Pakistan and India - Lets Compromise
Q Isa Daudpota May 7, 2003
#150 Posted by arjun_m on May 13, 2003 6:13:11 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#149 Posted by Ahmadzai on May 13, 2003 4:24:56 am
HisExcellency:
Actually Salahuddin of HM stated yesterday that the War against Indian occupation forces in Indian held Kashmir will continue even after the softness of Pakistani stance. Also, Pakistani PM and IM have both categorically stated yesterday that there is no compromise from Pakistani side on the issue of Kashmir. The softness is only to begin dialogue.
I agree with you that if India does not grasp this opportunity for a permanent solution then it will suffer in the years to come. If it does, then there are following benefits for it:
1. With no conflict in the neighborhood it can strengthen its claim to permanent place in the security council and realize its dream of becoming a global power.
2. With an agreement of peace with Pakistan, it can then provide an effective pretext to the big powers to force Pakistan to give up its `Islamic` nuclear capability, since that was built only against India.
3. Of comparatively less importance to it, with it accorded MFN status in Pakistan, its products will fill Pakistani markets, at least as long as it does not bring some protective barriers down against imports of certain items.
Given the above, I am not sure why would Pakistan like to soften its stance on Kashmir. Otoh, I think once the people to people contact, traders contacts, and the dialogue starts, Pakistani stance on Kashmiri resolution will become stronger and harder for India to agree on. It will be a lose-lose situation for India. How?
If it does not accept, it loses the hope of realizing the 3 above-mentioned benefits of immense importance to it to become a global power.
If it accepts, it faces a domino effect with several other states demanding separation.
Actually Salahuddin of HM stated yesterday that the War against Indian occupation forces in Indian held Kashmir will continue even after the softness of Pakistani stance. Also, Pakistani PM and IM have both categorically stated yesterday that there is no compromise from Pakistani side on the issue of Kashmir. The softness is only to begin dialogue.
I agree with you that if India does not grasp this opportunity for a permanent solution then it will suffer in the years to come. If it does, then there are following benefits for it:
1. With no conflict in the neighborhood it can strengthen its claim to permanent place in the security council and realize its dream of becoming a global power.
2. With an agreement of peace with Pakistan, it can then provide an effective pretext to the big powers to force Pakistan to give up its `Islamic` nuclear capability, since that was built only against India.
3. Of comparatively less importance to it, with it accorded MFN status in Pakistan, its products will fill Pakistani markets, at least as long as it does not bring some protective barriers down against imports of certain items.
Given the above, I am not sure why would Pakistan like to soften its stance on Kashmir. Otoh, I think once the people to people contact, traders contacts, and the dialogue starts, Pakistani stance on Kashmiri resolution will become stronger and harder for India to agree on. It will be a lose-lose situation for India. How?
If it does not accept, it loses the hope of realizing the 3 above-mentioned benefits of immense importance to it to become a global power.
If it accepts, it faces a domino effect with several other states demanding separation.
#148 Posted by Faruk on May 13, 2003 4:24:56 am
Re:#128 by HisExcellency
``Why should Pakistan PERMANENTLY halt support to Mujahideen, when India even refuses to even TEMPORARILY give the Kashmiris the rights that were promised to them 56 years ago?``
This is an interesting point. I for one believe that we should hold a plebiscite in Kashmir and we will win. The botched elections of 1987 were a big blow for Indian democracy. The recent elections and say a couple more should reestablish the tradition. Another Herculean task is to rebuild the state economically. That has already begun and it will take a few years.
I have a question for you, are you just as passionate about the rights of Pakistani people. Right to free speech, right to freedom of religion, right to be masters of their destiny in every sense of the word. You and other Pakistanis talk a lot about the rights of Kashmir’s but what about the same rights for Pakistanis. What about persecution of Pakistanis by Pakistanis in Pakistan. I don’t believe that you have had democracy in your country from April 17 th 1953 if you know the significance of that date in the history of your country. It does not appear to be honest that people of Pakistan want something for Kashmir’s but not for themselves. Can you explain?
Regards,
Faruk
``Why should Pakistan PERMANENTLY halt support to Mujahideen, when India even refuses to even TEMPORARILY give the Kashmiris the rights that were promised to them 56 years ago?``
This is an interesting point. I for one believe that we should hold a plebiscite in Kashmir and we will win. The botched elections of 1987 were a big blow for Indian democracy. The recent elections and say a couple more should reestablish the tradition. Another Herculean task is to rebuild the state economically. That has already begun and it will take a few years.
I have a question for you, are you just as passionate about the rights of Pakistani people. Right to free speech, right to freedom of religion, right to be masters of their destiny in every sense of the word. You and other Pakistanis talk a lot about the rights of Kashmir’s but what about the same rights for Pakistanis. What about persecution of Pakistanis by Pakistanis in Pakistan. I don’t believe that you have had democracy in your country from April 17 th 1953 if you know the significance of that date in the history of your country. It does not appear to be honest that people of Pakistan want something for Kashmir’s but not for themselves. Can you explain?
Regards,
Faruk
#147 Posted by Ahmadzai on May 13, 2003 4:24:56 am
pmishra2 @ # 124:
I have no interest of interacting with you or any other Indian posting similar messages, reason not being that I hate you or anything, but because the whole pessage offers contradictions to the points you want to drive home. For example:
1. What Drove 2 Britons to Bomb a Club in Tel Aviv?
2. DERBY, England, May 8 — Something changed Omar Khan Sharif, sent him in a new direction, and Derby`s older Pakistani population cannot begin to fathom what it was.
3. But the radicalization of the well-educated, thoroughly Westernized Mr. Sharif, 27.
4. ``In a way, I sympathize,`` said Mohammed Zahid, 23, an automobile-plant inspector with a broad Midlands accent
5. 2nd generation Pakistani
6. Of Kashmiri descent.
Also note that the person on the Most Wanted List at # 45 Dr. Germ has been arrested in Iraq. She was educated in India. This makes 50% of the people caught todate on the list educated in India.
Now what is more dangerous?
1. Second generation Pakistanis with strong British accents, educated in Britain, the link with Pakistan being that parents once lived in Kashmir.
or.
2. Arabs living in Iraq being accused of weapons of mass destruction, having invaded two neighboring countries, found to have connections with Indian chemical manufacturing companies and educated in Indian educational instututions.
100 points for a correct answer.
Hint to solving this problem: Indians on this site routinely claim that Pakistanis come from Indian race.
;)
I have no interest of interacting with you or any other Indian posting similar messages, reason not being that I hate you or anything, but because the whole pessage offers contradictions to the points you want to drive home. For example:
1. What Drove 2 Britons to Bomb a Club in Tel Aviv?
2. DERBY, England, May 8 — Something changed Omar Khan Sharif, sent him in a new direction, and Derby`s older Pakistani population cannot begin to fathom what it was.
3. But the radicalization of the well-educated, thoroughly Westernized Mr. Sharif, 27.
4. ``In a way, I sympathize,`` said Mohammed Zahid, 23, an automobile-plant inspector with a broad Midlands accent
5. 2nd generation Pakistani
6. Of Kashmiri descent.
Also note that the person on the Most Wanted List at # 45 Dr. Germ has been arrested in Iraq. She was educated in India. This makes 50% of the people caught todate on the list educated in India.
Now what is more dangerous?
1. Second generation Pakistanis with strong British accents, educated in Britain, the link with Pakistan being that parents once lived in Kashmir.
or.
2. Arabs living in Iraq being accused of weapons of mass destruction, having invaded two neighboring countries, found to have connections with Indian chemical manufacturing companies and educated in Indian educational instututions.
100 points for a correct answer.
Hint to solving this problem: Indians on this site routinely claim that Pakistanis come from Indian race.
;)
#146 Posted by ZafarA on May 13, 2003 4:24:56 am
Reply ali87 #143
Why is the UK Govt negotiating (finally) with the IRA? Why is Sri Lanka negotiating with the LTTE?
Because they HAVE to. Both groups have shown that they have enough enduring support among the populations they claim to represent AND they have proven to be entrenched in their home ground (UK and Sri Lanka have been unable to beat them). Sri Lanka, btw, is not a Western country.
“why is the US not negotaing with a single terrorist group who are from the muslim comminity?”
Because, whatever they claim, “Muslim terrorists” (doesn’t this strike you as an oxymoron?) do NOT have enduring support among the people they claim to speak for (what happened to the remnants of the Taliban when ordinary Afghans caught up with them?) – and this makes them structurally weak enough that the US does not HAVE to negotiate with Al-Qaida etc.
“…why is the need to totally refute the thougth that terrorism could have a political solution and may at least arise in part form political reasons?”
Spare me the truisms. Terrorism always arises for political reasons. Primary among them being that a group cannot get what it wants by any other means so it decides to try and blow up a few civilians just to see if that works – in the case of Muslim terrorists that usually means that people will not vote for them, and importantly, that they do not see their legitimacy as coming from the people’s will (expressed, for eg, through the vote) but from the belief that they are ‘right’ and everybody else is ‘wrong’ and in fact ‘cursed’ for opposing them. (Try negotiating with that. Though the Philippines IS actually currently negotiating with Abu Sayaf.)
”I know why your mind does not work on these line becuase your US masters who dominate all you thoughts and through whose prism of views you view yourself and your world have not yet given the cue.”
Your invective is lame. Try logic.
Regards
Why is the UK Govt negotiating (finally) with the IRA? Why is Sri Lanka negotiating with the LTTE?
Because they HAVE to. Both groups have shown that they have enough enduring support among the populations they claim to represent AND they have proven to be entrenched in their home ground (UK and Sri Lanka have been unable to beat them). Sri Lanka, btw, is not a Western country.
“why is the US not negotaing with a single terrorist group who are from the muslim comminity?”
Because, whatever they claim, “Muslim terrorists” (doesn’t this strike you as an oxymoron?) do NOT have enduring support among the people they claim to speak for (what happened to the remnants of the Taliban when ordinary Afghans caught up with them?) – and this makes them structurally weak enough that the US does not HAVE to negotiate with Al-Qaida etc.
“…why is the need to totally refute the thougth that terrorism could have a political solution and may at least arise in part form political reasons?”
Spare me the truisms. Terrorism always arises for political reasons. Primary among them being that a group cannot get what it wants by any other means so it decides to try and blow up a few civilians just to see if that works – in the case of Muslim terrorists that usually means that people will not vote for them, and importantly, that they do not see their legitimacy as coming from the people’s will (expressed, for eg, through the vote) but from the belief that they are ‘right’ and everybody else is ‘wrong’ and in fact ‘cursed’ for opposing them. (Try negotiating with that. Though the Philippines IS actually currently negotiating with Abu Sayaf.)
”I know why your mind does not work on these line becuase your US masters who dominate all you thoughts and through whose prism of views you view yourself and your world have not yet given the cue.”
Your invective is lame. Try logic.
Regards
#145 Posted by Faruk on May 13, 2003 4:24:56 am
Re : #136 by HisExcellency on May 12, 2003 1:09pm PT
“My point: Any unilateral concessions made due to economic compulsions will be temporary. As soon as Pakistani economy improves (in say 4-10 years), some Jihadi leader will re-open the Kashmir file.
Is it not better for India to make some painful concessions also and settle this matter once and for all? We need a permanent solution to Kashmir, not a short-term one. Lets resolve conflicts, instead of postponing them.”
Let me try your logic…..
India spends Rs. 100,000 cr on keeping the public sector companies afloat. That’s the motivation for disinvestment in this sector by the Indian govt. If the disinvestment continues and we move this entire expenditure to defense we will have a defense budget of around Rs 200,0000 cr or $40 billion by the end of this decade, without increasing our govt. expenditure. That is two third the size of your economy. By the end of this decade we will be so far ahead of Pakistan that Pakistan cant compete. We have already taken all Pakistan has got for the last two decades why should India compromise now ?
Regards,
Faruk
“My point: Any unilateral concessions made due to economic compulsions will be temporary. As soon as Pakistani economy improves (in say 4-10 years), some Jihadi leader will re-open the Kashmir file.
Is it not better for India to make some painful concessions also and settle this matter once and for all? We need a permanent solution to Kashmir, not a short-term one. Lets resolve conflicts, instead of postponing them.”
Let me try your logic…..
India spends Rs. 100,000 cr on keeping the public sector companies afloat. That’s the motivation for disinvestment in this sector by the Indian govt. If the disinvestment continues and we move this entire expenditure to defense we will have a defense budget of around Rs 200,0000 cr or $40 billion by the end of this decade, without increasing our govt. expenditure. That is two third the size of your economy. By the end of this decade we will be so far ahead of Pakistan that Pakistan cant compete. We have already taken all Pakistan has got for the last two decades why should India compromise now ?
Regards,
Faruk
#144 Posted by Ali87 on May 13, 2003 12:52:12 am
#115 by Paigham on May 11, 2003 6:42am PT
#117 by ZafarA on May 11, 2003 6:42am PT
jerks just dont put words in my mouth... read the post again and the context too.
you see ghosts that you dream of.
While malginging the Muslims for forstering terrorism I asked you to also spare a thought about other terrorists too and see every thing in proper prospective.
If you say that terrorism stands alone and is result of just fractured minds then on what basis are the negotiations whit IRA and LTTE are taking place?
You dont have any answers because your western masters havent given you the cue.
instead of answering/analysing the query I raised you talk rubbish rethoric.
why is the US not negotaing with a single terrorist group who are from the muslim comminity? When the west and the rest of the world can negotiate with IRA, LTTE, tolerate the Khalisthani terrorists for two decades in US and Canada, Negotiate with Anti-Iranian group labeled terrorist for a long time then why is the need to totally refute the thougth that terrorism could have a political solution and may at least arise in part form political reasons?
I know why your mind does not work on these line becuase your US masters who dominate all you thoughts and through whose prism of views you view yourself and your world have not yet given the cue.
#117 by ZafarA on May 11, 2003 6:42am PT
jerks just dont put words in my mouth... read the post again and the context too.
you see ghosts that you dream of.
While malginging the Muslims for forstering terrorism I asked you to also spare a thought about other terrorists too and see every thing in proper prospective.
If you say that terrorism stands alone and is result of just fractured minds then on what basis are the negotiations whit IRA and LTTE are taking place?
You dont have any answers because your western masters havent given you the cue.
instead of answering/analysing the query I raised you talk rubbish rethoric.
why is the US not negotaing with a single terrorist group who are from the muslim comminity? When the west and the rest of the world can negotiate with IRA, LTTE, tolerate the Khalisthani terrorists for two decades in US and Canada, Negotiate with Anti-Iranian group labeled terrorist for a long time then why is the need to totally refute the thougth that terrorism could have a political solution and may at least arise in part form political reasons?
I know why your mind does not work on these line becuase your US masters who dominate all you thoughts and through whose prism of views you view yourself and your world have not yet given the cue.
#143 Posted by Ali87 on May 13, 2003 12:52:12 am
#123 by tahmed32 on May 11, 2003 7:30pm PT
I posted this in another discussion . ...
so much for your hopes read on...
The only long-term means to minimize risks of recidivism in Baghdad are to maintain a strong deterrent force in the region and to ensure large numbers of Iraq`s secular and clerical leaders have a stake in the system. It is not a matter of winning hearts and minds -- something Americans aren`t good at. It is a matter of buying them off, putting them on the payroll, or cutting them in on a piece of the action -- things Americans are very good at.
The favored Iraqis, in turn, must be counted on to go forth and do likewise, granting their own domestic factions a piece of the action so people throughout the social pyramid have a stake in the system. That, too, echoes an Ottoman precedent: the mukta`a, or administrative unit in which every office is associated with a source of revenue.
.........
this is from.......
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030512-125304-2704r
Walter A. McDougall, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and Alloy-Ansin Professor of International Relations at the University of Pennsylvania, is a Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia.
Im eagerly awaiting your apologia , explanation, side stepping from issue in response.
#142 Posted by Ali87 on May 13, 2003 12:31:34 am
#109 by jay on May 10, 2003 8:33pm PT
conclude all you wish...
conclude all you wish...
#141 Posted by rsridhar on May 12, 2003 9:25:05 pm
re:#128 by HisExcellency
``Why should Pakistan PERMANENTLY halt support to Mujahideen, when India even refuses to even TEMPORARILY give the Kashmiris the rights that were promised to them 56 years ago?``
The world does not appreciate any state flaunting terrorism as a policy. Pak has no choice. It has been using Mujahideens to unleash terror on hapless people and on Indian security forces. Such a policy finds no favor in the new dispensation post-9/11. Wake up, guys.
Besides, what Kashmiri rights are you talking about. See my post in another forum about the rights Paki govt has given to the so called ``Azad Kashmir``. Compare that to the free and fair election and a populist govt in place in Srinagar today.
Do you guys enjoy any rights under a dictator? What rights would you like Kashmiris in India to enjoy that you yourselves do not? I am awaiting your reply.
Sridhar
``Why should Pakistan PERMANENTLY halt support to Mujahideen, when India even refuses to even TEMPORARILY give the Kashmiris the rights that were promised to them 56 years ago?``
The world does not appreciate any state flaunting terrorism as a policy. Pak has no choice. It has been using Mujahideens to unleash terror on hapless people and on Indian security forces. Such a policy finds no favor in the new dispensation post-9/11. Wake up, guys.
Besides, what Kashmiri rights are you talking about. See my post in another forum about the rights Paki govt has given to the so called ``Azad Kashmir``. Compare that to the free and fair election and a populist govt in place in Srinagar today.
Do you guys enjoy any rights under a dictator? What rights would you like Kashmiris in India to enjoy that you yourselves do not? I am awaiting your reply.
Sridhar
#140 Posted by rsridhar on May 12, 2003 9:25:05 pm
re:#122 by pmishra2
Thanx for your comments. What you say is so true!
Sridhar
Thanx for your comments. What you say is so true!
Sridhar
#139 Posted by rsridhar on May 12, 2003 9:25:05 pm
re:#119 by dialogue
Nothing will change between India and Pakistan until 2 things happen:
1. There is a policy change at the highest level (with the concurrence of military and jehadi leadership) that stops treating India as an enemy country
2. Army dictator paves way for a true democracy and returns Army to the barracks.
The above 2 are closely interlinked. Pause for a moment. See how Army has literally invaded every space in Pakistan in the name of providing security. Security against whom? India no doubt. But, why take over civil administration, cricket board, go on land grabbing, slash away huge money in foreign banks. All in the name of providing security against Indians.
Ordinary Pakistanis do not understand what is going on. I have interacted with them in US and they are naieve and patriotic. I was amazed when one of them i was talking to hoped (soon after Mushy took over in a coup) that Musharraf Sahib will do something good. Why do Pakistanis want to believe that a non-elected military dictator will ever be good? Why do they not repose faith on an elected representative? Beats me.
Sridhar
Nothing will change between India and Pakistan until 2 things happen:
1. There is a policy change at the highest level (with the concurrence of military and jehadi leadership) that stops treating India as an enemy country
2. Army dictator paves way for a true democracy and returns Army to the barracks.
The above 2 are closely interlinked. Pause for a moment. See how Army has literally invaded every space in Pakistan in the name of providing security. Security against whom? India no doubt. But, why take over civil administration, cricket board, go on land grabbing, slash away huge money in foreign banks. All in the name of providing security against Indians.
Ordinary Pakistanis do not understand what is going on. I have interacted with them in US and they are naieve and patriotic. I was amazed when one of them i was talking to hoped (soon after Mushy took over in a coup) that Musharraf Sahib will do something good. Why do Pakistanis want to believe that a non-elected military dictator will ever be good? Why do they not repose faith on an elected representative? Beats me.
Sridhar
#138 Posted by pmishra2 on May 12, 2003 3:20:52 pm
His!Great!Flatulence
[quote]
My point: Any unilateral concessions made due to economic compulsions will be temporary. As soon as Pakistani economy improves (in say 4-10 years), some Jihadi leader will re-open the Kashmir file.
Is it not better for India to make some painful concessions also and settle this matter once and for all? We need a permanent solution to Kashmir, not a short-term one. Lets resolve conflicts, instead of postponing them
[end-quote]
No better example may be found of thuggishness and extortion of the pakistani establishment. No different than a mafia don or neighborhood thief: if you dont give what I want, I will attack you and hurt you.
Paki economy will catch up with India? Heh, Heh, Heh..... It must be nice to be so ignorant. Maybe you mean the jihadi ecomony? Certainly, few countries can match that aspect....
[quote]
My point: Any unilateral concessions made due to economic compulsions will be temporary. As soon as Pakistani economy improves (in say 4-10 years), some Jihadi leader will re-open the Kashmir file.
Is it not better for India to make some painful concessions also and settle this matter once and for all? We need a permanent solution to Kashmir, not a short-term one. Lets resolve conflicts, instead of postponing them
[end-quote]
No better example may be found of thuggishness and extortion of the pakistani establishment. No different than a mafia don or neighborhood thief: if you dont give what I want, I will attack you and hurt you.
Paki economy will catch up with India? Heh, Heh, Heh..... It must be nice to be so ignorant. Maybe you mean the jihadi ecomony? Certainly, few countries can match that aspect....
#137 Posted by arjun_m on May 12, 2003 2:12:33 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#136 Posted by HisExcellency on May 12, 2003 1:09:56 pm
re: #134 by ahmadzai
I agree with you on the reasons for Pakistan`s soft line on Kashmir. Economic instability, corruption and lack of social development has indeed impaced Pakistan`s GDP per capita. To affect these indicators, Pakistan will need to abandon the hardline on Kashmir.
However, if India exploits the soft line and does not make painful concessions, the thaw will be temporary like the Indo-Pak thaw of 1980s.
General Zia-ul-Haq warmed towards India just to keep the eastern border peaceful while a brutal war was being waged in Afghanistan. During this period of bonhomie, Pakistani economy improved. Indian high school students studied at Islamabad schools and Pakistani students enrolled in New Delhi during mid-1980s. Zia-ul-Haq used to call Shatrughan Sinha his ``beta`` and what not. Regular cricket tours took place.
The same Zia-ul-Haq prepared the Kargil Plan in 1987 after the Geneva Accord. Since the Soviets were retreating from Afghanistan and the Pakistani economy was going sound, Zia was readying for the Kashmir operation.
My point: Any unilateral concessions made due to economic compulsions will be temporary. As soon as Pakistani economy improves (in say 4-10 years), some Jihadi leader will re-open the Kashmir file.
Is it not better for India to make some painful concessions also and settle this matter once and for all? We need a permanent solution to Kashmir, not a short-term one. Lets resolve conflicts, instead of postponing them.
I agree with you on the reasons for Pakistan`s soft line on Kashmir. Economic instability, corruption and lack of social development has indeed impaced Pakistan`s GDP per capita. To affect these indicators, Pakistan will need to abandon the hardline on Kashmir.
However, if India exploits the soft line and does not make painful concessions, the thaw will be temporary like the Indo-Pak thaw of 1980s.
General Zia-ul-Haq warmed towards India just to keep the eastern border peaceful while a brutal war was being waged in Afghanistan. During this period of bonhomie, Pakistani economy improved. Indian high school students studied at Islamabad schools and Pakistani students enrolled in New Delhi during mid-1980s. Zia-ul-Haq used to call Shatrughan Sinha his ``beta`` and what not. Regular cricket tours took place.
The same Zia-ul-Haq prepared the Kargil Plan in 1987 after the Geneva Accord. Since the Soviets were retreating from Afghanistan and the Pakistani economy was going sound, Zia was readying for the Kashmir operation.
My point: Any unilateral concessions made due to economic compulsions will be temporary. As soon as Pakistani economy improves (in say 4-10 years), some Jihadi leader will re-open the Kashmir file.
Is it not better for India to make some painful concessions also and settle this matter once and for all? We need a permanent solution to Kashmir, not a short-term one. Lets resolve conflicts, instead of postponing them.
#135 Posted by ZafarA on May 12, 2003 8:22:36 am
Reply Ferozk
Right now it`s seems that it is dawning on Vajpayee & Co. that signing off on some faltu peace document is only as useful as the person/institution that signs off opposite you is authoritative. Hence the generally gloomy and unexcited air with which they are approaching the whole exercise.
I don`t think that it has yet occured to them that others might, given the right circumstances, soon be thinking these thoughts about them. They might realise in time - I hope so. But the first issue remains. Any free advice?
Right now it`s seems that it is dawning on Vajpayee & Co. that signing off on some faltu peace document is only as useful as the person/institution that signs off opposite you is authoritative. Hence the generally gloomy and unexcited air with which they are approaching the whole exercise.
I don`t think that it has yet occured to them that others might, given the right circumstances, soon be thinking these thoughts about them. They might realise in time - I hope so. But the first issue remains. Any free advice?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- KaalChakra: ok, dm ji, I... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- hamidm2: Re: # 100 arjun mian, ........ ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- _arjun30: AoA...pakistan banega zimbabwe.. Inflation at... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- _arjun30: Compensation? They should get... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- Cobra: If India gives Kashmir... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- hamidm2: Re: # 96 arjun, ... what... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- _arjun30: HAHAHA..typical hamidm type paki..all... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- akcheema: Re: # 32; madani... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
