Removed From Reality
Shakir Husain May 15, 2002
#46 Posted by cutandpaste on May 18, 2002 2:06:38 pm
Still Raw From Recent Attack, India Is Girding Itself for War
By CELIA W. DUGGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/18/international/asia/18INDI.html?tntemail1
EW DELHI, May 17 — Reacting to a terrorist attack on Tuesday that killed 32 people, most of them women and children, senior Indian officials said today that they were considering military action against Pakistan — which they blame for the attack — as well as punitive diplomatic steps.
As a fresh bombing and outbreaks of gunfire ratcheted up tensions in the disputed province of Jammu and Kashmir, a foreboding of war hung over this capital, where some in the government voiced bitter disappointment with the United States. These officials said America had failed to persuade Pakistan, an ally against terrorism in Afghanistan, to stop sponsoring terrorism against India in the five months since a five-man squad attacked the Parliament, killing nine.
Cabinet ministers will meet Saturday to discuss how India should respond to the attack on Tuesday. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is expected to consult with the political opposition next week and announce the government`s decision in a nationally televised address sometime later.
``The mood in the country is for some decisive action, and the government will have to respond,`` one official said. ``A war cannot be ruled out.``
Here in India`s capital and in Washington, diplomats and officials are trying to figure out whether India would actually risk a war with Pakistan, whose leaders have suggested over the years that they would use nuclear weapons if they felt Pakistan`s survival was at stake.
India is demanding that Pakistan stop training, arming and harboring extremist Islamic groups using Pakistan-held Kashmir as a base for fighting Indian rule in Jammu and Kashmir, the only Muslim-majority state in India. Pakistan denies the charges and says it has been a victim of terrorism itself.
A million Indian and Pakistani troops are now fully mobilized along their shared 1,800-mile-long border, a buildup India initiated after the attack on its Parliament. In addition to the fear that fighting between the nuclear-armed nations could spiral out of control, American officials are also concerned that war would disrupt the hunt for members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan and jeopardize American troops stationed there.
As Pakistan denied its complicity, the Parliament in India today unanimously condemned the attack on Tuesday on bus passengers and the family quarters of an army camp and resolved to fight terrorism.
India`s Defense Ministry said the three gunmen were young Pakistanis, a fact it said it had deduced in part from the Pakistani cookies and chocolates found on the men`s bodies. The three were killed in a shootout on the outskirts of Jammu, winter capital of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir — a land that India and Pakistan have fought over for more than half a century.
With tensions rising, Indian and Pakistani troops exchanged heavy fire in Jammu today, leaving an Indian civilian and four Pakistani soldiers dead, officials said. Hundreds of families fled border villages in Jammu to escape the fighting.
In Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, a bomb exploded at a crowded intersection this afternoon with a deafening roar, killing 2 people and wounding 15.
In the Indian Parliament, some called for swift military retaliation against Pakistan, some for restraint, but the usually fractious legislature seemed nearly unanimous in assessing the danger that India faced and in identifying the culprit, Pakistan.
Madan Lal Khurana, a leader of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, argued for a strike on some of the more than 70 training camps for militants that Indian officials said have mushroomed recently in Pakistan-held Kashmir. ``Have a decisive war to teach Pakistan a lesson,`` he said. ``The prime minister said after the attack on Parliament that we would fight terrorism to the finish. I want to know how that will be done in practice.``
In an interview this morning, the hawkish home minister, L. K. Advani, was grim as he discussed his extreme disappointment with the United States and referred contemptuously to Pakistan`s military ruler, President Pervez Musharraf, as simply ``Pervez,`` unusual in a region where a head of state would rarely be stripped of honorifics.
Mr. Advani said he had repeatedly been assured by American officials — up to and including President Bush — that the United States would attend to India`s concerns about Pakistan-sponsored terrorism once Afghanistan had been dealt with, but that nothing had changed for India.
When the American ambassador, Robert Blackwill, visited Thursday, Mr. Advani said he told the ambassador: ``Suppose the Americans were to tell Pakistan that we are convinced you are continuing with cross-border terrorism against India, and unless you stop we`ll declare you a terrorist state? Consequences would follow that Pakistan just doesn`t have the guts to bear. I`m not able to understand why you don`t do that.``
Another senior Indian official said Mr. Advani`s views on the United States are ``shared by the entire top leadership.`` This official also said India had intelligence that Pakistan was planning to disrupt coming state elections in Jammu and Kashmir.
Elections perceived as generally free and fair are an important part of the government`s political strategy in Kashmir, he added — and a Pakistani attempt to sabotage them would be seen as provocative.
``We may have to do something which you will not like and which we would prefer not to do,`` the official said. ``I will not go beyond that.``
Asked if the government was just bluffing about its military threats, to light a fire under the Americans and get them to jawbone General Musharraf, the official said, ``No, you should take seriously what I said.``
By CELIA W. DUGGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/18/international/asia/18INDI.html?tntemail1
EW DELHI, May 17 — Reacting to a terrorist attack on Tuesday that killed 32 people, most of them women and children, senior Indian officials said today that they were considering military action against Pakistan — which they blame for the attack — as well as punitive diplomatic steps.
As a fresh bombing and outbreaks of gunfire ratcheted up tensions in the disputed province of Jammu and Kashmir, a foreboding of war hung over this capital, where some in the government voiced bitter disappointment with the United States. These officials said America had failed to persuade Pakistan, an ally against terrorism in Afghanistan, to stop sponsoring terrorism against India in the five months since a five-man squad attacked the Parliament, killing nine.
Cabinet ministers will meet Saturday to discuss how India should respond to the attack on Tuesday. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is expected to consult with the political opposition next week and announce the government`s decision in a nationally televised address sometime later.
``The mood in the country is for some decisive action, and the government will have to respond,`` one official said. ``A war cannot be ruled out.``
Here in India`s capital and in Washington, diplomats and officials are trying to figure out whether India would actually risk a war with Pakistan, whose leaders have suggested over the years that they would use nuclear weapons if they felt Pakistan`s survival was at stake.
India is demanding that Pakistan stop training, arming and harboring extremist Islamic groups using Pakistan-held Kashmir as a base for fighting Indian rule in Jammu and Kashmir, the only Muslim-majority state in India. Pakistan denies the charges and says it has been a victim of terrorism itself.
A million Indian and Pakistani troops are now fully mobilized along their shared 1,800-mile-long border, a buildup India initiated after the attack on its Parliament. In addition to the fear that fighting between the nuclear-armed nations could spiral out of control, American officials are also concerned that war would disrupt the hunt for members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan and jeopardize American troops stationed there.
As Pakistan denied its complicity, the Parliament in India today unanimously condemned the attack on Tuesday on bus passengers and the family quarters of an army camp and resolved to fight terrorism.
India`s Defense Ministry said the three gunmen were young Pakistanis, a fact it said it had deduced in part from the Pakistani cookies and chocolates found on the men`s bodies. The three were killed in a shootout on the outskirts of Jammu, winter capital of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir — a land that India and Pakistan have fought over for more than half a century.
With tensions rising, Indian and Pakistani troops exchanged heavy fire in Jammu today, leaving an Indian civilian and four Pakistani soldiers dead, officials said. Hundreds of families fled border villages in Jammu to escape the fighting.
In Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, a bomb exploded at a crowded intersection this afternoon with a deafening roar, killing 2 people and wounding 15.
In the Indian Parliament, some called for swift military retaliation against Pakistan, some for restraint, but the usually fractious legislature seemed nearly unanimous in assessing the danger that India faced and in identifying the culprit, Pakistan.
Madan Lal Khurana, a leader of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, argued for a strike on some of the more than 70 training camps for militants that Indian officials said have mushroomed recently in Pakistan-held Kashmir. ``Have a decisive war to teach Pakistan a lesson,`` he said. ``The prime minister said after the attack on Parliament that we would fight terrorism to the finish. I want to know how that will be done in practice.``
In an interview this morning, the hawkish home minister, L. K. Advani, was grim as he discussed his extreme disappointment with the United States and referred contemptuously to Pakistan`s military ruler, President Pervez Musharraf, as simply ``Pervez,`` unusual in a region where a head of state would rarely be stripped of honorifics.
Mr. Advani said he had repeatedly been assured by American officials — up to and including President Bush — that the United States would attend to India`s concerns about Pakistan-sponsored terrorism once Afghanistan had been dealt with, but that nothing had changed for India.
When the American ambassador, Robert Blackwill, visited Thursday, Mr. Advani said he told the ambassador: ``Suppose the Americans were to tell Pakistan that we are convinced you are continuing with cross-border terrorism against India, and unless you stop we`ll declare you a terrorist state? Consequences would follow that Pakistan just doesn`t have the guts to bear. I`m not able to understand why you don`t do that.``
Another senior Indian official said Mr. Advani`s views on the United States are ``shared by the entire top leadership.`` This official also said India had intelligence that Pakistan was planning to disrupt coming state elections in Jammu and Kashmir.
Elections perceived as generally free and fair are an important part of the government`s political strategy in Kashmir, he added — and a Pakistani attempt to sabotage them would be seen as provocative.
``We may have to do something which you will not like and which we would prefer not to do,`` the official said. ``I will not go beyond that.``
Asked if the government was just bluffing about its military threats, to light a fire under the Americans and get them to jawbone General Musharraf, the official said, ``No, you should take seriously what I said.``
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#45 Posted by scout on May 18, 2002 2:06:38 pm
Chowk staff,
how come you let fawad79`s #39 post through?
fawad79,
cursing other countries won`t get you or Pakistan anywhere.....all it does is make you look like a fool
how come you let fawad79`s #39 post through?
fawad79,
cursing other countries won`t get you or Pakistan anywhere.....all it does is make you look like a fool
#44 Posted by hamidm on May 18, 2002 2:06:38 pm
madak has precisely and succintly stated the root cause of terrorism in pakistan .... nothing more and nothing less - everything else is a lame excuse, hyperbole, pedantic sophistry, and utter nonsense ....
``Sustaining extremists like oxygen is the aura of fake piety that permeates Pakistani society today. Endless religious talk shows; years of compulsory religious instruction at school at the expense of the sciences; and the constant invocation of dogma have become the hallmark of contemporary Pakistan. It is as if we have acquired a monopoly on Islam and are its sole custodians.``
......... and none of us are willing to admit it - we are all to blame for making our kids recite ayat ul kursi at the drop of a hat and dragging in god and his prophet into our kitchens and boudoirs ......
``Sustaining extremists like oxygen is the aura of fake piety that permeates Pakistani society today. Endless religious talk shows; years of compulsory religious instruction at school at the expense of the sciences; and the constant invocation of dogma have become the hallmark of contemporary Pakistan. It is as if we have acquired a monopoly on Islam and are its sole custodians.``
......... and none of us are willing to admit it - we are all to blame for making our kids recite ayat ul kursi at the drop of a hat and dragging in god and his prophet into our kitchens and boudoirs ......
#43 Posted by hamidm on May 18, 2002 2:06:38 pm
what if this army actually had to fight a war - the thought scares the heck out of me !
.....now that the horrible hindoos are flapping their dhotis and making all kinds of blood curdling noises, war is a real possibility .... not that i understand what all this fuss is about .... thirty people getting killed in kashmir should be no big deal in a subcontinent where hundreds die of hunger everyday, and life is quite cheap and dispensable .....if memory serves me right, there were a couple of hundred gujjus killed just recently, and across the border we manage to kil a dozen or so shias and other riff-raff every day ...... but regardless, it seems some clowns are trying to act like indignant israelis - a civilized people who have nothing in common with subcontinental primitives ......
...... i digress ... the question is: what will happen if our duly elected dictator and his army of wapda linemen and ptcl phone operators has to fight the hajooj and the mahjooj ?..... on the 2nd floor of citibank in pindi they have a ``gold club`` where they entertain their gold card memmbers with whipped coffee and pastries from gourmet bakery ...... on any given day you will find a couple of generals in there conducting business ..... if they are not there, you will see a couple of subedars standing in line for them on the first floor ....... down the road, at their own askari bank, you will see them strutting around like peacocks ........ who is going to fight this war ?.......
.....now that the horrible hindoos are flapping their dhotis and making all kinds of blood curdling noises, war is a real possibility .... not that i understand what all this fuss is about .... thirty people getting killed in kashmir should be no big deal in a subcontinent where hundreds die of hunger everyday, and life is quite cheap and dispensable .....if memory serves me right, there were a couple of hundred gujjus killed just recently, and across the border we manage to kil a dozen or so shias and other riff-raff every day ...... but regardless, it seems some clowns are trying to act like indignant israelis - a civilized people who have nothing in common with subcontinental primitives ......
...... i digress ... the question is: what will happen if our duly elected dictator and his army of wapda linemen and ptcl phone operators has to fight the hajooj and the mahjooj ?..... on the 2nd floor of citibank in pindi they have a ``gold club`` where they entertain their gold card memmbers with whipped coffee and pastries from gourmet bakery ...... on any given day you will find a couple of generals in there conducting business ..... if they are not there, you will see a couple of subedars standing in line for them on the first floor ....... down the road, at their own askari bank, you will see them strutting around like peacocks ........ who is going to fight this war ?.......
#42 Posted by saminashah on May 18, 2002 2:06:38 pm
``If you want to succeed anywhere learn to read carefully & intently .I said ``potentially`` & i or Pakistan doesnt stand to gain anything from you either way.Dont get that megalomaniac complex.I know you went back to Pakistan``
Too funny....
Too funny....
#41 Posted by cutandpaste on May 18, 2002 2:06:38 pm
Jinnah, the secular leader
Karan Thapar
If you suffer from high blood pressure, don`t read on. If you`re prejudiced against Muslims or Pakistan, skip to the next article. And if you lost property at Partition or, worse, your family was rent asunder, throw this page away. I don`t think you`ll like what I`m about to write.
My subject is Mohammad Ali Jinnah and I`ve come to the conclusion that regardless of his impact on Indian unity, in personal terms he was an appealing character. He`s a more natural icon for today`s modern, materialist, image-conscious generation than Nehru or Gandhi. And the surprising thing is – if you overlook his responsibility for Pakistan – he was equally secular.
First, some of the facts. Jinnah opposed the partition of Bengal.
In 1906 he refused to join the Muslim League. He called its demand for separate electorates poisonous. In 1920, when Gandhi launched the Khilafat movement, Jinnah warned of the danger of mixing politics with religion. He was the only Muslim to vote against Gandhi`s resolution.
Now jump to 1947. I know that between 1920, when he walked out of the Congress, unhappy over Gandhi`s deliberate
intertwining of religion with politics, and 1947, when he created Pakistan, Jinnah did much the same but to far worse effect. However, I want to draw your attention to his presidential speech to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947. Speaking to the new citizens of Pakistan, he said: ``You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State... We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State... Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.``
It`s no secret that today`s Pakistan would embarrass Jinnah. He might not even own up to it. But politics is only half my point and very much the lesser half. It`s his personality that I really want to recall. `Jin`, as his wife called him, was a remarkable man.
Again, the facts first. He was a self-made millionaire. He did not inherit his wealth. In the 1930s he was one of London`s leading lawyers. No other Indian has achieved this distinction before or after. He was a natty dresser. His double-breasted suits and co-respondent shoes were the height of fashion. His Bombay home on Napean Sea Road was one of the finest. The one in Delhi – which he bought – is still the most striking.
And now, a few different facts. Jinnah spoke no Urdu. English was the only language he knew. I`m not sure about Kutchi. Perhaps he forgot it – but then, wouldn`t you? He smoked, he drank and he ate pork. He married a young Parsi girl and even though they separated no one ever questioned his love for Ruttie. He was never more proud than when she visited his chambers, her décolletage plunging to eye-popping levels, and perched herself playfully on his table bearing ham sandwiches for lunch.
It was this individualism, this defiance of convention, this determination to be himself that I admire. Even the little distortions Jinnah engineered to enhance himself seem endearing. He was born Jinnahbhai. He disliked the name so much he abbreviated it to Jinnah. He was born on the October 20, 1875. When he discovered Christmas was a better birthday he switched to that.
Was he vain? Of course. Had he reason to be? Undoubtedly. But Jinnah also had a modern outlook, an open mind, a secular way of thinking and, most importantly, he practised it. Many of us who claim to be free thinkers live lives best hidden behind closed doors.
Am I wrong in believing Jinnah seems better suited to lead the modern, materialist, economically liberal, ambitious and thrusting country we have today become than, say, Nehru or Vajpayee? Perhaps. But let me end with my friend M.J. Akbar`s question from his new book The Shade of Swords: ``How did a non-practising, chain-smoking Muslim lawyer, who liked a drink, barely knew the basics of Islam, could speak no language other than English, preferred to dress in an immaculate suit, almost settled down in England, snubbed mullahs for dreaming of an Islamic state, abhorred Gandhi for his hymn-chanting politics, and dreamt of becoming an Indian Ataturk, single-handedly create Pakistan?``
The answer could be troubling.
Karan Thapar
If you suffer from high blood pressure, don`t read on. If you`re prejudiced against Muslims or Pakistan, skip to the next article. And if you lost property at Partition or, worse, your family was rent asunder, throw this page away. I don`t think you`ll like what I`m about to write.
My subject is Mohammad Ali Jinnah and I`ve come to the conclusion that regardless of his impact on Indian unity, in personal terms he was an appealing character. He`s a more natural icon for today`s modern, materialist, image-conscious generation than Nehru or Gandhi. And the surprising thing is – if you overlook his responsibility for Pakistan – he was equally secular.
First, some of the facts. Jinnah opposed the partition of Bengal.
In 1906 he refused to join the Muslim League. He called its demand for separate electorates poisonous. In 1920, when Gandhi launched the Khilafat movement, Jinnah warned of the danger of mixing politics with religion. He was the only Muslim to vote against Gandhi`s resolution.
Now jump to 1947. I know that between 1920, when he walked out of the Congress, unhappy over Gandhi`s deliberate
intertwining of religion with politics, and 1947, when he created Pakistan, Jinnah did much the same but to far worse effect. However, I want to draw your attention to his presidential speech to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947. Speaking to the new citizens of Pakistan, he said: ``You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State... We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State... Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.``
It`s no secret that today`s Pakistan would embarrass Jinnah. He might not even own up to it. But politics is only half my point and very much the lesser half. It`s his personality that I really want to recall. `Jin`, as his wife called him, was a remarkable man.
Again, the facts first. He was a self-made millionaire. He did not inherit his wealth. In the 1930s he was one of London`s leading lawyers. No other Indian has achieved this distinction before or after. He was a natty dresser. His double-breasted suits and co-respondent shoes were the height of fashion. His Bombay home on Napean Sea Road was one of the finest. The one in Delhi – which he bought – is still the most striking.
And now, a few different facts. Jinnah spoke no Urdu. English was the only language he knew. I`m not sure about Kutchi. Perhaps he forgot it – but then, wouldn`t you? He smoked, he drank and he ate pork. He married a young Parsi girl and even though they separated no one ever questioned his love for Ruttie. He was never more proud than when she visited his chambers, her décolletage plunging to eye-popping levels, and perched herself playfully on his table bearing ham sandwiches for lunch.
It was this individualism, this defiance of convention, this determination to be himself that I admire. Even the little distortions Jinnah engineered to enhance himself seem endearing. He was born Jinnahbhai. He disliked the name so much he abbreviated it to Jinnah. He was born on the October 20, 1875. When he discovered Christmas was a better birthday he switched to that.
Was he vain? Of course. Had he reason to be? Undoubtedly. But Jinnah also had a modern outlook, an open mind, a secular way of thinking and, most importantly, he practised it. Many of us who claim to be free thinkers live lives best hidden behind closed doors.
Am I wrong in believing Jinnah seems better suited to lead the modern, materialist, economically liberal, ambitious and thrusting country we have today become than, say, Nehru or Vajpayee? Perhaps. But let me end with my friend M.J. Akbar`s question from his new book The Shade of Swords: ``How did a non-practising, chain-smoking Muslim lawyer, who liked a drink, barely knew the basics of Islam, could speak no language other than English, preferred to dress in an immaculate suit, almost settled down in England, snubbed mullahs for dreaming of an Islamic state, abhorred Gandhi for his hymn-chanting politics, and dreamt of becoming an Indian Ataturk, single-handedly create Pakistan?``
The answer could be troubling.
#40 Posted by veeresh on May 18, 2002 2:06:38 pm
Dear Fawad whatever . . . gosh what intellect! What brevity of expression for such profound prolix prose!!
regards/veeresh
whatever
regards/veeresh
whatever
#39 Posted by tahmed321 on May 17, 2002 10:55:26 pm
arjun #27 Field Marshall Rumair is taking a tea break. He as instructed me to respond on his behalf: There indeed is a need for a major clean up of the mullah brigades in Pakistan, as the article also makes clear.
#38 Posted by tahmed321 on May 17, 2002 10:55:26 pm
hari inder #28. That was a funny story. And I am sure that Paki police beats up suspects.
btw, I assume you chose to make it the ``paki police`` rather than the ``indian police`` because you are sure that the Indian police does not beat up suspects.
If that is not the case, then it seems to me that while the joke is a good one, you yourself are not big enough to be able to laugh at your ``own``.
Why is my estimation of humanity getting lower the longer I stay on chowk.....
btw, I assume you chose to make it the ``paki police`` rather than the ``indian police`` because you are sure that the Indian police does not beat up suspects.
If that is not the case, then it seems to me that while the joke is a good one, you yourself are not big enough to be able to laugh at your ``own``.
Why is my estimation of humanity getting lower the longer I stay on chowk.....
#35 Posted by Zakkk on May 17, 2002 10:55:26 pm
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-5-2002_pg7_7
Another victory for The monopolistic Public Sector Corporations in Pakistan!
PTCL signs pact to control Internet phone
Staff Report
ISLAMABAD: An agreement between PTCL (Pakistan Telecommunications Ltd) and Messrs ALPHA International Overseas Ltd has been signed regarding the VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) pilot project that is being launched to check illegal voice trafficking, according to a press release issued here on Thursday.
Nooruddin Baqi, member PTCL technical staff, co-signed the agreement with Gilles Redpath, CEO of the UK-based company. Akhtar Ahmad Bajwa, PTCL chairman, and other executive managers were also present.
Dilating on the said agreement, a PTCL spokesman said unscrupulous telephone operators were guilty of overriding the international voice tariff by bypassing the PTCL International Gateway Exchange through hi-tech wizardry. This has cost the state millions in foreign exchange, he said. The VOIP will seek to change this.
A similar agreement was signed with International Telecos and many more expect to be signed with other companies to combat all illegal Internet telephone operations and to capture off-shore Grey Area Traffic.
Under the agreement, the spokesman said, each firm would capture 3-5 million international voice minutes each month to meet the Grey Traffic challenge. This will generate an additional revenue stream for PTCL and forex for the country.
The spokesman said 17 bidders (including foreign and Pakistan companies) have submitted bid documents to PTCL against the open tendering that was widely publicised by the company. In-house technical and financial committees evaluated these bids. PTCL spokesman said after the conclusion of the three agreements on VOIP, an estimated investment of $3-5
million is expected.
#34 Posted by Trillium on May 17, 2002 10:55:26 pm
A.Madani
``They say money is dirty but everybody wants it.``
Yeah - and the Pakistani national currency is the dollar. Love that dirt.
I`ll give you four of the Top Ten Punjabi phrases (translated) from ``My Ghora Guidebook``:
1.``No, I don`t have any dollars to sell.``
2.``No, I cannot get you an American visa.``
3.``Why the hell are you staring at my wife`s breasts? She`s covered.``
4.``Why don`t you bring your sister/wife/mother so I can stare at her?``
The others on request.
``They say money is dirty but everybody wants it.``
Yeah - and the Pakistani national currency is the dollar. Love that dirt.
I`ll give you four of the Top Ten Punjabi phrases (translated) from ``My Ghora Guidebook``:
1.``No, I don`t have any dollars to sell.``
2.``No, I cannot get you an American visa.``
3.``Why the hell are you staring at my wife`s breasts? She`s covered.``
4.``Why don`t you bring your sister/wife/mother so I can stare at her?``
The others on request.
#33 Posted by Zakkk on May 17, 2002 10:55:26 pm
Over regulated, over centralised, Top heavy,
multiple leaders giving multiple orders. When you have good people, they are incompetent, when you have bad people, they are very good at what they do!
The story of Pakistan!
multiple leaders giving multiple orders. When you have good people, they are incompetent, when you have bad people, they are very good at what they do!
The story of Pakistan!
#32 Posted by rozaiba on May 17, 2002 10:55:26 pm
Dear Shakir,
My post #4 was supposed to be sarcastic.
I fully support your views on the incompetencies and false claims of the Faujis.
I hope you are able to struggle through the beaurocratic krap of Pakistan and make a contribution. Take care .
My post #4 was supposed to be sarcastic.
I fully support your views on the incompetencies and false claims of the Faujis.
I hope you are able to struggle through the beaurocratic krap of Pakistan and make a contribution. Take care .
#31 Posted by mithuna on May 17, 2002 10:55:26 pm
Why is the EPB registration number so important? What CAN`T you do if you do not have this number? Or is it obligatory to have your business ``promoted`` by the EPB?
Just curious.
Just curious.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- ButtJee: ikram segal say correct... Understanding Islamic Revival In
- ajeya: #7 blumfeld [Nanga...why dont both... Who is Maqbool Bhat?
- parthaab: That most of our... A Very Costly Bill
- harish_hyd: #8 by giani_240 This b@****d... Who is Maqbool Bhat?
- giani_240: Re: # 12 I was... A Very Costly Bill
- gorki: I am not sure... A Very Costly Bill
- giani_240: Re: # 2 Geelani lived... Who is Maqbool Bhat?
- blumfeld: Nanga...why dont both india... Who is Maqbool Bhat?
