Pak Armed Forces vs. Pakistan

Re: # 256: zeemax, what kinda cheap crack you`re smoking? Or wait, which patriotic/army-praised songs you`re listening to? I really feel sorry for people like you...and no I don`t need to give you an analysis or explanation to support my statement.

Bold...to the point...excellent. Good Job Mr. Khan.

masadi,

This is what tahmed wants ...

Let me remind this Quran touting hypocrite of this aya of the Quran (4:85)

tahmed writes <<< Musharaff is finally taking what many would consider to be long overdue action against terrorists in Pakistan. And the tribal areas of Waziristan are the place where terrorists from the middle east and central asia had established themselves and with the help of local henchmen were trying to re-establish themselves after being kicked out of Afghanistan by the US. >>>

Once again he is supporting crimes against humanity being carried out in tune with the desires of the US elite, regardless of how many innocents get killed in the process or the problems it might create for the country. He had no problem when this same US elite was setting up shop over there to fight the soviets using the same jihadis. He had no problem then but now that same set up becomes terrorist camp instead of freedom base. This change of face is small time crime by this criminal compared to how he was supporting colonialism as ``truth inspired Anglo Saxon tradition``.

re:#240 by masadi
Masadi dude,
If only u had eaten the stuff i sent u, u would not be so angry. the stuff not only increases the I.Q, it also keeps the tempers down.
Now, u are right. US did not invade every other nation when it should have, just to teach others to behave!
It did invade Iraq.
You ask why.
Because Iraq has Oil.
Tut, tut. Saddam was being a damn idiot.
People with Oil should behave responsibly.
``acchay bacchey aisa nahin kaartey``
So, US invaded Iraq and poured some oil down Saddam`s anal orifice.
Now, every body (including Saddam) is happy.
Sridhar

Tahmed sahib,

I do not wish to defend the Indian state`s human rights excesses anywhere-in Nagaland, JK, Punjab.

As far as the Waziristan/Wana/Baluchistan issue is concerned I have no objection if the Pak Army takes action against militants that is the legitimate business of Pak Army but from what I read (I may be wrong or maybe reading the wrong people`s reports) there are severe civilian casualties particularly in Baluchistan, where bystanders are being targetted.

Interestingly in NWFP/Baluchistan on your own side and Punjab/J&K in my side, the violence and bloodletting was completely unnecessary. had Indira not created the Khalistan movement to score political points and successive Indian govts not denied free and fair polls to J&K, the problem wouldnt have reached these proportions. The same is even truer for your side- In one words Blowback.

But at any rate Indian forces have never used bombers and helicopter gunships on their own people.

Regards

harish hyd #249 damn. you write faster than i do. i have used up my chowk time for the day, but will be back to read this post and get back to you. cheers.

harish hyd #244 you write Considering the fact that Pakistan didn`t have nukes (at least openly) until 1998, what do you think could have been the reason India didn`t attack Pakistan since then?

Good question. One reason of course is that even a conventional war between India and Pakistan would not be a Sunday afternoon picnic. Nor would the outcome of the war be certain (1965 was after all a stalemate with no major breakthroughs by either side). And yet, the two countries came to war at least once as I recall during that period (during Zia days, when Zia defused the issue by simply going to India to watch a cricket game!!)

So, let me re-state what I said based on your point - After nuclear weapons, the question of a full-scale war is basically out. This in turn has given an impetus to peace, starting with BJP leader Vajpayee visiting Lahore just an year after the BJP blew 5 bombs next to Pakistan. This impetus to peace is a clear switch from the pre-1998 politics of India and Pakistan. Does this make more sense?

you write do you believe that India if it had wanted, couldn`t have taken possession of ``Azad`` Kashmir in exchange for control of East Pakistan, immediately after or even in 1971, when it forced a humiliating Paki surrender?

There is no point in speculating on what could have happened. However, I will agree that in 1971 not just Kashmir but all of Pakistan could possibly have been overrun. What saved Pakistan was a number of factors. The most important being I think that it is one thing to defeat 90,000 troops fighting away from home, surrounded by a hostile population, with no supply lines, no air cover (6 F-86`s only, as I recall). West Pakistan (including Kashmir) would have been a different story obviously. US pressure (which included as I recall, diplomatic pressure backed by the sending of the US 7th fleet from the Pacific to South Asian waters), was another significant factor.

and btw, while not wishing to take away from our Indian cousins the joy of defeating an army of 90,000 muslims after a thousand years of constant drubbing (as indira gandhi herself noted in a widely broadcast speech after this victory!!), I should note that there was nothing humiliating for that army of 90,000 to have surrendered under the conditions mentioned above. But dont let me spoil the joy of this ``victory`` . :-)

#248 by tahmed32

[To be consistent with past accusations of Pakistan harboring terrorist, I would expect you as an Indian to be applauding this action against terrorists.]

This is the height of over-simplification. Why would India applaud action against Al-Qaeda and Taliban, when it hasn`t been impacted by these outfits in the first place? Al-Qaeda and Taliban are not active inside India, at least not on record as of yet. In contrast, the LeT, HuM, JeM, etc. have struck in in places as far off as Bangalore. Yet their leaders Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, Syed Salahuddin, and Maulana Masood Azhar continue to operate freely in Pakistan.

[I wont discuss Indian government actions against Nagas and Kashmiris and Sikhs here - but you may want to remind yourself that Operation BlueStar was not the name of a bollywood movie.]

You sure know the difference between separatist movements and a movement fighting for its just rights, don`t you? Nagas, Kashmiris, and Sikhs have been at the receiving end of military action because they wanted to secede from the Indian state. Time and again, Baloch leaders have emphasized that their movement is not for secession from Pakistan, but for their legitimate rights as a Paki province.

majumdar #243 For years now on chowk I have been reading accusations from Indians of Pakistan having become a terrorist base. Musharaff is finally taking what many would consider to be long overdue action against terrorists in Pakistan. And the tribal areas of Waziristan are the place where terrorists from the middle east and central asia had established themselves and with the help of local henchmen were trying to re-establish themselves after being kicked out of Afghanistan by the US.

To be consistent with past accusations of Pakistan harboring terrorist, I would expect you as an Indian to be applauding this action against terrorists. But no. Now you accuse Pakistan of attacking its own people. (I wont discuss Indian government actions against Nagas and Kashmiris and Sikhs here - but you may want to remind yourself that Operation BlueStar was not the name of a bollywood movie).

So what does prove: that Indians like you are interested only in defaming Pakistan even if it comes at the cost of what one would consider to be Indian self-interest (i.e. the wiping out of terrorist bases in Pakistan) .

P.S : #245 The first `Martial Law` wasn`t even by the army. It was by a civilian beurocrat, Iskandar Mirza, the President. Ayub Khan was just the `Martial Law-Administrator``. It`s besides the point that Ayub Khan got his boss physically slapped around and kicked out of the country in three weeks.

It is said that when Begum Naheed Mirza asked her army guards for something for her headache, she was duly presented with aspirin alongwith a bill for the same. But that is neither here nor there.

#238 by HP

Absolutely correct. Yes it does sound same ... same ... like SATIMES.COM who couldn`t keep up with the domain fee and have chosen Chowk because its free.

And yes I did notice Gulrukh is actually one word, not two. Strange ... strange ...

#237 by malik.m.imran

Malik Saheb, naraaz kyoon hotey ho? Ok I`ll try to come up with something better.

I am no supporter of military rule or generals sitting in politician`s chairs. However, ever wondered why the military did not grab power when Jinnah died, did not grab power when Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated, did not grab power during 9 out of 11 years after partition when there wasn`t even any article 6 of the constitution to violate, in fact there wasn`t even a constitution AT ALL. Did not grab power when 7 governments changed in 9 years due to floor-crossings and bickerings among politicians, in fact did not step in at all until the debauchery of Ghulam Mohammad and Iskander Mirza had grown beyond all conceivable limits. It wasn`t Ayub Khan`s fault. It was the politicians who were a total failure and there was no institution left other than the army to run the country rather than anarchy and collapse.

Let`s take the other times army stepped in. Yahya Khan was an interim ruler and duly handed over whatever remained of Pak to ZAB. Zia had been forced to step in by PNA politicians, specifically Asghar Khan, Mufti Mahmood and Prof. Ghafoor who all have since admitted their role by saying the army was better for 90 days for fresh elections without ZAB in power. As it transpired, Zia liked so much to be on TV that those 90 days turned into 11 years. Musharraf, even if assumed had ambitions though I believe he didn`t, would have been hard put to find a justification bad enough to depose an elected government in this time and day. Nawaz himself invited him in by sacking him and placing someone from the Engineering Corps whom neither had seen any action nor had any credibility with the top Army brass. So much so that the GHQ refused to provide uniform ribbons for the cerimony and the same had to be purchased from some costume store in Raja Bazaar to decorate the new COAS with. So crude and awkward or `bhonda` was this step of NS. During his return from Columbo, Musharraf had to choose between the 4 Corp Commanders choosing a ruler from amongst themselves and himself living in ignominy and disgrace, or becoming the ruler himself. He obviously chose the latter. The point is, the coup was a foregone conclusion and on the way the moment Musharraf was sacked, and was not Musharraf`s decision but that of the 4 Corps commanders who had decided to overturn NS before Musharraf even came to know he had been sacked.

Now, tell me from the above history when was it the Army`s fault? In each of the instances, it was the politicians who failed the country, and continue to do so.

#213 by tahmed32

[Thus, you talk about pakistanis abandoning their dead at kargill as if that has any relevance to the fact that india dare not ever launch a full scale war against pakistan again because of these nuclear weapons.]

No one in his right mind in India, and certainly not the men who matter have ever even contemplated a mini-war let alone a full-scale war except in retaliation. The last major war between the two took place in 1971. Considering the fact that Pakistan didn`t have nukes (at least openly) until 1998, what do you think could have been the reason India didn`t attack Pakistan since then? So your entire premise is off-mark to begin with.

[A standoff means what it says - i.e. a maintenance of the status quo. A standoff does not mean one side changes the status quo.]

And pray tell us when India has ever attempted to change the status quo? It is only Pakistan that as the revisionist power attempted to grab Kashmir, not the other way round. India is comfortable with whatever portion of Kashmir it has under its control. But seriously, do you believe that India if it had wanted, couldn`t have taken possession of ``Azad`` Kashmir in exchange for control of East Pakistan, immediately after or even in 1971, when it forced a humiliating Paki surrender?

Tahmed sahib

(So, singlehandedly, Indians brilliantly ensured that their dreams of mahabharat would end where the Pakistan border begins, and they also ensured that the millions of bengalis as well as the millions of sikhs would switch from being enemies to best pals of Pakistan.

Like I said, with enemies like Indians, who needs friends. ha! ha!)

With friends like USA (Bajaur) and rulers like Musharraf- bombing and strafing their own citizens in Wana, Waziristan and Baluchistan - Pakistanis dont need enemies either. Ha!Ha!Ha!

By the way Mahabharat does not mean Greater India it means a fight between cousins- the kind that is often seen in Shia Mosques.

Regards