Stagnating Pakistan-Iran Relations

Re: #104 by behram1 on December 3, 2006 12:14pm PT

---

The main reason Parsees survive is because they do not convert people in to their faith. This is very smart politically. Proselytizing one`s faith has been the major reason of fights and arguments between faiths that go out of their way in proselitization.

---

Conversion plays a role towards inflaming the majority for sure. However there are many other factors.

Your assertion fails on many examples. Why were the Iranian Jews kicked out by Ayatullahs even when the Jews do not proselytize?

Being secular, apolitical, and business oriented are all those factors that help a minority thrive in an alien region.

Shias should have been at the forefront of secularist trends in Pakistan. Unfortunately many of them chose to be the Ayatullah-lackeys. They received money and arms from Iran. Parsis on the other hand do not bring any such ills to Pakistan and that is why they are largely spared.

p.s. Off course many Sunnis chose to be lackeys of Saudi Wahabis. Even now our FATA area is in trouble because many Sunnis there want to align themselves with wahabis.

#95 by Naqshbandi on December 3, 2006 8:14am PT


Mr. Zia al Haq and billions of Saudi petro-dollars.


and for the record, the vast majority of pakis were for Zia`s policy in afghanistan..the whole idea of indoctrination of the paki population to produce islamic jihadis...

most pakis were down with it when the policy was bringing them american aid and saudi $$...

now, for the pakis, the afghan policy is like bellbottoms...people who wore them in the 70s completely deny wearing them because it looks ridiculous now...

Re: #103 by tahmed32 on December 3, 2006 11:55am PT

---

The corrected formula is described in two steps, as follows:

1. SI -> U/S -> Z -> Mujahadeen -> SR
2. Z -> Mullahs

where U/S are the US and Saudi resources that became available to fight the Soviets, which went to Z (=Zia) who passed them to the Mujahadeen (where in fact the secular Massoud was the leading fighter as I recall from those days) who led to SR (Soviet Retreat).

---

T sahib, a beautiful rendering of history as a set of mathematical formulas. Simply brilliant!

It definitely holds true for Wahabist Mullahs (with some assumptions + initial conditions).

However your model needs to add few more equations for money flow to Shia fundoos from Ayatullahs. Make sure you get the correct time values and initial conditions. I am sure you an unbiased person when it comes to putting mathematical models together.

---

after the soviet retreat, Zia fomented a civil war in Afghanistan by introducing the Taliban (bred and trained in Pakistan) and helping them win. During this time he also allowed terrorist mullah organizations to spring up in Pakistan.

I am sure you know all this. I am just reminding you of this so you dont start short-circuiting history. If Pakistan is to emerge as a progressive nation, it is important to remain mindful of the facts.

---

Yes Siri! facts are facts. Ignoring them is not going to help. So please remember the Ayatullahs, their money, and arms coming straight to Shia-fundoos all over the world. Hizbullah being the latest example.

Now going back to the ``facts``, your statement ``Zia fomented a civil war in Afghanistan`` is the hight of being lazy with the facts. What happened to all your mathematical skills? Talibanic menace was just one part of the equation. Why to ignore NA-NA (Not available Northern Alliance)? Are you jealous that Taliban were able to bamboozle their way through an alliance supported by Iran, India, Russia, and Turkey?

Post-Soviet Afghanistan was a free-for-all, get-your-bazooka-in-there land. Everyone from Ruskies, to Turks, to Indians, to Iranians had a go at the hapless Afghan body. Why do you pick on Zia only? Is that because his was the biggest? Ayatullahs lost in Afghanistan big time first, followed by Talibans. Why are you angry at Talibans only?

Note how your personal bias is no good for maths, physics, or any other skills that you may acquired on the way.

[However we should never ignore the fact that our tiny minorities like Parsis have survived and even thrived in the same environment.]

The main reason Parsees survive is because they do not convert people in to their faith. This is very smart politically. Proselytizing one`s faith has been the major reason of fights and arguments between faiths that go out of their way in proselitization.

taikanout; you write ``Mullahs in Pakistan (both Shia an Sunnis) became strong when they got money after Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Should we blame Zia for that Afghan invasion too? ``

The above implies that SI -> Mullahs

where SI=Soviet Invasion of afghanistan that led to the strengthening of Mullahs. This is so simplistic that it is plain wrong.

The corrected formula is described in two steps, as follows:

1. SI -> U/S -> Z -> Mujahadeen -> SR
2. Z -> Mullahs

where U/S are the US and Saudi resources that became available to fight the Soviets, which went to Z (=Zia) who passed them to the Mujahadeen (where in fact the secular Massoud was the leading fighter as I recall from those days) who led to SR (Soviet Retreat).

after the soviet retreat, Zia fomented a civil war in Afghanistan by introducing the Taliban (bred and trained in Pakistan) and helping them win. During this time he also allowed terrorist mullah organizations to spring up in Pakistan.

I am sure you know all this. I am just reminding you of this so you dont start short-circuiting history. If Pakistan is to emerge as a progressive nation, it is important to remain mindful of the facts.

Re: # 101

Praajee,

#93 was you and not Zeemax.

Re: # 100 Okhla sez

---

While I agree with about 40% of what you say,

---

Pity! 40% is not going to save you from sectarian hell.

---

I would advise you to properly interact with the murfker ZEEMAX. He has a lot of substance.

---

For chowk, I thought everyone is Murfker (hope you meant Mufakkar - intellectual). Zeema Ji was totally off-base in #93.

Self immolation is trait of Pakistani murfkers second only to being a commie-sympathizer. So blame Pakistan for everything boyz. Blame everything!

taiko cat !!!


While I agree with about 40% of what you say, I would advise you to properly interact with the murfker ZEEMAX. He has a lot of substance.

#97 by tahmed32 on December 3, 2006 8:54am PT

TAhmed, Naqshbandi, Zeemax, and others.

First thing first. It was a horrible period in Pakistan when minority groups including Shias, Ahmadis, and Christians were targeted by the ruthless Islamists. There is no denying that Pakistani majority Sunnis shamelessly failed to protect our weak, and our disadvantaged groups. I hope we move forward in the positive direction. We also need to go back all the way to 1947 and somehow compensate those who were wrongly persecuted based on religion or ethnicity.

However we should never ignore the fact that our tiny minorities like Parsis have survived and even thrived in the same environment.

Therefore we ought to carefully analyze the root causes of sectarian ills and give the responsibility where it is due.

---

taikanout: I dont think you are right in saying that the sectarian violence in pakistan was fomented by shias. As I recall, it is shia mosques that have been bombed and shia doctors who have been targetted for killing by jehadis in the past 2-3 decades.

---

There is no doubt Shias suffered more. They were minority and in any warfare smaller and or less equipped group suffers more. If Sunnis in Iran accept money from Saudis and form the like of “Tehrik Nefaz Fiqh Wahabi”, they will surely be crushed by dominant party in Iran i.e. Shias.

So learn from Parsis. Minorities should be hall mark of secularism and not Ayatullahism.

---

While no doubt shia nuts are as rabid as sunni nuts, everything i have seen contradicts what you seem to be saying (i.e. that it is the iranian maulvis who are responsible for the sectarian violence).

---

What you saw is the same that everyone else saw regarding sectarianism. However the stuff you see is present, therefore you must read about the past if you believe in thorough analysis.


No one says Iranian Ayatullahs are the only ones who started sectarian violence.

Ayatullahs however did commit crimes in 1979 by supplying arms and money to the Shia fundoos all over the world. Iranian sponsored funddoos became strong immediately after toppling of Shah and subsequent takeover by Ayatullahs.

BTW Ayatullahs deserve all the respect for their religious contribution, however they are petty thugs when it comes to their sponsorship of Shia-terrorism.

---

indeed, it is the political leaders (zab and even more so zia) who are responsible for creating conditions in which the worst segment of pakistani society (the maulvi) gained guns and funds and political clout.

---

Well we can go back to Hazrat Adam and Mai Hawwah and blame everything on them. We can all pick and chose a particular moment in history and commence our analysis.

People who blame Zia for anti-Shia campaign do so because they want to ignore the role of Ayatullahs. And I respect that view however untrue and misguided it may be.

Mullahs in Pakistan (both Shia an Sunnis) became strong when they got money after Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Should we blame Zia for that Afghan invasion too?

Zia and Pakistani society are responsible for one thing. They all failed to band together in the anti-commie struggle. Pakistani academia and newspaper (intellectuals) are the first to get the blame. They are the ones who continued singing commie-praises while Soviet bear feasted on Afghan flesh.

Zia allowed Mullahs only because our educated class was absolutely clueless about Pakistan`s big role in the anti-commie fight. The situation is still the same. Our intellectual orgasms occur only when our academicians and journalists sleep with the likes of Chavez, Castro, and Ahmade-nejat.

With peace to all!
No respect for fundoo supporters.

#95 the links go back to several centuries BC - indeed, the very term ``india`` is a result of these links: areas constituting pakistan were the eastern province of the persian achaemenian empire back in the 4-500 BCs and contributed troops to the persian armies. these troops fought against the greeks (including at marathon i believe), and identified themselves is ``sindhians`` (people from the land of the indus river) to the persians/greeks and any other turkeys they ran into. and so, the entire subcontinent came to be known in the west as the land of indu (or sindu). in german, the official title for gypsy btw is ``sinti`` and is derived from the same land of the indus river (the gypsy language has many similarities with panjabi, including the counting system - ik, do, tin).

so, the links go back to pre-Islamic days!!

taikanout: I dont think you are right in saying that the sectarian violence in pakistan was fomented by shias. As I recall, it is shia mosques that have been bombed and shia doctors who have been targetted for killing by jehadis in the past 2-3 decades. While no doubt shia nuts are as rabid as sunni nuts, everything i have seen contradicts what you seem to be saying (i.e. that it is the iranian maulvis who are responsible for the sectarian violence).

indeed, it is the political leaders (zab and even more so zia) who are responsible for creating conditions in which the worst segment of pakistani society (the maulvi) gained guns and funds and political clout.

Re: # 94 Naqshbandi


Sure we owe a lot to the secular Iranian culture. However Ayatullah fundoo culture has nothing to do with those glorious Iran. Today`s Iran is a cesspool, and ayatullahs are the new froggy habitants of this dirty stinky moribund environment.

So don`t go around beating the drums of great Iran and expect us to follow your fundoo leaders. In fact you would be well-advised to sever your links with the fundoos. They are nothing but trouble. You are well placed in Pakistani society. But your fundoo leaders or Ayatullahs will take you down the hate-filled dirty fundoo alley and your future generations in Pakistan will ultimately suffer.

Off course some of you fundoos are settled in America. If you continue importing your Ayatullahs to the West, the predictions are even more dire. Remember, it is the same West that puts its ``suspicious`` minorities in concentration camps.

So my plea to you and others is the same. Say good bye to fundooism, and say hello to a more secular global world. If you don`t change then the future is not that good.

The Sunni Shia killings in Pakistan are a recent phenomenon, something completely disgusting, and linked directly to the rise to prominence of the Ahlul Bayt hating, Nasibi, Deobandi-Wahabis who were patronised by Mr. Zia al Haq and billions of Saudi petro-dollars.

Before that, although Sunnis and Shias have always had their religious differences, they lived together in harmony.

I think Pakistan (North Indian Muslims in general) owe such a huge debt to Persia from a cultural and linguistic perspective, not to mention the strategic importance of Iran, that it is imperative for Pakistan to develop good relations with that brotherly country. One illustration of this is that most of the serious religious literature until not to long ago was written in Persian instead of Urdu. Even Ghalib was more proud of his Farsi poetry than his Urdu (considering the latter as mere entertainment!), and Iqbal, Pakistani`s national poetm, wrote 2/3s of his ouevre in Farsi! Hafiz, Sa`di, Jami, Firdausi, Urfi, Khayyam, Ghazali, Hijwiri, Shah Waliullah, Gharib Nawaz, Nizam al Din Awliya, etc. etc., --all these are names any educated North Indian/Pakistani Muslim will be aware of and all of them are Persian. Even Huzoor Peeraan e Peer Sayyidina Abdul Qadir Jilani, Ghaus Paak, the most famous Sufi saint of them all, was Persian speaking!

#92 by zeemax on December 2, 2006 11:54pm PT

My goodness. This is the most biased hatefilled pro-Mullah pro-Ayatullah analysis I have ever seen. Zeemax you have gone through Pakistani history with an expertise of a surgeon using jackhammer to cut and fix an ailing heart.

You say and I quote

---

Let`s address these one by one in an attempt to elaborate. The sectarian troubles were started by Zia`s anti-shia zealots Lashkar-e-Jhangvi who started a campaign to have Shias declared non-Muslims in Pakistan.

---

Nothing could be further from the truth. 1979 Iranian revolution sowed the seeds of militant-Shia funding throughout the region. Thanks to the newly invigorated global Shia-Jihad, Pakistani Balochistan, and the oil-rich Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia saw the first signs of Shia militancy immediately after Khomaini assumed power in Tehran.

You make a huge error by putting a military man Zia in the same group as Ayatullah Khumaini.

No spin doctoring on your part can ever equate militant following of Khumaini with the ones for Zia. For Zia military and not the militants was the source of power. On the other hand for Khumaini, Shia militants around the globe were the source of international power. For a contemporary comparison, just see what Hizbullah is doing to their Lebanese brothers in order to please Ayatullahs.

It was the virulent hate of Khumaini and his vision of expanding Shia Islam that collided head on with the Saudi funded Wahabi militants in Pakistan. Zia`s role was always limited as a military general who was using Wahabi militants in Afghanistan (80%), in Kashmir (15%) and against Pakistani-commies+Shias (5%). These percentages are my assessment just to elaborate the relative use of Wahabi militants. Other analyst may add or subtract these numbers. Percentage use of wahabi militants also shows how much funding was used for each of the listed ``projects``.


If you truly want to see Shia-Sunni militancy, then look at the global Shiaism (read Khumainism) and not that Pakistan`s internal Ziaism.

The rest of your post doesn`t even deserve a response due to an absolutely biased analysis of the situation.

It is a shame that many Pakistanis are more faithful to Iranian Ayatullahs and Saudi Mullahs more than Iranis an Sudis. These $tupid Pakistanis forget that they live, breed, and prosper in Pakistan. Their future generations will thrive in Pakistan. Still these fundoos spit pro-Iranian or Pro-Saudi venom while hurting Pakistani interests.

Shame utter shame.

On the subject, many interactors have pointed to the grave shia/sunni differences, others have pointed to the help Iran has provided Pakistan at critical times (and likewise Pakistan to Iran), while faisaluno has pointed to the normal relations in the pipeline negotiations.

Let`s address these one by one in an attempt to elaborate. The sectarian troubles were started by Zia`s anti-shia zealots Lashkar-e-Jhangvi who started a campaign to have Shias declared non-Muslims in Pakistan. After its founder Haq Nawaz Jhangvi was assassinated by local opponents in 1990, they murdered Iran`s cultural attache` Sadiq Ganji in Lahore in the same year, ostensibly for Iran`s support, no evidence of which was ever found through court testimonies or other stuff.

There was no retaliation by Iran except protests. After Jhangvi succesor Zia-ur-Rehman Farooqi was killed during a session court appearance a full 7 years later in 1997, Iran`s diplomat Muhammad Ali Rahimi and six locals were murdered in an attack on the Iranian Cultural Centre in Multan, followed by attacks on Khana-e-Farhang Iran in Karachi. At the same time, the Clifton flyover above the clifton bridge in Karachi, right underneath which the Khana-e-Farhang Iran is located, was being built by the Iranians under a construction contract. The work stopped briefly but resumed upon assurances of security by Pak. It was completed on time.

The leadership of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi was subsequently hunted down and physically eliminated (extra-judicially) in its entirety by Pak agencies, alongwith most rank & file. It doesn`t exist anymore. An evidence of how far Pak went to address Iran`s grievances on this account, and more importantly, Pak`s acknowledgement of the immensely insidious and dangerous attempts to drag Iran into Pak`s sectarian issues as taikonaut surmises.

Second point, the help Pakistan provided to Iran during its Iraq war, even when its official stance was in favour of Iraq aligned with US, was clandestine blood banks set up in Quetta, supplying blood in bulk to visiting revolutionary guards.

Later, the very Iranian nuke weapon program was initiated with Pak centrifuge designs conveyed by AQ Khan`s numerous visits to Zahedan, as well as delivery systems through N. Korean missile tech acquired by Pak. Behind all that was China but that`s another story. Pak acted as a high-tech weapons clearing house to Iran.

Thirdly, as for the pipeline business, Pak continues to play a pivotal role in it because it passes through terrirtory in Pak control including Afghanistan. The only issues are pricing which will be sorted out.

The fact is, that despite the apparent foreign policy stance differences vis-a-vis USA being at opposite poles after the Shah, the vital interests of Pakistan and Iran are inextricably interlinked, and acknowledged as well as acted upon to be so. What meets the eye is just the political expediencies, while the real diplomacy lies in the back-door channels.

This is how it must be till the eventual downfall of the Great Satan.