Stagnating Pakistan-Iran Relations
S F Hasnat December 1, 2006
#97 Posted by tahmed32 on December 3, 2006 8:54:55 am
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.
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.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#98 Posted by tahmed32 on December 3, 2006 9:05:44 am
#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!!
so, the links go back to pre-Islamic days!!
#99 Posted by taikonaut on December 3, 2006 10:14:52 am
#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.
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.
#100 Posted by okhla99 on December 3, 2006 11:15:19 am
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.
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.
#101 Posted by taikonaut on December 3, 2006 11:31:42 am
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!
#102 Posted by okhla99 on December 3, 2006 11:42:41 am
Re: # 101
Praajee,
#93 was you and not Zeemax.
Praajee,
#93 was you and not Zeemax.
#103 Posted by tahmed32 on December 3, 2006 11:55:23 am
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.
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.
#104 Posted by Behram1 on December 3, 2006 12:14:45 pm
[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.
#105 Posted by taikonaut on December 3, 2006 12:27:03 pm
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.
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.
#106 Posted by arjun2 on December 3, 2006 12:30:28 pm
#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 $$...
now, for the pakis, the afghan policy is like bellbottoms...people who wore them in the 70s completely deny wearing them because it looks ridiculous now...
Mr. Zia al Haq and billions of Saudi petro-dollars.
and for the record, the vast majority of pakis were for Zia`s policy in afghanistan..the whole idea of indoctrination of the paki population to produce islamic jihadis...
most pakis were down with it when the policy was bringing them american aid and saudi $$...
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...
#107 Posted by taikonaut on December 3, 2006 12:34:17 pm
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.
#108 Posted by Behram1 on December 3, 2006 12:38:39 pm
Re: # 96 by taikonaut on December 3, 2006 8:36am PT
Re: # 94 Naqshbandi
[Sure we owe a lot to the secular Iranian culture.]
Yes, it is the Iranian culture that you must never forget. And you must never forget who you are as a people, regardless of the rulers of Iran.
[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. ]
And you will be hard pressed to find any Iranian in the west that support the current behavior of the current regime. The values to remember is what is the majority of Pakistanis value regarding that area, and you will find that they love most of what Iranians do, and the least of what Arabs do.
[So don`t go around beating the drums of great Iran and expect us to follow your fundoo leaders.]
And here is where you are wrong. By using such nick names to post on this site, it is just shows that you are not as authentic as you want us to believe in your values, and yet here you are pontificating what should be the values of those of us who are bold enough to talk openly about these issues. Our values of supporting our people goes beyond any religious dogma that you are bringing into these posts.
[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. ]
Actually it is you who should be advised that bringing into the pure land your theory of stupidity will be rejected by the peace loving people of this region.
[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. ]
Agreed, and hopefully the encroaching wahabiism is also gotten rid of. Just remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 tragedy were Saudi Arabians, that promotes a brand of Islam that Pakistani have long rejected.
Re: # 94 Naqshbandi
[Sure we owe a lot to the secular Iranian culture.]
Yes, it is the Iranian culture that you must never forget. And you must never forget who you are as a people, regardless of the rulers of Iran.
[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. ]
And you will be hard pressed to find any Iranian in the west that support the current behavior of the current regime. The values to remember is what is the majority of Pakistanis value regarding that area, and you will find that they love most of what Iranians do, and the least of what Arabs do.
[So don`t go around beating the drums of great Iran and expect us to follow your fundoo leaders.]
And here is where you are wrong. By using such nick names to post on this site, it is just shows that you are not as authentic as you want us to believe in your values, and yet here you are pontificating what should be the values of those of us who are bold enough to talk openly about these issues. Our values of supporting our people goes beyond any religious dogma that you are bringing into these posts.
[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. ]
Actually it is you who should be advised that bringing into the pure land your theory of stupidity will be rejected by the peace loving people of this region.
[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. ]
Agreed, and hopefully the encroaching wahabiism is also gotten rid of. Just remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 tragedy were Saudi Arabians, that promotes a brand of Islam that Pakistani have long rejected.
#109 Posted by taikonaut on December 3, 2006 12:38:52 pm
Re: # 106 Arjun spouts
he 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 $$...
now, for the pakis, the afghan policy is like bellbottoms...people who wore them in the 70s completely deny wearing them because it looks ridiculous now...
Look who is talking. These Bihari commie-suckers were selling their mata Ji to Ruskies for 50 years. Now that Ruski rubel is gone, they are desparately trying to be Sam-suckers and be proud of it.
Talk about ideals. Commies turned capitalist as soon as Rubel stopped. Then these Bihari BIMAROU bindi pipsqueaks make monkey faces to Pakistanis. hahahha.
he vast majority of pakis were for Zia`s policy in afghanistan..the whole idea of indoctrination of the paki population to produce islamic jihadis...
most pakis were down with it when the policy was bringing them american aid and saudi $$...
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...
Look who is talking. These Bihari commie-suckers were selling their mata Ji to Ruskies for 50 years. Now that Ruski rubel is gone, they are desparately trying to be Sam-suckers and be proud of it.
Talk about ideals. Commies turned capitalist as soon as Rubel stopped. Then these Bihari BIMAROU bindi pipsqueaks make monkey faces to Pakistanis. hahahha.
#110 Posted by Behram1 on December 3, 2006 12:45:53 pm
[Your assertion fails on many examples. Why were the Iranian Jews kicked out by Ayatullahs even when the Jews do not proselytize?]
The jews were never kicked out of Iran or for that matter from Pakistan. There are still many jews left in Iran. Discrimination against the minorities is ingrained in those societies, regardless who the mojorities are. Muslims definitely continue to discriminate against the minorities, and that must be addressed.
#111 Posted by Behram1 on December 3, 2006 12:53:09 pm
Re: # 106
[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...]
No, you are wrong as usual. Actually, I bought one the other day and I have never denied wearing them in the 70s. Your autism is taking a huge toll on your myopic view of the world.
Did you forget to take your prescription drugs, again?
[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...]
No, you are wrong as usual. Actually, I bought one the other day and I have never denied wearing them in the 70s. Your autism is taking a huge toll on your myopic view of the world.
Did you forget to take your prescription drugs, again?
#112 Posted by mohar11 on December 3, 2006 1:09:37 pm
pakis
Don`t worry too much about iran... the way iranians are hurtling towards the confrontation with great satan - soon there won`t be much of iran left to worry about... great satan is already planing for the rediation treatment... :)
Don`t worry too much about iran... the way iranians are hurtling towards the confrontation with great satan - soon there won`t be much of iran left to worry about... great satan is already planing for the rediation treatment... :)
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- _arjun29: #12 Posted by... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- dost_mittar: Congratulaltions, Geelani Saheb: Mehbooba has... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- pinku: #318 Posted by tahmed32... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- vatanparast: Yes rf786 Saheb, one... MQM - History and
- KaalChakra: DM ji, the same... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- tahmed32: #72 "When we look... MQM - History and
- _arjun29: #97 Posted by... Reforming Religious Fundamentalists
- tahmed32: #317 pinku: if self-serving... Historian Amaresh Misra on
