Pervez Musharraf Ko Peace Do

madani: no disrespect, but why as a pakistani should i care about him? because he was an amir?? sorry to sound cynical, but i think this VIP culture of pakistan smells like the karachi fish market.

ahmedzai: thanks, and glad you enjoyed reading that post, and hopefully the lengthy post below (which responds to rsridhar) will prove to be half as much fun to read as I have had writing it. I would appreciate any comments or corrections you may wish to make.

rsridhar: you write ``Part of it is primitive, part of it is highly westernized ``

The opposite of primitive is not westernized. It is civilized.

To continue the examples I provided in my earlier post:

1. The brits were civilized back in the 1700`s when they had parliament look into Clive`s shenanigans in India, and when they had his fellow englishman make that impassioned speech I mentioned where he condemned Clive as the ``common enemy and oppressor of all``. Similarly (to use another example) the brits were civilized in the mid-1800`s when, instead of celebrating the conquest of Sindh, the british magazine ``Punch`` published a cartoon of Napier with the word ``Peccavi`` (Latin for ``I have sinned``, which of sounds the same as ``I have Sindh`` and the double-meaning of course was that his conquest of Sindh was a sin).

2. The muslims were primitive at the time, since Ahmed Shah Abdali (who looted delhi) was - far from being held accountable for his actions by his own people, actins that he committed at the same time as Clives, and far more egregious - the conquering hero. Shah Waliullah, in many ways a thoughtful man, was nevertheless primitive insofar as he actually invited Abdali to take over Delhi - perhaps he didnt realize what this would mean for the delhiites, I dont know. But as far as I know, even he never condemned these actions.

3. The hindus were primitive throughout their history (i gave the example of Cholas, who were tearing down hindu temples from neighboring states, looting and raping, at the same time that ghazni was tearing down hindu temples in the north, and the temple of Tanjore which I understand is among the tallest hindu temples, is a monument to the savagery of hindus among one another). And the hindus remain primitive today when they continue to celebrate primitive men like shiva ji (who were in it for their own bloody selves, not for any principles) ``heroes``.

I will agree with you that in getting a democracy functioning, India is headed in the right direction.

I dont share your view about Pakistan - since you ignore the social and economic progress taking place in Pakistan, as well as the large middle class, which ensures that it is a question of time before our political institutions catch up as well. 20-30 years from now, Pakistan may well be ahead of India in terms of political maturity.

So, dont confuse ``westernized`` with ``primitive``. They may think they are very cosmopolitan in india, but if the best they can do is have destroyers of other people`s places of worship like advani as national leaders - then they have a long way to go before they catch up with where the brits were centuries ago. Similarly, in Pakistan, Musharaff may be a snappy dresser - but when he thinks Mukhtaran Mai is the problem and not the corrupt police force or the criminals who attacked her - then he lacks the level of civilization possessed by that maulvi who brought this rape to the attention of the friday prayer goers. That village maulvi, to my mind, is more civilized than all the desi babus (some of them no doubt carrying US passports and so forth) on chowk who were couldnt get it why people in the US were paying so much attention to a mere Mai.

Very sad news for all Pakistanis.

Kuwait`s Emir dead: official KUWAIT CITY, Jan 15, 2006 (AFP) - The Emir of oil-rich Kuwait, Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad al-Sabah, died on Sunday aged 77, according to an Emiri court statement read on state television by information minister Anas al-Rasheed. The statement announced a 40-day period of mourning. Government offices will be closed for three days. Sheikh Jaber, who ruled since 1978, had been ill since suffering a brain hemorrhage in September 2001. (Posted @ 09:15 PST)

May be this link will work

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 01 15 story_15-1-2006_pg3_6

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 01 15 story_15-1-2006_pg3_6

worth pondering over.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400961.html

``U.S. Strike On Al Qaeda Top Deputy Said to Fail
17 Civilians Dead in Attack; Tens of Thousands Protest

By Griff Witte and Kamran Khan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, January 15, 2006; Page A01

KABUL, Afghanistan, Jan. 14 -- Pakistani officials said Saturday that a U.S. missile strike intended to kill al Qaeda deputy Ayman Zawahiri had missed its target but had killed 17 people, including six women and six children.``

---

Six women and six children = 12 people out of 17.
The remaining 5 were men.

---

But, New York Times is reporting 11 militants were killed (Post 434).
7 Arabs, 4 Punjabis = 11 militants.

---

Can anyone make sense out of these two reports? Both of these reports are being quoted from Pakistani officials.

Respectfully submitted,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/international/asia/15pakistan.html?hp&ex=1137301200&en=82150cfff0450a67&ei=5094&partner=homepage

``Local officials in the Bajaur district, where the airstrike happened, said 18 civilians had been killed in the attack, including six children. But the senior Pakistani official who spoke of Mr. Zawahiri suggested that the death toll was higher, and he said that at least 11 militants had been killed in the attack. Seven of the dead were Arab fighters, and another four were Pakistani militants from Punjab Province, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the news media.``

---

Is the attack justified?

Respectfully submitted,

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/jan-2006/15/columns3.php

US bombing raids

ABID ULLAH JAN
Aircraft from Afghanistan have once more attacked Pakistan killing 18 Pakistanis in remote villages. Even non-US sources, such as Al-Jazeera has adopted the tone of embedded journalists, telling the world that the US attack on Pakistan killed 18 people in ``a village stronghold of pro-Taliban Islamists.``

The incident in Bajaur tribal region on December 13 came days after Pakistan lodged a useless protest with US-led forces in Afghanistan, saying cross-border firing in the nearby Waziristan area last weekend killed eight people.
A Pakistani intelligence official said two aircraft had come in from Afghanistan and fired two or three missiles. Where is the US military spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Jerry O`Hara, followed the footsteps of his liar commander-in-chief and said there were no reports of US forces operating in the Damadola area.

This incident is yet another evidence that Pakistan has become a big loser after September 11 with the misconception that it had no option except bending backwards to the US demands. The mantra: Pakistan had no option. It either had to join the US aggression or invite Bush`s wrath. Had Musharraf hesitated, the Americans would have clobbered Pakistan`s military and `strategic` assets and allowed India to attack. By siding with Bush, Pakistan has been saved from American anger and its own ``extremists.`` It has also been able to break out of its isolation and rejoin the international mainstream.

However, do we see any signs of such successes? Did the United States spare Pakistan? Are not our troops and people dying? The ``president house`` might be safe, but are the rest of homes in Pakistan safe from the American aggression? No one cares to answer a simple question. What would Pakistan have lost if it had chosen to negotiate the fine print of our cooperation with the US? Even America`s European allies - with the exception, of course, of Britain-took some time to make up their minds before rushing in with offers of help.
Would Pakistan have been declared international terrorist if Musharraf had negotiated with some toughness instead of being dazzled by the sudden attention he started getting? Now that the euphoria has gone, what do Musharraf and his minions have to show for his caving in? Musharraf got his exclusive dinners with Bush and Blair and accolades from Zionist groups and Islamophobes. Beyond that, what did he get? The nation is facing what he wanted to avoid: aggression of the United States of America. Pakistan didn`t face such bloody air strikes even when it based and trained anti-Soviet occupation forces in Pakistan and used Pakistan as a launching pad for what was pure terrorism to the Soviet supported government in Afghanistan.

From a systemic perspective, 9/11 helped Washington establish its military presence in Pakistan and also re-establish the ``red lines`` that had disappeared after the collapse of the Soviet superpower, impelling Washington to restrain its Pakistani client state. The key factor in all these developments is wrong judgement of the government. The situation could be totally different under a civilian government.

Pakistani nation is now facing double wrath: the wrath of its own armed forces and the wrath of the US aggression. The nation might have faced at least the aggression from outside, had Musharraf decided not to join the United States in its war of aggression on Afghanistan. Now it has to reel under the occupation of its own armed forces as well as withstand the worst of the US onslaught.

The line between independence and occupation of Pakistan by its own armed forces is getting finer with each passing day. The cost of weakness on the part of the military leadership is now confirmed as an occupation without a military conquest. Pakistan has, unfortunately, become the first victim of this new kind of occupation - a model of a ``failed state`` perfectly controlled from outside with curtailed sovereignty and limited freedoms. Do we see any difference between the Kazai and Musharraf regime? In Afghanistan, the US forces go out and bomb Afghans to death as and when they like. The same are they doing in Pakistan.

The only difference between the US occupation of Iraq, for instance, and Pakistan is that the collaborating military in Iraq is under training. In Pakistan, the US has found a well-trained and well-established army to serve its objectives for free. However, even this is not the end of the story. The general has to surrender more because despite his regime`s wholehearted sacrifice of all the principles of justice and the norms of independent states, American analysts, such as Leon T. Hadar of the Cato Institute, consider Pakistan ``with its dictatorship and failed economy`` a ``reluctant partner`` and a ``potential long term adversary.``

Therefore, instead of friendship or partnership on the pattern of India-US relations, occupation is a must and here the Pakistani nation is: fully occupied. Besides being bombed by the US, now on regular basis, hundreds of people, pointed out by the intelligence of occupation forces, are routinely rounded up in order to placate Washington.

Pakistan`s occupation by its own military will continue in one form or another until it breathes its last, for the simple reason that the nation itself is half-dead. A substantial part of a nation dies the day its people start dying for others against their will. The soul of a nation is fatally wounded the day its armed forces start leading it in a battle against its raison d`être. Eliminate a nation`s purpose, and you extinguish its spark of life. The country that acquiesces in evil can hardly hope to enjoy the benefits of goodness. No one draws freedom or life from a land of oppression and death.

---

Any comment?

Respectfully submitted,

Not only is Pakiland listening to Kerry, they`re now asking for a deal like the one India signed..now why would pakiland chose to give up it`s independence in it`s nuclear program, something chowk`s cab driver tells us a nuclear deal means..

Pak, US discuss N-cooperation

from SHAIQ HUSSAIN
ISLAMABAD - Former US presidential candidate John Kerry on Saturday said Pakistan needed to continue with its efforts against nuclear proliferation if it wished a nuclear cooperation pact with the United States on the pattern of Indo-US agreement.

Kerry said India was a democracy and in all the years of its involvement in nuclear activities it had adhered to nuclear non-proliferation agreements, which was not yet true of Pakistan though it was moving in this direction.

where`s goatbrain HP? cab duty on weekends? What`s that he was saying about kerry?

re:#418 by tahmed32
Please read my posts to Manto about failed states. I think they are very instructive.
Posting articles that bring out the reality does not amount to having ill-will about anything or anybody.
Sridhar

re: tahmed`s post
(one more thing: india and pakistan are BOTH primitive societies, with communal (or sectarian, in Pakistan) strife. so no point at pointing fingers at one another...)
Much of Pak is tribal and by definition primitive.
I doubt the same can be said about India. AS Nehru said once ``In India, centuries live together``. Part of it is primitive, part of it is highly westernized (eg Goa, Bombay etc).
The point is: which way are the 2 nations heading.
India is on the right track though it still has to deal with mass scale corruption in high places, overcrowding ete etc.
It is for Pakis to figure out where Pakistan is heading.
From where i sit, the view is not pleasant.
Sridhar

General does not need peace from India. If general built 2 million strong army with 3 million jehadis then he will not need to beg. This begging game is not going to solve anything specially kashmir and question of Muslim supremacy by talking to Indians. When he lines up his 2 million regulars alond with 3 million irregulars then there will be point in talking. No body got anything without fight and sacraficing. Indian appetite is increasing every day. FV has put good Views of HQ why India should talk and is well done job . But diplomacy has no value , these central questions will be decided by steel and blood. Talking talking is no problem its like pouring sweet water in sea and expecting sea turning sweet. We hjave failed completely as we are not ready to sacrafice and without sacrafice Kashmir is day day pipedream. If we really want to fight for kashmir ``reaally`` then nation should get ready for war as that is only solution. We are not imposing taxes like India did for years as bangladesh rfugees tax for years and should built war chest and then talk. Iranian greatest leader Mr. Khomani said is right money walks bul hee talks. Mr. K was absolutely right. Kashmiris will start thinking pakistan thinks first about kashir or itself. Now what we will gain by providing gas to India. This will make india strong which is detrimental thing. The aim of general to break india at 100 tukare and then slowly grab little pieces and digest slowly. That is what musharaff should do than fighting in B.Stan but expand eastward. People have become slacked, boys and girls are getting fat obase and junking on lard and american junk food lakhani/ McDonalds bad food. They can not run 3 miles without stopping or hold pants on waiste as they tummies are fat that is problem ,Lack of exercise combined wit addictuon to white poison to sugar and eating throw away fat as delicasy and dumping sewage in Karachi seacoast.Basically general can go on begging for next 10 years abd Indians will not give damn as they have not budged from their position. Peace talk is garbage only war preparation can help. Beggers get nothing, general can get Kashir if he defeats Indian army in battlefield and puts humilating conditions. If we are seroius about Kashmir there should not be cricket match but war preparation. General needs to stp day dreaming going out for foren tours but get ready in battle dress fatigue and lead army and attack on India leading himself then only people will be ready for ultimates sacrafice othetwise its all lafangebazi and drama and this drama has gone for over 50 years and loosing game sand bifercation of country and demise of great southindian muslim Ummah. Its farce made by this commercial army avoiding war with india and last 50 years journey is from nothing to nothing and raskals enjoy all power and lose half country. Time has come some educated people like Manto, HP etc tell general to Put up or shut up its miserable he has to use woman editor to send such begging pleas.

General does not need peace from India. If general built 2 million strong army with 3 million jehadis then he will not need to beg. This begging game is not going to solve anything specially kashmir and question of Muslim supremacy by talking to Indians. When he lines up his 2 million regulars alond with 3 million irregulars then there will be point in talking. No body got anything without fight and sacraficing. Indian appetite is increasing every day. FV has put good Views of HQ why India should talk and is well done job . But diplomacy has no value , these central questions will be decided by steel and blood. Talking talking is no problem its like pouring sweet water in sea and expecting sea turning sweet. We hjave failed completely as we are not ready to sacrafice and without sacrafice Kashmir is day day pipedream. If we really want to fight for kashmir ``reaally`` then nation should get ready for war as that is only solution. We are not imposing taxes like India did for years as bangladesh rfugees tax for years and should built war chest and then talk. Iranian greatest leader Mr. Khomani said is right money walks bul hee talks. Mr. K was absolutely right. Kashmiris will start thinking pakistan thinks first about kashir or itself. Now what we will gain by providing gas to India. This will make india strong which is detrimental thing. The aim of general to break india at 100 tukare and then slowly grab little pieces and digest slowly. That is what musharaff should do than fighting in B.Stan but expand eastward. People have become slacked, boys and girls are getting fat obase and junking on lard and american junk food lakhani/ McDonalds bad food. They can not run 3 miles without stopping or hold pants on waiste as they tummies are fat that is problem ,Lack of exercise combined wit addictuon to white poison to sugar and eating throw away fat as delicasy and dumping sewage in Karachi seacoast.Basically general can go on begging for next 10 years abd Indians will not give damn as they have not budged from their position. Peace talk is garbage only war preparation can help. Beggers get nothing, general can get Kashir if he defeats Indian army in battlefield and puts humilating conditions. If we are seroius about Kashmir there should not be cricket match but war preparation. General needs to stp day dreaming going out for foren tours but get ready in battle dress fatigue and lead army and attack on India leading himself then only people will be ready for ultimates sacrafice othetwise its all lafangebazi and drama and this drama has gone for over 50 years and loosing game sand bifercation of country and demise of great southindian muslim Ummah. Its farce made by this commercial army avoiding war with india and last 50 years journey is from nothing to nothing and raskals enjoy all power and lose half country. Time has come some educated people like Manto, HP etc tell general to Put up or shut up its miserable he has to use woman editor to send such begging pleas.

Tahmed:

I have enjoyed reading many of your posts and I agree with you on many issues like Muslims and Pakistanis need an introspection to improve ourselves, stop blaming the west for every failure of ours and engaging in lengthy discussions with Indians. Lengthy discussions is something I have never been able to do for my basic tendency to loose interest soon hahaha.

Now your post # 420 is again en eye opener. I admire the historic references.

da Khudaye pa aman

tahmed:

The example of discussion of Indian military role in the US House of Representatives was given to masanamuto as an example. This was not realised by shridhar in his post.

Here is a very good link to read. Of special interest is part 2, especially page 16 onwards.

http://www.ceri-sciences-po.org/archive/jan03/artism.pdf

The paper discusses the US-India strategic relationship that all Pakistanis already understand, but Indians like Arjun keep reminding us. However, it also talks about the US relationship with Pakistan, the worries that India is too focussed regionally (a tendency shown in abundance by Indians on Chowk) and is not able to rise up from the petty issues with Pakistan.

Of interest to Pakistanis should also be the fact, which this paper does not discuss due primarily to its publication time, that we have actually made quite a progression from looking at smaller regional issues to start looking at global issues like UN reforms, forging relationships with major European players, taking a lead role within Islamic countries, developing relationship with Israel, and many other matters.

However, in my opinion Pakistan should say NO with a smile to the bigger role that alliance on Afghanistan has for Pakistan.

Finally, imho, even strategic relationships are relative in terms. Few decades back in time, US used the terms like long term alliance, as opposed to `strategic relationship`, with Pakistan, a term that was in vogue in those times. The real test for us would be that how much can we keep India entangled regionally, but at the same time, continue to grow globally in stature, not at the cost of India, but as a benefit to ourselves.