We Don’t Need You Shaukat Aziz
abdul naeem September 5, 2004
#81 Posted by teshah on September 10, 2004 8:50:46 pm
76 by godot
Excuse me godot the post of pm is a political post. It requires a leader whose heart beats with the people and not a banker who fills the coffers of his master by sucking the blood of the people who have no option left now but either to run away from this country even at the risk of their lives, to commit suicide or just to become a `khud-kush bambaar`.
As for his rise in the city bank, we can imagine it could happen in the same way as his masters got him elected from the most backward costituency of Thaparkar. This is naked Matarruaism and nothing else.
A question arises why not make him the president of pakistan if he is more capable than Musharraf to allow him to exercise his capability unfettered.
Excuse me godot the post of pm is a political post. It requires a leader whose heart beats with the people and not a banker who fills the coffers of his master by sucking the blood of the people who have no option left now but either to run away from this country even at the risk of their lives, to commit suicide or just to become a `khud-kush bambaar`.
As for his rise in the city bank, we can imagine it could happen in the same way as his masters got him elected from the most backward costituency of Thaparkar. This is naked Matarruaism and nothing else.
A question arises why not make him the president of pakistan if he is more capable than Musharraf to allow him to exercise his capability unfettered.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#82 Posted by nukecular on September 10, 2004 8:50:47 pm
Thank you for your reply arjun and nikki (and ankit). You will be glad to hear that I do not condone terrorism, anywhere in the world, in any shape or form. So, I hope the practice of insulting each other here at chowk (in a bid to get the last laugh) will end. I realise that many of my own countrymen are also guilty here, but I do hope that we can end this here.
I see that Nikki has given a different reason to why he/she thinks Indians are opposed to Pakistanis. I will discuss arjun`s (and ankit`s) post first, then reply to Nikki.
As I said, I have no way of verifying whether or not the government is actively involved in supporting Jihadis. By the government, I mean Musharraf (as president), Shaukat Aziz, the National Assembly, etc. Whether or not they are authorising the use of public money to fund Jehadi training camps is debatable, but, if true, is certainly wrong.
Accountability to the people (i.e. true democracy) has been virtually non-existent in Pakistan. So, given the people have such little say on how government money is being spent, they are hardly in a position to stop any sort of specific expenditure. But rest assure, if given the choice between building a school or funding a Jehadi training camp with public money, a 100% of educated Pakistanis (that you are likely to come across on this forum or elsewhere in your life) would opt to build a school. It is important that you and your fellow Indians understand this distinction. No Pakistani in his or her right mind would support using our precious resources to fund the Jehad being waged against Indian troops in Kashmir. Its as simple as that.
But Pakistanis do see Kashmiris as their muslim brothers (just as you see Kashmir as being part of India). Morally supporting our brothers in their fight is exactly the same as you supporting your army. We are both justified in our ways. I understand and respect your opinion and you should respect mine. We should not hate each other for this reason alone. It is a petty difference in opinion, for god sake!
That a part of Pakistan has become a training ground for Islamic extremists is undeniable. India can rightfully claim that many Kashmiri freedom fighters have learnt their skills in Pakistan, before fighting the Indian army and killing innocent civilians in Kashmir. But, as I said earlier, the government itself is probably not involved in funding these organisations. They are most likely privately run and operated in secrecy in areas such as Baluchistan and the NWFP.
The religious organisations have a tremendous influence on Pakistani society. Despite being in such a minority, they are a violent and unsophisticated lot (now pretty much all over Pakistan in small pockets, with a large population in the NWFP and Baluchistan). Unless the government wishes to risk a full scale bloody conflict with them, trying to crack down on their training camps is strictly unadvisable. (Unfortunately, unlike the US, the Pakistani government hasn`t got the budget to launch a secret operation against `Islamic fundamentalists` across all cities). Furthermore, these organisations pose no threat to Pakistan itself. So what incentive does the government have to close the camps down (or to try to stop Jehadis from crossing the border into Indian Kashmir)?
Its worth noting that the only reason for the current operations in Waziristan and Baluchistan is the American pressure to hand over any `terrorists`. Were that pressure not there, the government wouldnt raise a finger.
If India wants to address the Kashmir issue it must engage with the Pakistani government, which is its only conduit to the extremist groups (without going to war with Pakistan itself). It will have to start thinking like the Americans i.e. make Pakistan fight its war for it. As it stands currently, the Pakistani government gains nothing from trying to close down Kashmiri camps (or stop cross border infiltration). These camps are self financing and there is no guarantee that Indian hostility would end if the camps were closed down (afterall some other claim could be trumped up by the Indian government). Infact, given such a move would only serve to alienate the people of Pakistan and cause an uprising in the country, this option is clearly very unattractive.
On the other hand, if India is willing to negotiate (and politicians need to be imaginitive here), they can engage the Pakistani government to resolve what is essentially now an Indo-Pak issue (by providing incentives to crack down on the camps e.g. a referendum when all militancy in Kashmir has stopped?). The ball has always been in the Indian government`s court with regard to Kashmir, never in Pakistan`s. The Pakistani government is not equipped to deal with an uprising that should result if it `reversed` its policy on Kashmir. The army generals are passionate about Kashmir, and as you have probably seen over the last five years, are answerable to no civilian.
So your bitterness against the Pakistani people and the government is quite unjustified. Both are being held hostage by a very violent and religious minority, that will not except any opposition.
I hope this adds something to the discussion. There is a way out but it involves tactics and a lot of diplomacy - something which, in my view, has been lacking on the Indian side.
Nikki - any comparisons (except in cricket!) of Pak vs India are meaningless. Unless we resolve the issues that face us today as sworn enemies, we will always be at risk of a nukecular solution. If it makes you feel better, India would `win` hands down, but the loss of life and wealth on both sides would be catastrophic. That`s partly why I feel that we all have a responsibility to promote friendship. Every little step counts.
India`s economic supremacy vs Pakistan is unquestionable. Nor is its progress in other areas such education, IT and democracy. But without a prosperous Pakistan, India will always face an uncertain future. This should be enough for Delhi to work towards a solution.
Kind rgds
I see that Nikki has given a different reason to why he/she thinks Indians are opposed to Pakistanis. I will discuss arjun`s (and ankit`s) post first, then reply to Nikki.
As I said, I have no way of verifying whether or not the government is actively involved in supporting Jihadis. By the government, I mean Musharraf (as president), Shaukat Aziz, the National Assembly, etc. Whether or not they are authorising the use of public money to fund Jehadi training camps is debatable, but, if true, is certainly wrong.
Accountability to the people (i.e. true democracy) has been virtually non-existent in Pakistan. So, given the people have such little say on how government money is being spent, they are hardly in a position to stop any sort of specific expenditure. But rest assure, if given the choice between building a school or funding a Jehadi training camp with public money, a 100% of educated Pakistanis (that you are likely to come across on this forum or elsewhere in your life) would opt to build a school. It is important that you and your fellow Indians understand this distinction. No Pakistani in his or her right mind would support using our precious resources to fund the Jehad being waged against Indian troops in Kashmir. Its as simple as that.
But Pakistanis do see Kashmiris as their muslim brothers (just as you see Kashmir as being part of India). Morally supporting our brothers in their fight is exactly the same as you supporting your army. We are both justified in our ways. I understand and respect your opinion and you should respect mine. We should not hate each other for this reason alone. It is a petty difference in opinion, for god sake!
That a part of Pakistan has become a training ground for Islamic extremists is undeniable. India can rightfully claim that many Kashmiri freedom fighters have learnt their skills in Pakistan, before fighting the Indian army and killing innocent civilians in Kashmir. But, as I said earlier, the government itself is probably not involved in funding these organisations. They are most likely privately run and operated in secrecy in areas such as Baluchistan and the NWFP.
The religious organisations have a tremendous influence on Pakistani society. Despite being in such a minority, they are a violent and unsophisticated lot (now pretty much all over Pakistan in small pockets, with a large population in the NWFP and Baluchistan). Unless the government wishes to risk a full scale bloody conflict with them, trying to crack down on their training camps is strictly unadvisable. (Unfortunately, unlike the US, the Pakistani government hasn`t got the budget to launch a secret operation against `Islamic fundamentalists` across all cities). Furthermore, these organisations pose no threat to Pakistan itself. So what incentive does the government have to close the camps down (or to try to stop Jehadis from crossing the border into Indian Kashmir)?
Its worth noting that the only reason for the current operations in Waziristan and Baluchistan is the American pressure to hand over any `terrorists`. Were that pressure not there, the government wouldnt raise a finger.
If India wants to address the Kashmir issue it must engage with the Pakistani government, which is its only conduit to the extremist groups (without going to war with Pakistan itself). It will have to start thinking like the Americans i.e. make Pakistan fight its war for it. As it stands currently, the Pakistani government gains nothing from trying to close down Kashmiri camps (or stop cross border infiltration). These camps are self financing and there is no guarantee that Indian hostility would end if the camps were closed down (afterall some other claim could be trumped up by the Indian government). Infact, given such a move would only serve to alienate the people of Pakistan and cause an uprising in the country, this option is clearly very unattractive.
On the other hand, if India is willing to negotiate (and politicians need to be imaginitive here), they can engage the Pakistani government to resolve what is essentially now an Indo-Pak issue (by providing incentives to crack down on the camps e.g. a referendum when all militancy in Kashmir has stopped?). The ball has always been in the Indian government`s court with regard to Kashmir, never in Pakistan`s. The Pakistani government is not equipped to deal with an uprising that should result if it `reversed` its policy on Kashmir. The army generals are passionate about Kashmir, and as you have probably seen over the last five years, are answerable to no civilian.
So your bitterness against the Pakistani people and the government is quite unjustified. Both are being held hostage by a very violent and religious minority, that will not except any opposition.
I hope this adds something to the discussion. There is a way out but it involves tactics and a lot of diplomacy - something which, in my view, has been lacking on the Indian side.
Nikki - any comparisons (except in cricket!) of Pak vs India are meaningless. Unless we resolve the issues that face us today as sworn enemies, we will always be at risk of a nukecular solution. If it makes you feel better, India would `win` hands down, but the loss of life and wealth on both sides would be catastrophic. That`s partly why I feel that we all have a responsibility to promote friendship. Every little step counts.
India`s economic supremacy vs Pakistan is unquestionable. Nor is its progress in other areas such education, IT and democracy. But without a prosperous Pakistan, India will always face an uncertain future. This should be enough for Delhi to work towards a solution.
Kind rgds
#83 Posted by nasah on September 10, 2004 10:30:48 pm
Mushrraf-Chosen Foreign Minister for Prime Minister Shaukat Chilli -- the inarticulate Sheikh Rashid Chilli -- is another Olympian swimmer in the Musharrufian Sea of Sycophancy -- here he is in his most articulate moment:
``“For bold decisions, bold man was imperative,” the minister said in an apparent reference to Gen. Pervez Musharraf while addressing Meet the Press at Karachi Press Club on Friday.
He claimed that 17th Amendment allows Gen. Pervez Musharraf to occupy the both offices of President and Chief of Army Staff simultaneously.
Sheikh Rashid declared. “If we had not started operation in Wana, the US would have done this and think what would have happened then,” the minister asked.
He said that militants may go to other areas or cities but the forces would move there also as the govt was determined to eleminate terrorism.`` (Nation)
please Sheikh sahib don`t kick the egg basket demonstrating -- how the ``bold man imperative`` will eliminate the WANA terrorists for the Americans......careful
``“For bold decisions, bold man was imperative,” the minister said in an apparent reference to Gen. Pervez Musharraf while addressing Meet the Press at Karachi Press Club on Friday.
He claimed that 17th Amendment allows Gen. Pervez Musharraf to occupy the both offices of President and Chief of Army Staff simultaneously.
Sheikh Rashid declared. “If we had not started operation in Wana, the US would have done this and think what would have happened then,” the minister asked.
He said that militants may go to other areas or cities but the forces would move there also as the govt was determined to eleminate terrorism.`` (Nation)
please Sheikh sahib don`t kick the egg basket demonstrating -- how the ``bold man imperative`` will eliminate the WANA terrorists for the Americans......careful
#84 Posted by nasah on September 11, 2004 12:37:09 am
Mushrraf-Chosen `Dis-Information Minister -- for Prime Minister Shaukat Chilli -- Sheikh Rashid Chilli -- is another Olympian swimmer in the Musharrufian Sea of Sycophancy -- here he is in his most articulate moment:
``“For bold decisions, bold man was imperative,” the minister said in an apparent reference to Gen. Pervez Musharraf while addressing Meet the Press at Karachi Press Club on Friday.
He claimed that 17th Amendment allows Gen. Pervez Musharraf to occupy the both offices of President and Chief of Army Staff simultaneously.
Sheikh Rashid declared. “If we had not started operation in Wana, the US would have done this and think what would have happened then,” the minister asked.
He said that militants may go to other areas or cities but the forces would move there also as the govt was determined to eleminate terrorism.`` (Nation)
please Sheikh sahib don`t kick the egg basket demonstrating -- how the ``imperative bold man`` will eliminate the WANA terrorists....careful
``“For bold decisions, bold man was imperative,” the minister said in an apparent reference to Gen. Pervez Musharraf while addressing Meet the Press at Karachi Press Club on Friday.
He claimed that 17th Amendment allows Gen. Pervez Musharraf to occupy the both offices of President and Chief of Army Staff simultaneously.
Sheikh Rashid declared. “If we had not started operation in Wana, the US would have done this and think what would have happened then,” the minister asked.
He said that militants may go to other areas or cities but the forces would move there also as the govt was determined to eleminate terrorism.`` (Nation)
please Sheikh sahib don`t kick the egg basket demonstrating -- how the ``imperative bold man`` will eliminate the WANA terrorists....careful
#85 Posted by mohar11 on September 11, 2004 7:14:44 am
nuke dude - what are u smoking?
QUOTE1 [...The religious organisations have a tremendous influence on Pakistani society. Despite being in such a minority, they are a violent ..... Furthermore, these organisations pose no threat to Pakistan itself... ]
QUOTE2 [....So your bitterness against the Pakistani people and the government is quite unjustified. Both are being held hostage by a very violent and religious minority...]
First you say - the violent religious orgs are somehow no threat to pakistan itself - then you say paki people are being ``held hostage`` by them. Again - why would there be an ``uprising`` if these violent religious ``organization`` are closed down??? They are holding pakis hostage - don`t they?
++++
//.... if India is willing to negotiate ....//
The operating world is IF. As far as Indians are concerend - there is nothing to ``negotiate``. If pakis think their violent religious ``minority`` can win Kashmir for them - well they can try as they have been doing for last 15 years. May be it will work someday.
The truth is - Pakis would have to crack down on the jihadis - the very survival of the state is at stake. Yes - these groups are a big threat to pakistan. And no - there won`t be no ``uprising`` if you close down the jihadi training camps.
+++
As far as incentives are concerned - India is already offering quite a few - trade, pipeline, cultural exchage etc... That`s all India can offer. Pakis know that too.
QUOTE1 [...The religious organisations have a tremendous influence on Pakistani society. Despite being in such a minority, they are a violent ..... Furthermore, these organisations pose no threat to Pakistan itself... ]
QUOTE2 [....So your bitterness against the Pakistani people and the government is quite unjustified. Both are being held hostage by a very violent and religious minority...]
First you say - the violent religious orgs are somehow no threat to pakistan itself - then you say paki people are being ``held hostage`` by them. Again - why would there be an ``uprising`` if these violent religious ``organization`` are closed down??? They are holding pakis hostage - don`t they?
++++
//.... if India is willing to negotiate ....//
The operating world is IF. As far as Indians are concerend - there is nothing to ``negotiate``. If pakis think their violent religious ``minority`` can win Kashmir for them - well they can try as they have been doing for last 15 years. May be it will work someday.
The truth is - Pakis would have to crack down on the jihadis - the very survival of the state is at stake. Yes - these groups are a big threat to pakistan. And no - there won`t be no ``uprising`` if you close down the jihadi training camps.
+++
As far as incentives are concerned - India is already offering quite a few - trade, pipeline, cultural exchage etc... That`s all India can offer. Pakis know that too.
#86 Posted by Godot on September 11, 2004 7:14:44 am
#80 by teshah
“the post of pm is a political post. It requires a leader whose heart beats with the people”
You make me laugh! You can’t be serious! Are you sure you are talking about Pakistan?
Shaukat Aziz may have been elected by the most backwards constituency of Tharparkar for expediency, but he maybe the only elected individual from there who actually would do something to develop that area. I think you know better than I do how much the past politicians whose “heart beats with the people” have done not only for Tharparkar but all of Pakistan.
“As for his rise in the city bank, we can imagine it could happen in the same way as his masters got him elected from the most backward costituency of Thaparkar.”
Have you ever worked for an American organization? Do you know what you are talking about? I suggest that you get in a multi-national like IBM or Citibank itself (if they let you in, that is) and see how far you get by merely kissing your superiors’ behinds without showing any worth and value to the company. One can easily imagine that you being a part and parcel of Pakistani culture have no clue what a merit-based system is and how it works. For you, there is only one way to get ahead and it does not require skills such as intelligence, hard work or worth, but a set of skills only a Pakistani like you would understand.
#87 Posted by arjun_m on September 11, 2004 9:12:30 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#88 Posted by arjun_m on September 11, 2004 9:12:31 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#89 Posted by arjun_m on September 11, 2004 9:12:31 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#90 Posted by arjun_m on September 11, 2004 11:21:46 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#91 Posted by nasah on September 11, 2004 12:55:17 pm
``Pakistan`s answer to John Maynard Keynes, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, has come up with a constitutional first: boldly saying that in a parliamentary democracy, ``...the holding of office of the president by the army chief,`` I quote from a newspaper report, ``is in accordance with the Constitution.``
Remember those mafia movies in which every `family` has a smart lawyer on its payroll? Whatever the mafia dons do, whatever outrages they commit, they take care to do it by the book, so that they are not on the wrong side of the law.
Permanent legal counsel to General Zia and then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan (who chewed up two National Assemblies) was Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada in whose hands the Constitution has been so much plasticine.
To no one`s surprise, he has been Musharraf`s constitutional adviser since the Oct `99 coup.
In his long and distinguished career Pirzada has wrestled with far graver constitutional issues. In comparison, protecting the integrity of the president`s wardrobe is child`s play, the work of a single imaginative afternoon.(Ayaz Amir)
Remember those mafia movies in which every `family` has a smart lawyer on its payroll? Whatever the mafia dons do, whatever outrages they commit, they take care to do it by the book, so that they are not on the wrong side of the law.
Permanent legal counsel to General Zia and then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan (who chewed up two National Assemblies) was Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada in whose hands the Constitution has been so much plasticine.
To no one`s surprise, he has been Musharraf`s constitutional adviser since the Oct `99 coup.
In his long and distinguished career Pirzada has wrestled with far graver constitutional issues. In comparison, protecting the integrity of the president`s wardrobe is child`s play, the work of a single imaginative afternoon.(Ayaz Amir)
#92 Posted by nasah on September 11, 2004 1:18:47 pm
BAGRAM, Afghanistan - The trail has gone cold in the hunt for suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Osama bin Laden three years after the audacious attacks, but the al-Qaida chief and his No. 2 are still orchestrating strikes like the recent suicide car bombing of a U.S. security firm in Kabul, a top American commander said Saturday.
Osama may be dead, says Sheikh Rashid, Musharraf`s Minister for (Dis)-Information...
Osama may be dead, says Sheikh Rashid, Musharraf`s Minister for (Dis)-Information...
#93 Posted by nukecular on September 11, 2004 3:11:22 pm
Arjun - I think you proved my point.
I acknowledged that there are militant camps in Pakistan,
I wrote:
`That a part of Pakistan has become a training ground for Islamic extremists is undeniable. India can rightfully claim that many Kashmiri freedom fighters have learnt their skills in Pakistan, before fighting the Indian army and killing innocent civilians in Kashmir.`
The times article said that these organisations were influential and had bases all over Pak, especially in NWFP. I wrote:
`The religious organisations have a tremendous influence on Pakistani society. Despite being in such a minority, they are a violent and unsophisticated lot (now pretty much all over Pakistan in small pockets, with a large population in the NWFP and Baluchistan).`
I also acknowledged that the militants were allowed to cross over the LoC (by the military) as the government could not afford to contain the backlash that would occur if it tried to stop them. I wrote:
`So what incentive does the government have to close the camps down (or to try to stop Jehadis from crossing the border into Indian Kashmir)...The army generals are passionate about Kashmir, and as you have probably seen over the last five years, are answerable to no civilian. `
As per their funding, the times article clearly stated that these people do their own dirty work by collecting money on streets and from a few wealthy individuals. The government does not finance them. I wrote:
`These camps are self financing...But, as I said earlier, the government itself is probably not involved in funding these organisations. They are most likely privately run and operated in secrecy in areas such as Baluchistan and the NWFP.`
I hope you`re getting an idea of my point about the `people and government being held hostage by these organisations`.
You wrote:
`This isn`t about opinion...This is about a different worldview...Pakistanis still refuse to believe the jihadis are fully backed by their government, despite the overwheling evidence....of course, that wouldn`t be new..`
I think I answered this in my previous post:
`The Pakistani government is not equipped to deal with an uprising that should result if it `reversed` its policy on Kashmir...Unless the government wishes to risk a full scale bloody conflict with them, trying to crack down on their training camps is strictly unadvisable...Infact, given such a move would only serve to alienate the people of Pakistan and cause an uprising in the country, this option is clearly very unattractive.``
Finally, you wrote:
`Hard to have a rational discussion with people in denial...just as there is no point in the US trying to win the hearts and minds of people who think 4000 jews were missing from the wtc on 9/11... `
Just to let you know, I dont believe in conspiracy theories. And please, stop categorising all Pakistanis as being the same. It`s downright insulting!
So, you see, Arjun, we dont really disagree with anything afterall! I pretty much agree with everything you said. If you, and the Indian government, were to understand the depth of the problem, you might realise how difficult addressing it is for the Pakistani government.
I`ll close with something I wrote in my previous post:
`Its worth noting that the only reason for the current operations in Waziristan and Baluchistan is the American pressure to hand over any `terrorists`. Were that pressure not there, the government wouldnt raise a finger.
If India wants to address the Kashmir issue it must engage with the Pakistani government, which is its only conduit to the extremist groups (without going to war with Pakistan itself). It will have to start thinking like the Americans i.e. make Pakistan fight its war for it. As it stands currently, the Pakistani government gains nothing from trying to close down Kashmiri camps (or stop cross border infiltration).`
Id be interested to read your thoughts on my reply.
Rgds
I acknowledged that there are militant camps in Pakistan,
I wrote:
`That a part of Pakistan has become a training ground for Islamic extremists is undeniable. India can rightfully claim that many Kashmiri freedom fighters have learnt their skills in Pakistan, before fighting the Indian army and killing innocent civilians in Kashmir.`
The times article said that these organisations were influential and had bases all over Pak, especially in NWFP. I wrote:
`The religious organisations have a tremendous influence on Pakistani society. Despite being in such a minority, they are a violent and unsophisticated lot (now pretty much all over Pakistan in small pockets, with a large population in the NWFP and Baluchistan).`
I also acknowledged that the militants were allowed to cross over the LoC (by the military) as the government could not afford to contain the backlash that would occur if it tried to stop them. I wrote:
`So what incentive does the government have to close the camps down (or to try to stop Jehadis from crossing the border into Indian Kashmir)...The army generals are passionate about Kashmir, and as you have probably seen over the last five years, are answerable to no civilian. `
As per their funding, the times article clearly stated that these people do their own dirty work by collecting money on streets and from a few wealthy individuals. The government does not finance them. I wrote:
`These camps are self financing...But, as I said earlier, the government itself is probably not involved in funding these organisations. They are most likely privately run and operated in secrecy in areas such as Baluchistan and the NWFP.`
I hope you`re getting an idea of my point about the `people and government being held hostage by these organisations`.
You wrote:
`This isn`t about opinion...This is about a different worldview...Pakistanis still refuse to believe the jihadis are fully backed by their government, despite the overwheling evidence....of course, that wouldn`t be new..`
I think I answered this in my previous post:
`The Pakistani government is not equipped to deal with an uprising that should result if it `reversed` its policy on Kashmir...Unless the government wishes to risk a full scale bloody conflict with them, trying to crack down on their training camps is strictly unadvisable...Infact, given such a move would only serve to alienate the people of Pakistan and cause an uprising in the country, this option is clearly very unattractive.``
Finally, you wrote:
`Hard to have a rational discussion with people in denial...just as there is no point in the US trying to win the hearts and minds of people who think 4000 jews were missing from the wtc on 9/11... `
Just to let you know, I dont believe in conspiracy theories. And please, stop categorising all Pakistanis as being the same. It`s downright insulting!
So, you see, Arjun, we dont really disagree with anything afterall! I pretty much agree with everything you said. If you, and the Indian government, were to understand the depth of the problem, you might realise how difficult addressing it is for the Pakistani government.
I`ll close with something I wrote in my previous post:
`Its worth noting that the only reason for the current operations in Waziristan and Baluchistan is the American pressure to hand over any `terrorists`. Were that pressure not there, the government wouldnt raise a finger.
If India wants to address the Kashmir issue it must engage with the Pakistani government, which is its only conduit to the extremist groups (without going to war with Pakistan itself). It will have to start thinking like the Americans i.e. make Pakistan fight its war for it. As it stands currently, the Pakistani government gains nothing from trying to close down Kashmiri camps (or stop cross border infiltration).`
Id be interested to read your thoughts on my reply.
Rgds
#94 Posted by nasah on September 11, 2004 3:18:41 pm
``Musharraf today told a gathering of army officers in the southwestern city of Quetta that Pakistan would not ``give up Kashmir,`` the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan reported.
``We have fought wars over it. Pakistan will have to ensure the interest of the Kashmiris,`` the agency quoted him as saying. ``I will meet Manmohan Singh and tell him in unequivocal terms about out stand on the issue. We will not give up Kashmir.``
Dear Lad Musharraf -- -- give back government to the Civilians -- retire -- and come home to New Delhi -- Kashmir is all yours....
``We have fought wars over it. Pakistan will have to ensure the interest of the Kashmiris,`` the agency quoted him as saying. ``I will meet Manmohan Singh and tell him in unequivocal terms about out stand on the issue. We will not give up Kashmir.``
Dear Lad Musharraf -- -- give back government to the Civilians -- retire -- and come home to New Delhi -- Kashmir is all yours....
#95 Posted by nukecular on September 11, 2004 5:41:53 pm
I laughed out loud when i read your post...funny stuff...
#96 Posted by teshah on September 12, 2004 5:07:04 pm
85 by godot
Have you seen SA bowing before the blackstone and then offering `nimaze istisqa` praying for rain to fall in Pakistan in Saudi Arabia, a country where rain seldom falls. All this shown on TV just to befool the people. What was the result of his show. A few clouds present on the sky of Pakistan also disappeared.
My dear a good banker cannot necessarily be a good pm. How can a man at war with Allah, a master of `soodkhori`, filling the coffers of his masters by skinning the people can have the qualities of a pm. He is bragging all the time about 10 billion dollers, but does not the people are crying `aata, aata`. He is the blood sucker of the first water, seems like production of a military farm.
Have you seen SA bowing before the blackstone and then offering `nimaze istisqa` praying for rain to fall in Pakistan in Saudi Arabia, a country where rain seldom falls. All this shown on TV just to befool the people. What was the result of his show. A few clouds present on the sky of Pakistan also disappeared.
My dear a good banker cannot necessarily be a good pm. How can a man at war with Allah, a master of `soodkhori`, filling the coffers of his masters by skinning the people can have the qualities of a pm. He is bragging all the time about 10 billion dollers, but does not the people are crying `aata, aata`. He is the blood sucker of the first water, seems like production of a military farm.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- khakiflash: I've got so much... Nothing Queer About It
- Saleem_Chauhan: the whole world is... The Future of Indo
- laddu: Re: # 40. it is... The Future of Indo
- tahmed32: and as for this... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: #173 GT: In other... Pleas For Sanity as
- GT: tahmed: You are simply a... Pleas For Sanity as
- Pew_Research: Following a visit to... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: #170 is to GT... Pleas For Sanity as
