Obama Inauguration Brings Hope, Scepticism

Re: # 54

Hamidm sahib:

I am quite aware of what Churchill said about NWFP Pathans. My point to Romair was for what he used the word "crushed". The best time do something like this would have been when Gandhi had failed and was down in the dumps, but then so was Churchill and therefore, he could not do. It is another thing that feasted with Jinnah with Gandhi behind the bars. But by then even Churchill knew that he lost the empire to Gandhi, and he was feasting with Jinnah on spoils of that loss.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

pakis had high hopes..

they thought barry would appoint an envoy for the k-word...

turns out, barry has appointed an envoy for afghanistan and pakistan...

pakis got their hopes up again...only to have them dashed...

Re: # 55

coolal mian,

..... other than weirdos like omar kassab and romair mian we pakis have no desire to travel to india with or without a visa ........

Kashmir will never banega Pakiland. Bring on whatever you got, we will take you on. Not only that, we will ensure your country is destroyed totally without firing a single bullet.

You guys are too stupid to survive. If you guys grow up and re-incarnate yourselves as a reasonable, moderate country whose goal is to live long and prosper, then getting Kashmir is more than possible. Visa less travel, free trade with the whole of India + Nepal + SL + BD + Bhutan is possible. But it is beyond your vision at the moment.

Re: # 50

anil mian,

.... this is what churchill said about killing iraqis :

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.


..... do you want me to look up what he said about collective punishment for pathan tribes in nwfp? ..... let me see if i can look that up - it was a lot worse than using drones ...........

Re: # 42

bubba mian,

........ unless that $1B is deposited directly into zardari's swiss bank account, which is down to a measely $60M, nothing will change ......

.... holbrooke, clinton and the rest of them are no match even for a pakistani patwari who lords over the land records in his tehsil ....... i can see kiyani, gilani and zardari high-fiving after seeing off holbrooke at the islamabad airport and heading back to conut their money and have biryani with sufi muhammad and nawaz sharif ...... sometimes, these pakis make me proud! ........ if i was a betting man, i would put my money on zardari - he will run circles around poor holbrooke ......

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 47

Romair:

He learnt his lessons in non-violence as a weapon when he lead a coal miner strike by Indian workers against a tax.
Subsequently, Gandhi tried and failed in attempts to use non-violence. He went into reclusion several time. Churchill wanted him arrested and put in Jail. Fortunately, the failures of both Gandhi and Churchill conicided, and that found Churchill too in political wilderness.

You miss a point no civilized society can crush unarmed non-violent people. You might like to read what Churchill had said after British attacks on innocents in Jallianwala Bagh.

majumdar #: "I have already made an offer to FM Romair. We will give up Kashmir if you accept Mullah Omar as the next Amir-ul-Momineen of Pakistan."

.......i doubt india will ever give up kashmir.....it certainly will not through peaceful resistance........it will only do so if the militant struggle is so powerful that it becomes counterproductive to india.....or if there is massive terrorism agaisnt india, to counter india's state terrorism......

......i don't see any of the above happening, anytime soon.......militancy will require a strong paksitan economy, so that pakistan can support it.......as for terrorism, while the world is ready to shut its eyes on state terrorism, there is no room left for individual terrorism.....even if the ratios are 100-1 in deaths (as we have seen in israel)......so it will be status quo on kashmir from india, for the next many decades.....

as for mullah umar......he has no chance of ruling punjab and sind.....the history of these regions is steeped in sufism, which goes totally agaisnt what mullah umar is pushing for........

however, he has a good shot at ruling nwfp.....this was part of afghanistan, anyways, and was ripped out by the british to add it to india, from afghanistan.....

.....infact, i think pakistan should federate totally, and let the mullah umars of the world run nwfp as and how they want.......why in the world is pakistan trying to enlightenedly moderate the pathans?

Romair:

I think you are taking a very narrow perspective in time and region to paint your Kashmir scenario. As far as India is concerned, it sees close to 50% participation in elections as good omen. Whereas others (the U.S.) interest in Kashmir is nothing, if they are convinced that Kashmir blow back does not come to the AFPAK region. If Pakistani generals can convince the U.S., they will get a free hand in Kashmir as they had before. The problem is either Pakistani generals are sensible that it will weaken Pakistan, or are unable to convince the U.S.

The U.S. is there to first contain and then manage terrorist in AFPAK border. It will certainly try carrot ($$$) and stick (drones) policy with Pakistan.

All that India needs to do is, what it did after Mumbai to control its testasterone. It has shown that growing its economy is more important to India.

In my view, there is a need to understand that Pakistan will implode beacuse of its internal fissures, and it will become stable because of external forces. These forces, like it or not, include the U.S. and India. China could not care less whether Pakistan remains intact or not. Pakistan's markets are minicule for China, and it has no need to rely on Pakistan for any energy or defense needs. Islamic terror that blows back from Pakistani terror camps, is limited to distan Chinese province. It knows how to deal with this terror inside its terrority. You may need to show what strategic value China derives from its help in Gawadar port and put it in the Chinese balance to show Gawadar port is more strategic for China to defend stable Pakistan.

You also talk about single sided events (when Pakistan becomes stable etc.), in doing so you assume a static region where only Pakistan is growing. You ignore that the "perceived" enemy of Pakistan will grow its GDP at about 7% p.a. Of course you can ignore it, if you think Pakistan will achieve everything overnight.

After reading you and Hamidm sahib (because I call both of you as moderates), I get the sense that Pakistan still needs to realize ground reality and quit dreaming.

In your convenient argument, you also forget that there was a precondition to the plebecite that you often talk. Pakistan was required to empty Kashmir of all Pakistanis first. Emphasis is on first. After 60 years, it will be impossible for Pakistan to honor this condition.

I have always maintained that future is in economic revival of the region, and not some land, whose part Pakistan already gave away to China; and this land be divided to create a nation-state based on religion. The sooner Pakistan is able to act on the spoken words of Zardari, the better that part of the region will be.

Pakistani doubters and testaterones should understand that India has acted against any war, especially at this time when Pakistan is at its weakest. I know your counter would be that it is because India is scared of Pakistan's nuclear capabilities.

This argument is way off the mark. Both parties and the world knows that there would not be Pakistan left if it carries out the first strike. Therefore, what would Pakistan achieve or defending with the first nuclear strike, other than its own destruction.

Pakistan's antagonicst may want it to attempt to use it, so that Islamic bomb can be takencare off, but against who? India does not want to be that bakra. Just remember "distant thunder", the last nuclear bomb was dropped in Japan and not in Germany.

Do these antagonists care if Pakistan drops it in some distant place? If your answer is yes, then I am sorry you are wrong.

......the only non-violent action that i have been able to find, against a major case of state terrorism is the action (or lack thereof) of the jews agaisnt nazis......

...i have started reading quite a bit of this history, and an amazed by how quitely the jews seemed to have accepted their fate......some were able to escape out of germany.....but all the letters i have read between and to jews,in germany, seem to have an almost fateful acceptance of what is happening to them.....

.....i don't know of any resistance movement, any terrorism carried out by them......there are no attempts to assasinate hitler or to blow up germans, to counter the massive state terrorism being committed against the jews.......

....i also think that had the germans not initiated wwII, and not crossed borders of other states (france, poland, russia etc.), the rest of the world would not have done much about the holocaust.....i doubt wwII would have occurred just to get the germans to stop the holocaust.....

.......interestingly, some of the western countries, actually restricted the jews, also, during this time......i believe usa did not allow open migration of jews.......i know that switzerland insisted that germans put a, "J" on jewish passports......switzerland was ready to accept christian german refugees during wwII, but wanted to make sure jews didn't come in......

.....and to the best of my knowledge, even after the holocaust no western country (including germany, usa or canada) offered jews land in their own territories to create a state......they offered uganda and palestine.....

.....so the jews basically were, totally, ethincally cleansed from europe, because of their non-violent-ness......

.......many people give the example of british leaving india due to gandhi's non-violent protests......this is, of course, nonsensical.....if the british were going to leave india, due to non-violent protests they would have left in 1857........

....the british left because they were bankrupted by wwII and knew that if they did not leave india, the protests would turn violent (and towards terrorism) and they would not have the resources to control them (much like what happened to france in algeria), and, thus, would have to leave anyways......so they chose the wiser path and left....

.....had gandhi carried out his protests, prior to wwI, the british would have, simply, crushed him.......much like they crushed everyone in south asia, whenever they needed to and could.......

majumdar #25: "You have one apprehension that if you wash your hands off Kashmir, India will "pressurise" Pakistan. What for?"

......i, generally, agree with your comments in this reply....

....why should pakistan wash its hands off kashmir, when it is convinced that, if given a chance, the kashmiris will not want to stay with india.....and knowing fully well that the UN has passed a resolution in regard to this.....

......the argument to this, of course, would be, that pakistan may itself collapse trying to get kashmir.....which would not be worth the effort.....a valid and pragmatic argument.....

dost-mittar #: "Let's be honest, we were never honest about holding the plebiscite, the pre-conditions were merely a convenient excuse."

......not only india, i do not know of any incidence, where an occupying army has left voluntarily...that was the whole point of what i wanted to discuss.....

....the only way occupying armies have been removed is through force.....and that is always in the form of terrorism by the occupied forces against the state terrorism by the occupying army....

.....initially, the occupying army invades and occupies a place.....the occupied people protest, and the occupying army, invariably kills many of them through state terrorism.......then the occuppied people either remain occupied....or they start a freedom struggle, much of which is based on individual terrorism to counter the occupying army's state terrorism.....if they can raise the ante high enough, the occupying army leaves......if they cannot, they remain occupied.....

........go down the list and check.....soviets carried out massive state terrrorism against afghans......afghans killed soviet soldiers but carried out terrorism to counter......ditto with americans in iraq....the iraqi resistance has carried out terrorism to counter the usa......same thing in afghanistan now.....taliban have carried out terrorism in afghansitan to break the nato forces hold and in pakistan to break their supply lines.....

......the algerians carried out terrorism agianst france, to win freedom.....the indians would have done the same against british (bhagat sing being an exmaple), but the british gauged this correctly, and left (anyone who thinks they left due to gandhi's non-violent marches has very little understanding of history)........

palestinians have done the same against israel to counter israeli state terrorism.....however, they have been unable to raise the ante enough.......if they could kill the same number of israeli civilians as israel kills of them, would you agree that israel would have given them a state a long time ago.......

.....so this brings me back to the original point....will india ever leave kashmir, if kashmiris simply hold placards and yell slogans?........would india have left kashmir, if there was some mechanism, where for every civilian kashmiri killed by indian forces, through state terrorism, the kashmiris could, immediately, kill an equal number of indian civilians in indian metros.....i.e. tit for tat terrorism.......

by the way mukti bahani carried out terrorism (supported by india) to counter the state terrorism committed by pakistan.......and raised the ante high enough, where pakistan had to leave....

......so to reiterate my point, the only successful freedom movements i know of are the ones where the freedom fighters have been able to raise the ante of terrorism to a level where it becomes counter-productive for the occuping army to continue with its state terrorism.......and it is forced to leave, as the cost of occupation becomes too high......

Re: # 40

Hamidm sahib:

"- i have had to cancel my fishing trip because this fool showed up" ....... kiyani will be really upset if holbrooke shows up and forces him to cancel his golf game with musharraf ......... and zardari likes to sleep in till noon ........."

These fishing trips, golf games and sleep till noon cost you $10 billion, till last accounting. Do you really think people with carrot ($10 Billion), and stick (drones) really care who gets what, recipients can change with alliance. Obama wants results in AFPAK (Afghanistan Pakistan) by Pakistanis if they want more money. You forget that some talibs started talking after Viagra.

Sex and money is very potent combination. Ask Bhagwan Rajnish with 95 Rolls Royaces and now comfortable in one of 186,000 incarnations toward being human again.