring any special prefixes or suffixes to indicate that we respect them. And sometimes we can learn from less well known people than ali, and sometimes from well known people from other religions.
#479 Posted by tahmed321 on November 19, 2001 12:54:03 pm
Zica #483 ``Swap it around and that is the exact same reason why Indians hate Pakis. Long may it continue.``
What we need is to put the Zico`s and the mullahs of the world in one room and have someone provide them with ``I`m OK, You`re OK`` therapy. Or at least keep them locked up so the rest of us can live in peace.
What we need is to put the Zico`s and the mullahs of the world in one room and have someone provide them with ``I`m OK, You`re OK`` therapy. Or at least keep them locked up so the rest of us can live in peace.
#478 Posted by tahmed321 on November 19, 2001 12:54:03 pm
Layman #486 ``No army can keep together a country as large as India unless its people did not want to stay together in the first place.``
Among a group of three friends you would find one individual who would rather not go by the ``majority opinion`` as provided by the other two. In a country club of a few hundred there are always individuals who dont care for club rules or for the club atmosphere or for the membership dues and who leave. Membership (citizenship) of a nation-state is neither as voluntary as that of a country club, nor is it easy for members to leave without taking a piece of real estate with them. That is why nation-states need armies, even peaceful, prosperous ones surrounded by friendly, secure nations (like Switzerland). Of course India needs the army to keep it together, and despite all the ``India is Perfect`` jingoism one sees on chowk, that remains an undeniable fact. That is all I was trying to remind soysauce.
Among a group of three friends you would find one individual who would rather not go by the ``majority opinion`` as provided by the other two. In a country club of a few hundred there are always individuals who dont care for club rules or for the club atmosphere or for the membership dues and who leave. Membership (citizenship) of a nation-state is neither as voluntary as that of a country club, nor is it easy for members to leave without taking a piece of real estate with them. That is why nation-states need armies, even peaceful, prosperous ones surrounded by friendly, secure nations (like Switzerland). Of course India needs the army to keep it together, and despite all the ``India is Perfect`` jingoism one sees on chowk, that remains an undeniable fact. That is all I was trying to remind soysauce.
#477 Posted by Karakoram on November 19, 2001 12:54:03 pm
Sadna:
I think the UN resolutions need to be addressed. Either they need to be revised, the issues reviewed again, and then action steps followed through on. The UN & its resolutions need to be respected. Some form of world political governing body needs to enforce its decisions using the resources of member nations. Conflict resolution being one its primary aims. I think thats what the UN was setup to do.
Otherwise its every one for themselves with no third party (world body) mediation. In that situation the aggrieved and agressor take actions independently and the situation gets chaotic and violent and seems unfair to both parties. A third party mediator helps avoid this downward spiral.
In particluar with the Kashmir issue... Pakistan does not trust Inida and vice versa. Thats why we need third party mediation. But its more complex, since `politics` play a big role. India still regrets that it approached the UN to resolve the Pakistani invasion of Kashmir, which led to the UN resolutions for a plebiscite.
There has to be an `honorable` (a word Mush likes to use) solution to the Kashmir issue. It cannot be wished away by India. Foregin involvement or not, Kashmiri Muslims seem to have a problem with India and they might just be the majority in the valley.
It definitely warrants a closer look and some action steps to address people`s concerns (Pakistani`s, Kasmiri`s and Indian`s). It cannot be `fixed` without analyzing and taking the bull by the horns - so to say. Its not all just cross-border or Indian state terrorism and even if it is without some from of `process` the two will not just go away.
I think the UN resolutions need to be addressed. Either they need to be revised, the issues reviewed again, and then action steps followed through on. The UN & its resolutions need to be respected. Some form of world political governing body needs to enforce its decisions using the resources of member nations. Conflict resolution being one its primary aims. I think thats what the UN was setup to do.
Otherwise its every one for themselves with no third party (world body) mediation. In that situation the aggrieved and agressor take actions independently and the situation gets chaotic and violent and seems unfair to both parties. A third party mediator helps avoid this downward spiral.
In particluar with the Kashmir issue... Pakistan does not trust Inida and vice versa. Thats why we need third party mediation. But its more complex, since `politics` play a big role. India still regrets that it approached the UN to resolve the Pakistani invasion of Kashmir, which led to the UN resolutions for a plebiscite.
There has to be an `honorable` (a word Mush likes to use) solution to the Kashmir issue. It cannot be wished away by India. Foregin involvement or not, Kashmiri Muslims seem to have a problem with India and they might just be the majority in the valley.
It definitely warrants a closer look and some action steps to address people`s concerns (Pakistani`s, Kasmiri`s and Indian`s). It cannot be `fixed` without analyzing and taking the bull by the horns - so to say. Its not all just cross-border or Indian state terrorism and even if it is without some from of `process` the two will not just go away.
#476 Posted by ylh on November 19, 2001 12:54:03 pm
Zico,
You sure you are talking about Musharraf`s ailments? Cuz seems to me, Vajpayee will be goner soon because of his high blood pressure at the whole thing...
-YLH
You sure you are talking about Musharraf`s ailments? Cuz seems to me, Vajpayee will be goner soon because of his high blood pressure at the whole thing...
-YLH
#475 Posted by harimau on November 19, 2001 12:54:03 pm
Ref Fuzair #: 467
[Kashmir would collapse completely w/out the subsidies that India pumps into it each year. The same is true of Scotland and Wales in the UK but their respective nationalists aren`t really smart enough to figure it out.]
Not true of Scotland. All the North Sea oil that the UK pumps out would belong to Scotland if it were a separate country. So the Scots would have more than the export of sweaters and the story of Bonnie Prince Charlie to fall back on if they were independent.
[Kashmir would collapse completely w/out the subsidies that India pumps into it each year. The same is true of Scotland and Wales in the UK but their respective nationalists aren`t really smart enough to figure it out.]
Not true of Scotland. All the North Sea oil that the UK pumps out would belong to Scotland if it were a separate country. So the Scots would have more than the export of sweaters and the story of Bonnie Prince Charlie to fall back on if they were independent.
#474 Posted by ali1 on November 19, 2001 12:54:03 pm
Stuka,
Seems like all female members of your family were saved by Chowk Staff.
Seems like all female members of your family were saved by Chowk Staff.
#473 Posted by stuka on November 19, 2001 12:54:03 pm
semipreciousme:
``I often get e-mails from Indian readers complaining of what they perceive as a preoccupation with India in the Pakistani press. ``Why can`t your papers get over your anti-India fixation?`` they ask. ``
I bet those are YLH`s cousins from India ;)who keep writing these letters.
YLH:
Did you watch the BC-Rutgers game over the weekend. Boston College kicked ass.
``I often get e-mails from Indian readers complaining of what they perceive as a preoccupation with India in the Pakistani press. ``Why can`t your papers get over your anti-India fixation?`` they ask. ``
I bet those are YLH`s cousins from India ;)who keep writing these letters.
YLH:
Did you watch the BC-Rutgers game over the weekend. Boston College kicked ass.
#471 Posted by hamzadafaqui on November 19, 2001 12:54:03 pm
Ramazaan is a good month to pay special attention to this such beautiful guide-lines.
Even non-muslims can benefit by these.
The Sayings of Hadrat Ali
Hadrat Ali was the embodiment of knowledge and wisdom. Some of the Sayings of Hadrat Ali, which breathe wisdom and have attained the dimension of aphorisms are on record. Some of these are:
Fear God and you will have no cause to fear anyone.
Resignation to the Will of God is the cure for the disease of the heart.
The word of God is the medicine of the heart.
Lead such a life that when you die people will mourn you, and while you are alive they long for your company.
The days of your life pass away like clouds, so do good while you are alive.
Of all the follies, the greatest is to love the world.
Opportunity is swift of flight but slow to return.
Pride, cowardice and miserliness are bad for man but good for women.
The most happy is he to whom God has given a good wife.
He who knows himself knows God.
Do not sell your conscience for anything but heaven.
The disease of the heart is worse than the disease of the body.
To fight against one`s desires is the greatest of all fights.
The strongest among you is he who subdues himself.
Wealth and greed are the roots of all evil.
Riches without faith are the greatest poverty.
A man`s worth depends upon the nobility of his aspirations.
Knowledge enlivens the soul.
The learned lives although he dies.
The sum total of excellence is knowledge.
To respect the learned is to respect God.
Generosity hides shortcomings.
Even non-muslims can benefit by these.
The Sayings of Hadrat Ali
Hadrat Ali was the embodiment of knowledge and wisdom. Some of the Sayings of Hadrat Ali, which breathe wisdom and have attained the dimension of aphorisms are on record. Some of these are:
Fear God and you will have no cause to fear anyone.
Resignation to the Will of God is the cure for the disease of the heart.
The word of God is the medicine of the heart.
Lead such a life that when you die people will mourn you, and while you are alive they long for your company.
The days of your life pass away like clouds, so do good while you are alive.
Of all the follies, the greatest is to love the world.
Opportunity is swift of flight but slow to return.
Pride, cowardice and miserliness are bad for man but good for women.
The most happy is he to whom God has given a good wife.
He who knows himself knows God.
Do not sell your conscience for anything but heaven.
The disease of the heart is worse than the disease of the body.
To fight against one`s desires is the greatest of all fights.
The strongest among you is he who subdues himself.
Wealth and greed are the roots of all evil.
Riches without faith are the greatest poverty.
A man`s worth depends upon the nobility of his aspirations.
Knowledge enlivens the soul.
The learned lives although he dies.
The sum total of excellence is knowledge.
To respect the learned is to respect God.
Generosity hides shortcomings.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nb: And back to NFP's... The Correct Turn
- nb: I didn't know that,... The Correct Turn
- akcheema: Re: # 182; nb thanks... The Correct Turn
- nb: Cheema, hing is asafoetida... The Correct Turn
- akcheema: Re: # 180 yaar nb... The Correct Turn
- nb: HP, if it was... The Correct Turn
- akcheema: dost_mittar and hamidm sahibaan,... The Correct Turn
- ahmedmadani: When we who write... Politics of PPP and








reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content