Oh Myopia, Thy Name is Pakistan
Iqbal Mustafa February 3, 2004
#76 Posted by Layman on February 6, 2004 8:23:34 pm
#66 Inquirer:
When Jinnah proposed the Joint Defence Pact, Nehru dismissed it saying ``Joint Defence Pact, against whom?``
When Jinnah proposed the Joint Defence Pact, Nehru dismissed it saying ``Joint Defence Pact, against whom?``
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#75 Posted by Layman on February 6, 2004 8:23:34 pm
Romair #63:
``Everytime I read such lines from our Indian colleagues, I must say I am impressed by the image Pakistan has been able to create in India :-). Are there really people in India who think that India could be successfully attacked by a country 1/7th its size, and thus needs to get as many offensive weapons as it can :-) ``
Everytime I read such lines from our Pakistani colleagues, I must say I am depressed by their myopia. Pakistani compare themselves with India. What makes you think India compares itself with Pakistan? What makes you think that `protecting` ourselves from Pakistan is our only military goal?
We would like to be a regional power in our own right, and be able to stand up to the chaptas too...
``Everytime I read such lines from our Indian colleagues, I must say I am impressed by the image Pakistan has been able to create in India :-). Are there really people in India who think that India could be successfully attacked by a country 1/7th its size, and thus needs to get as many offensive weapons as it can :-) ``
Everytime I read such lines from our Pakistani colleagues, I must say I am depressed by their myopia. Pakistani compare themselves with India. What makes you think India compares itself with Pakistan? What makes you think that `protecting` ourselves from Pakistan is our only military goal?
We would like to be a regional power in our own right, and be able to stand up to the chaptas too...
#74 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on February 6, 2004 8:23:34 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#73 Posted by Romair on February 6, 2004 2:19:08 pm
bongdongs #71: There is a difference between offensive weaponry and defensive weaponry. If India wants to keep up the arms race in South Asia, even when its military is five times the size of the next biggest military, then I think it is mutually destructive for both of us.
As for Kargil:
``At Kargil in `99, it was the technological superiority of the IAF (because of BVR equipped Mig-29`s and Mirage 2000`s) that prevented the PAF from interfering with their bombing of the NLI. Or at the very least caused the PAF to think twice. Do you agree with this statement?``
I don`t agree. If Air Forces commit to combat then they don`t worry about BVRs or about Mirages, or anything else.
India`s basic problem in Kargil was not BVRs, but intelligence. A few India sepoys placed in the bunkers on the hill would have been enough. Their salary would have been about Rs. 5000/month. About the cost of a screw on a Mirage.
One of my close acquintences commanded the first group of Army engineers that went up on Kargil. India had basically built bunkers and left them empty on top of the hills, and forgotten about them. Pakistanis went up and occupied the same bunkers, and gained the height advantage over the Indian troops. Their aim was to use the height advantage to cut of India`s supply lines to Siachen. Very simple. The same strategies that were used by Julius Ceaser and Napoleon, centuries ago.
Lose height, lose fight. Rule number one of any kind of military conflict, be it in the air or on the ground.
If India had kept its eyes on the hilltops, there would have been no problem for India. Once India lost the height advantage, it basically lost the battle. Simple Physics.
The reason the PAF did not get involved in it had nothing to do with BVRs. The PAF was not supposed to be involved in the conflict. Throughout the conflict, Pakistan claimed that its military was not involved. So there was no way the PAF could have gotten involved. Only the Air Defence was involved (and that too on Pakistan`s side of the border), which shot down two or three Indian aircraft, when the entered into Pakistan airspace. One of the pilots was handed over to the Red Cross.
The other reason the PAF did not get involved was because, its top leadership disagreed with Kargil from the get-go. They have a far more balanced view of the world, than the Army leadership. That is why Musharraf eventually fired them all, when the next Chief was to be appointed.
``Now imagine the same situation if India has skimped on buying these expensive aircraft. IAF would have been forced to bring in many more aircraft into the area.``
The aircraft had nothing to do with it. As I said, a few shepherds would have solved the problem. These aircraft in those hills of Kashmir cannot fly close enough, to the hilltops to be of any major threat. Try flying a Mirage-2000 in the hills of Kashmir, with soldiers firing Stinger missiles at you from the hills, if you don`t believe me. That is why the few, who ventured into Pakistan got disoriented and crashed. The are sitting ducks for shoulder launched missiles, since they would have to fly within the hills for effective targeting.
And if they rely on high altitude bombing, they will probably kill more of their own soldiers climbing up the hills than the adversary, hiding in bunkers.
However, since Pakistan denied involvement of its own soldiers, it did not rely on shoulder launched missiles either. Based on this, any kind of simple aircraft could have bombed those hilltops. However, in an open conflict, with shoulder launched missiles, the aircraft would have been useless - with or without BVRs.
``So next time we have a similar conflict we will have more PGM equipped aircract, AWACS control, weapon locating radars, artillery .... to further ensure that we will be able to deal with such conflicts locally.``
As I stated, you just needed a few village folk sitting on top of the hills, which India vacated. Once you get the higher ground in hills, you win the battle. And Pakistan was able to do that. AWACS, radards etc. would have been useless.
Instead of radars, a simple $30 PC Cam on top of the hills would have sufficed. To make a long story short, if $15 billion couldn`t achieve intelligence success, $30 billion won`t either.
P.S. I have no issues with radars etc. These are defenisive in nature. What I specifically mentioned were fighter-bombers, aircraft carriers, and tanks. None of the these could be used in Kargil. Could they? So why are they being purchased?
Isn`t it an obvious and unnecessary arms race, at the expense of the poor people of South Asia?
As for Kargil:
``At Kargil in `99, it was the technological superiority of the IAF (because of BVR equipped Mig-29`s and Mirage 2000`s) that prevented the PAF from interfering with their bombing of the NLI. Or at the very least caused the PAF to think twice. Do you agree with this statement?``
I don`t agree. If Air Forces commit to combat then they don`t worry about BVRs or about Mirages, or anything else.
India`s basic problem in Kargil was not BVRs, but intelligence. A few India sepoys placed in the bunkers on the hill would have been enough. Their salary would have been about Rs. 5000/month. About the cost of a screw on a Mirage.
One of my close acquintences commanded the first group of Army engineers that went up on Kargil. India had basically built bunkers and left them empty on top of the hills, and forgotten about them. Pakistanis went up and occupied the same bunkers, and gained the height advantage over the Indian troops. Their aim was to use the height advantage to cut of India`s supply lines to Siachen. Very simple. The same strategies that were used by Julius Ceaser and Napoleon, centuries ago.
Lose height, lose fight. Rule number one of any kind of military conflict, be it in the air or on the ground.
If India had kept its eyes on the hilltops, there would have been no problem for India. Once India lost the height advantage, it basically lost the battle. Simple Physics.
The reason the PAF did not get involved in it had nothing to do with BVRs. The PAF was not supposed to be involved in the conflict. Throughout the conflict, Pakistan claimed that its military was not involved. So there was no way the PAF could have gotten involved. Only the Air Defence was involved (and that too on Pakistan`s side of the border), which shot down two or three Indian aircraft, when the entered into Pakistan airspace. One of the pilots was handed over to the Red Cross.
The other reason the PAF did not get involved was because, its top leadership disagreed with Kargil from the get-go. They have a far more balanced view of the world, than the Army leadership. That is why Musharraf eventually fired them all, when the next Chief was to be appointed.
``Now imagine the same situation if India has skimped on buying these expensive aircraft. IAF would have been forced to bring in many more aircraft into the area.``
The aircraft had nothing to do with it. As I said, a few shepherds would have solved the problem. These aircraft in those hills of Kashmir cannot fly close enough, to the hilltops to be of any major threat. Try flying a Mirage-2000 in the hills of Kashmir, with soldiers firing Stinger missiles at you from the hills, if you don`t believe me. That is why the few, who ventured into Pakistan got disoriented and crashed. The are sitting ducks for shoulder launched missiles, since they would have to fly within the hills for effective targeting.
And if they rely on high altitude bombing, they will probably kill more of their own soldiers climbing up the hills than the adversary, hiding in bunkers.
However, since Pakistan denied involvement of its own soldiers, it did not rely on shoulder launched missiles either. Based on this, any kind of simple aircraft could have bombed those hilltops. However, in an open conflict, with shoulder launched missiles, the aircraft would have been useless - with or without BVRs.
``So next time we have a similar conflict we will have more PGM equipped aircract, AWACS control, weapon locating radars, artillery .... to further ensure that we will be able to deal with such conflicts locally.``
As I stated, you just needed a few village folk sitting on top of the hills, which India vacated. Once you get the higher ground in hills, you win the battle. And Pakistan was able to do that. AWACS, radards etc. would have been useless.
Instead of radars, a simple $30 PC Cam on top of the hills would have sufficed. To make a long story short, if $15 billion couldn`t achieve intelligence success, $30 billion won`t either.
P.S. I have no issues with radars etc. These are defenisive in nature. What I specifically mentioned were fighter-bombers, aircraft carriers, and tanks. None of the these could be used in Kargil. Could they? So why are they being purchased?
Isn`t it an obvious and unnecessary arms race, at the expense of the poor people of South Asia?
#72 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on February 6, 2004 11:32:43 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#71 Posted by bongdongs on February 6, 2004 8:57:13 am
#63 ROmair
Lets play this thought experiment:
At Kargil in `99, it was the technological superiority of the IAF (because of BVR equipped Mig-29`s and Mirage 2000`s) that prevented the PAF from interfering with their bombing of the NLI. Or at the very least caused the PAF to think twice. Do you agree with this statement?
Now imagine the same situation if India has skimped on buying these expensive aircraft. IAF would have been forced to bring in many more aircraft into the area. The job may have been much tougher for the ground troops. India may have been left with no option but to bring its superior numbers into play and expand into a wide scale war.
So this is one instance in which spending of high-tech weaponry saved escalation into an all out conflict. Hence spending on weapony which gives an highly unsymetric edge to the Indian armed forces enables it to handle events locally without geographically exapanding the conflict.
So next time we have a similar conflict we will have more PGM equipped aircract, AWACS control, weapon locating radars, artillery .... to further ensure that we will be able to deal with such conflicts locally.
Lets play this thought experiment:
At Kargil in `99, it was the technological superiority of the IAF (because of BVR equipped Mig-29`s and Mirage 2000`s) that prevented the PAF from interfering with their bombing of the NLI. Or at the very least caused the PAF to think twice. Do you agree with this statement?
Now imagine the same situation if India has skimped on buying these expensive aircraft. IAF would have been forced to bring in many more aircraft into the area. The job may have been much tougher for the ground troops. India may have been left with no option but to bring its superior numbers into play and expand into a wide scale war.
So this is one instance in which spending of high-tech weaponry saved escalation into an all out conflict. Hence spending on weapony which gives an highly unsymetric edge to the Indian armed forces enables it to handle events locally without geographically exapanding the conflict.
So next time we have a similar conflict we will have more PGM equipped aircract, AWACS control, weapon locating radars, artillery .... to further ensure that we will be able to deal with such conflicts locally.
#70 Posted by khotasikka on February 6, 2004 8:25:59 am
echoboom you are simply hilarious, dude. I`m assuming your Chiraq letter is a troll, but even if it is it is amazingly funny. So full marks to you !! I havent laughed so hard in a long time!
#69 Posted by bongdongs on February 6, 2004 7:57:28 am
#63
``Everytime I read such lines from our Indian colleagues, I must say I am impressed by the image Pakistan has been able to create in India :-)``
Why said such delusions of the Pakistani army are based in reality? But the fact remains that the upper echelons of the Pakistani army is lead by people with severe delusions, and prone to making irrational decisions, these are people who:
-At Kargil, thought that the Indian army would collapse and sue for peace, international intervention would cause an equal-equal settlement``
-Sponsored people like Omar Sheikh who is directly implicated in 9-11, what the heck were they thinking?
-Sponsored hijacking of Indian Airlines to free criminals and as a planning rehersal for 9-11
etc etc
So let me spell it out to you ROMair:
The Pakistani ``establishment`` is headed by delusional, genocidal people who are obsessed with harming India in any way possible and would care less about well being of Pakistani people, get it?
``Everytime I read such lines from our Indian colleagues, I must say I am impressed by the image Pakistan has been able to create in India :-)``
Why said such delusions of the Pakistani army are based in reality? But the fact remains that the upper echelons of the Pakistani army is lead by people with severe delusions, and prone to making irrational decisions, these are people who:
-At Kargil, thought that the Indian army would collapse and sue for peace, international intervention would cause an equal-equal settlement``
-Sponsored people like Omar Sheikh who is directly implicated in 9-11, what the heck were they thinking?
-Sponsored hijacking of Indian Airlines to free criminals and as a planning rehersal for 9-11
etc etc
So let me spell it out to you ROMair:
The Pakistani ``establishment`` is headed by delusional, genocidal people who are obsessed with harming India in any way possible and would care less about well being of Pakistani people, get it?
#68 Posted by Inquirer on February 6, 2004 7:57:27 am
#62, sims/qbal Mustafa:
Agree that it would be hazardous to say in Pakitan what you can say in Chowk. But hopefully, this will change soon.
I am galad that at this time those in power in Pakistan have better sense than ever existed ven harking back to August 14, 1947.
I would not analyze the reasons for this betterment but would accept whatever goodd can happen between the two regions.
Agree that it would be hazardous to say in Pakitan what you can say in Chowk. But hopefully, this will change soon.
I am galad that at this time those in power in Pakistan have better sense than ever existed ven harking back to August 14, 1947.
I would not analyze the reasons for this betterment but would accept whatever goodd can happen between the two regions.
#67 Posted by jay on February 6, 2004 6:52:01 am
sims 62,
It is heartening to see a pakistani with a different view. What we are talking about here are social constructs, a kind of template that can be used to understand the motivations of people aggregated as a society, not as individuals. Many pakistanis on chowk have talked about their specific experiences with felloow pakistanis/ indians and all have been splendid, not much of any rancour, no talks of TNT and jihad. But the fact remanins that pak society has trained and sent thousands of fellow muslims to their graves in india in the name of jihad.
There is something called collective national psyche, each individual is an exception to it, but stll miraculously, it is the national psyche that governs the collective social actions. I am convinced that pak collective psyche is dominated by TNT, and a viulent strain of islam.
Now the only bulwark against the manifestations of this psyche is the role of the military, its desire to survive and not to be iraquised. Dr khan episode, the U turn on afghanistan, the kashmir surrender are all aberrations, hopefully temporary aberrations. The day os not very far off when a bearded general will take over pakistan.
It is heartening to see a pakistani with a different view. What we are talking about here are social constructs, a kind of template that can be used to understand the motivations of people aggregated as a society, not as individuals. Many pakistanis on chowk have talked about their specific experiences with felloow pakistanis/ indians and all have been splendid, not much of any rancour, no talks of TNT and jihad. But the fact remanins that pak society has trained and sent thousands of fellow muslims to their graves in india in the name of jihad.
There is something called collective national psyche, each individual is an exception to it, but stll miraculously, it is the national psyche that governs the collective social actions. I am convinced that pak collective psyche is dominated by TNT, and a viulent strain of islam.
Now the only bulwark against the manifestations of this psyche is the role of the military, its desire to survive and not to be iraquised. Dr khan episode, the U turn on afghanistan, the kashmir surrender are all aberrations, hopefully temporary aberrations. The day os not very far off when a bearded general will take over pakistan.
#66 Posted by Inquirer on February 6, 2004 6:51:29 am
#39, His Excellency:
****I thought only Pakistanis indulged in conspiracy theories. You have proven me wrong with your bizarre internal war/Colonial-Jinnah nexus theory. Get a grip on reality. India was partitioned because the elected representatives of Hindus and Muslims failed to break a constitutional impasse. They tried for many years but to no avail; until finally they mutually agreed to part ways. ****
Since you have little experience in democratic manuvering - being a Pakistani - you are losing sight of ability for molding of public opinion to extract a desired voting consequence. It does not always succeed but when there are potent fouling factors such as the British and the legacy of autocratic Muslim rule prior to them, it was not surprising that the NWFP forgot about Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan. You made my day by pointing out that some even in Pakistan see through the British-Jinnah ruse-conspiracy.
****However, Jinnah envisioned two friendly states that cooperated and traded with each other. He even proposed Joint Defense to Nehru (who rejected it). Over the decades, Pakistan progressed down a path quite different from that envisioned by Jinnah. The present generation of Pakistanis simply wants to revert to Jinnah`s vision of a moderate, democratic country at peace with its neighbors especially India. This should not be misunderstood as a desire to undo partition. ****
You do not extend the arm of friendship by sending the Kabayalis supported by Pakistan Army in Kashmir when its Government had acceded to India. At any rate, I am not aware of Jinnah`s offer of joint defence, so would you plesae provide a reference to the event? Thanks. There is a strong and legitimate desire to undo the foreign imposed partition of India. That desire should certainly not be implementaed in any unjust manner. What is needed is to bring home to the masses their common South Asian Destiny - irrespective of religion - by developing and strengthening the unifying elements in both countries.
****I thought only Pakistanis indulged in conspiracy theories. You have proven me wrong with your bizarre internal war/Colonial-Jinnah nexus theory. Get a grip on reality. India was partitioned because the elected representatives of Hindus and Muslims failed to break a constitutional impasse. They tried for many years but to no avail; until finally they mutually agreed to part ways. ****
Since you have little experience in democratic manuvering - being a Pakistani - you are losing sight of ability for molding of public opinion to extract a desired voting consequence. It does not always succeed but when there are potent fouling factors such as the British and the legacy of autocratic Muslim rule prior to them, it was not surprising that the NWFP forgot about Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan. You made my day by pointing out that some even in Pakistan see through the British-Jinnah ruse-conspiracy.
****However, Jinnah envisioned two friendly states that cooperated and traded with each other. He even proposed Joint Defense to Nehru (who rejected it). Over the decades, Pakistan progressed down a path quite different from that envisioned by Jinnah. The present generation of Pakistanis simply wants to revert to Jinnah`s vision of a moderate, democratic country at peace with its neighbors especially India. This should not be misunderstood as a desire to undo partition. ****
You do not extend the arm of friendship by sending the Kabayalis supported by Pakistan Army in Kashmir when its Government had acceded to India. At any rate, I am not aware of Jinnah`s offer of joint defence, so would you plesae provide a reference to the event? Thanks. There is a strong and legitimate desire to undo the foreign imposed partition of India. That desire should certainly not be implementaed in any unjust manner. What is needed is to bring home to the masses their common South Asian Destiny - irrespective of religion - by developing and strengthening the unifying elements in both countries.
#65 Posted by echoboom on February 6, 2004 6:51:28 am
This is to remind the ignorant-ones still leeching on to colonised mindset. The ones who were unfortunate not to get a madressa learning.
Distribute to muslims especially the near-muslims, afar-muslims, and anti-muslims.
Hand-delivered to President Chirac of France.
An Open letter from Hizb ut-Tahrir to President Chirac, President of the Republic of France
uploaded 08 Jan 2004
بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِِ
An Open letter from Hizb ut-Tahrir to President Chirac, President of the Republic of France
Monsieur le President,
We were hesitant to write this letter and there were two reasons for this hesitance:
Firstly; we do not represent a State. We are a political party whose ideology is Islam working for the resumption of the Islamic way of life by establishing the Islamic State, the Rightly guided Khilafah State in the Muslim lands. Since we do not represent a State we felt that you might find it inappropriate that a party writes to you rather than a state writing to a major power such as France.
Secondly; we do not write to any ruler who we believe will not accept the demands of our letter. We heard your speech on 17th December 2003 regarding the wearing of the Hijaab by Muslim women in France. We heard you say explicitly that France adopts secularism as a system and ideology and that you will not allow any religious symbolism in your institutions. We also heard you say explicitly that the Hijaab, i.e. the headscarf worn by Muslim women, is a religious symbol like wearing a cross and other such symbols, whereas in Islam the headscarf for a woman is considered a divine obligation like prayer and fasting. Thus, we understood from your speech that this matter has been decided by you and that you will not reconsider your recommendation to pass a law banning the Hijaab. Consequently, had we written to you there would have been little chance of you accepting our request.
In consideration of two points we decided to write to you:
Firstly: 480 years ago in the sixteenth century, we, the Muslims, undertook an act of goodwill towards France.
Secondly: Historically, France has a tradition of chivalry and reciprocating acts of goodwill.
It is our expectation in writing this letter, that the France of today will reciprocate the act of goodwill undertaken towards the France of yesterday. The French king Francis I was captured at the battle of Pavia in 1525. France felt humiliated by the capture of her king but her army was unable to rescue him from captivity. She made recourse to the Islamic Khilafah state, under the Ottomans, at that time, and she sent a messenger on behalf of the king of France on 6th December 1525 seeking help from the Islamic State. The messenger met the Ottoman Caliph Sulayman al-Qanooni who responded to his call. Sulayman gave the messenger a letter which read: “…we have received the letter delivered by your messenger, and in which you stated that your enemy has attacked your country and you are imprisoned and seek our help in respect to securing your release. We have answered your request so be at ease and do not worry…” This is how Sulayman responded. The Khilafah state used its international weight and military power to rescue the king of France and made an effective contribution towards his release.
The Caliph of the Muslims helped France without compensation, without occupying a part of France or colonising any region of France in return. Rather he did the action as an act of goodwill. Furthermore, the Treaty of Constantinople that was concluded in 1536 between the Caliph of the Muslims, Sultan Sulayman al-Qanooni and the king of France, Francis I, granted France concessions in the Islamic State which were granted to no other state.
Monsieur le President,
This is the act of goodwill that our State, the Islamic State, the Ottoman Khilafah State, undertook for the France of yesterday. Will the France of today reciprocate this act of goodwill to the Muslims and annul the decision to ban the wearing of the Hijaab by Muslim women in France?
We will wait and see - if France today reciprocates this act of goodwill then this will be a good gesture towards the Islamic Khilafah state when we re-establish it by Allah’s leave.
Kindly accept our greetings.
Hizb ut-Tahrir
9 Dhul Qa’dah 1424 AH
Distribute to muslims especially the near-muslims, afar-muslims, and anti-muslims.
Hand-delivered to President Chirac of France.
An Open letter from Hizb ut-Tahrir to President Chirac, President of the Republic of France
uploaded 08 Jan 2004
بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِِ
An Open letter from Hizb ut-Tahrir to President Chirac, President of the Republic of France
Monsieur le President,
We were hesitant to write this letter and there were two reasons for this hesitance:
Firstly; we do not represent a State. We are a political party whose ideology is Islam working for the resumption of the Islamic way of life by establishing the Islamic State, the Rightly guided Khilafah State in the Muslim lands. Since we do not represent a State we felt that you might find it inappropriate that a party writes to you rather than a state writing to a major power such as France.
Secondly; we do not write to any ruler who we believe will not accept the demands of our letter. We heard your speech on 17th December 2003 regarding the wearing of the Hijaab by Muslim women in France. We heard you say explicitly that France adopts secularism as a system and ideology and that you will not allow any religious symbolism in your institutions. We also heard you say explicitly that the Hijaab, i.e. the headscarf worn by Muslim women, is a religious symbol like wearing a cross and other such symbols, whereas in Islam the headscarf for a woman is considered a divine obligation like prayer and fasting. Thus, we understood from your speech that this matter has been decided by you and that you will not reconsider your recommendation to pass a law banning the Hijaab. Consequently, had we written to you there would have been little chance of you accepting our request.
In consideration of two points we decided to write to you:
Firstly: 480 years ago in the sixteenth century, we, the Muslims, undertook an act of goodwill towards France.
Secondly: Historically, France has a tradition of chivalry and reciprocating acts of goodwill.
It is our expectation in writing this letter, that the France of today will reciprocate the act of goodwill undertaken towards the France of yesterday. The French king Francis I was captured at the battle of Pavia in 1525. France felt humiliated by the capture of her king but her army was unable to rescue him from captivity. She made recourse to the Islamic Khilafah state, under the Ottomans, at that time, and she sent a messenger on behalf of the king of France on 6th December 1525 seeking help from the Islamic State. The messenger met the Ottoman Caliph Sulayman al-Qanooni who responded to his call. Sulayman gave the messenger a letter which read: “…we have received the letter delivered by your messenger, and in which you stated that your enemy has attacked your country and you are imprisoned and seek our help in respect to securing your release. We have answered your request so be at ease and do not worry…” This is how Sulayman responded. The Khilafah state used its international weight and military power to rescue the king of France and made an effective contribution towards his release.
The Caliph of the Muslims helped France without compensation, without occupying a part of France or colonising any region of France in return. Rather he did the action as an act of goodwill. Furthermore, the Treaty of Constantinople that was concluded in 1536 between the Caliph of the Muslims, Sultan Sulayman al-Qanooni and the king of France, Francis I, granted France concessions in the Islamic State which were granted to no other state.
Monsieur le President,
This is the act of goodwill that our State, the Islamic State, the Ottoman Khilafah State, undertook for the France of yesterday. Will the France of today reciprocate this act of goodwill to the Muslims and annul the decision to ban the wearing of the Hijaab by Muslim women in France?
We will wait and see - if France today reciprocates this act of goodwill then this will be a good gesture towards the Islamic Khilafah state when we re-establish it by Allah’s leave.
Kindly accept our greetings.
Hizb ut-Tahrir
9 Dhul Qa’dah 1424 AH
#64 Posted by harish_hyd on February 6, 2004 12:30:24 am
#63 by Romair on February 5, 2004 9:38pm PT
{{Are there really people in India who think that India could be successfully attacked by a country 1/7th its size, and thus needs to get as many offensive weapons as it can :-) }}
Captain Clueless, it`s not Indians who think India can be attacked but Pakistanis. That`s why we`ve had 3.5 wars all of which were initiated by Pakistan. And what`s more important is that all of these were lost by Pakiland.
India`s perception is that in the near future, China could pose problems for her, so staying prepared is the best option, especially when she has the means and the wherewithal for the weaponry she seeks.
{{Are there really people in India who think that India could be successfully attacked by a country 1/7th its size, and thus needs to get as many offensive weapons as it can :-) }}
Captain Clueless, it`s not Indians who think India can be attacked but Pakistanis. That`s why we`ve had 3.5 wars all of which were initiated by Pakistan. And what`s more important is that all of these were lost by Pakiland.
India`s perception is that in the near future, China could pose problems for her, so staying prepared is the best option, especially when she has the means and the wherewithal for the weaponry she seeks.
#63 Posted by Romair on February 5, 2004 9:38:47 pm
bongdongs #60: ``Musharaff may be quite a reasonable person today, who knowns when he will get the urge to liberate the land of the Moguls from the clutches of the infidel again....
Lets not pretend if Pakistan was able to spend money and buy western weaponary today it would not be doing so.``
Everytime I read such lines from our Indian colleagues, I must say I am impressed by the image Pakistan has been able to create in India :-). Are there really people in India who think that India could be successfully attacked by a country 1/7th its size, and thus needs to get as many offensive weapons as it can :-)
If Pakistan had that kind of money, it probably would spend it on Defense. But it doesn`t have that kind of money, and never will. So I don`t think this is the reason for India purchasing offensive weaponry. If it was purchasing defensive weaponry, it would be understandable. But why offensive weaponry?
To put things in perspective, the current Pakistan military budget has been frozen at around $2.8 billion. The Indian budget is crossing $15 billion. So over five times Pakistan`s. For a country to have any chance of defeating another, in an offensive war, it has to have at least a 3 to 1 superiority. So for Pakistan to attack and to, ``liberate the land of the Moguls from the clutches of the infidel again,`` it would have to have an annual military budget of at least $45 billion, i.e. 16 times its current military budget. It would also need an economy seven times its current size to match India`s economic cushion.
After paying its debt, Pakistan does not, as a country, have $45 billion total left over every year. So if every Pakistani gave every penny he had earned to the military, even then it could not successfully attack India. And this is in a conventional war. Of course, India has nukes, as well. So even with such a huge fictitious budget, Pakistan could not attack India.
I will thus ask the question again: ``So what is going on? Offensive military hardware that is not going to be used is the biggest waste of foreign exchange in the world.....Any ideas....``
If my neighbor already has five times the guns I have, and then buys many more, which can only be used against me, and not against other neighbors, what could be his motivation......
As for Asghar Khan, yes I agree. Unfortunately, people like him and Imran Khan have very little chances in a feudally dominated politcal system like Pakistan`s. At least Imran Khan won one seat. Asghar Khan couldn`t even do that. Interestingly, from the same area as his, Ayub Khan`s son and his extended family completely dominate every election. Even Ayub Khan`s grandsons win from there.
Asghar Khan`s son, unlike Asghar Khan, would have done well in politics, I think. He, like Imran Khan, was a genuine philathrapist, and loved by people whom he helped. And a Cambridge educated very progressive Pakistani. And like Imran Khan, very good-looking also.
Lets not pretend if Pakistan was able to spend money and buy western weaponary today it would not be doing so.``
Everytime I read such lines from our Indian colleagues, I must say I am impressed by the image Pakistan has been able to create in India :-). Are there really people in India who think that India could be successfully attacked by a country 1/7th its size, and thus needs to get as many offensive weapons as it can :-)
If Pakistan had that kind of money, it probably would spend it on Defense. But it doesn`t have that kind of money, and never will. So I don`t think this is the reason for India purchasing offensive weaponry. If it was purchasing defensive weaponry, it would be understandable. But why offensive weaponry?
To put things in perspective, the current Pakistan military budget has been frozen at around $2.8 billion. The Indian budget is crossing $15 billion. So over five times Pakistan`s. For a country to have any chance of defeating another, in an offensive war, it has to have at least a 3 to 1 superiority. So for Pakistan to attack and to, ``liberate the land of the Moguls from the clutches of the infidel again,`` it would have to have an annual military budget of at least $45 billion, i.e. 16 times its current military budget. It would also need an economy seven times its current size to match India`s economic cushion.
After paying its debt, Pakistan does not, as a country, have $45 billion total left over every year. So if every Pakistani gave every penny he had earned to the military, even then it could not successfully attack India. And this is in a conventional war. Of course, India has nukes, as well. So even with such a huge fictitious budget, Pakistan could not attack India.
I will thus ask the question again: ``So what is going on? Offensive military hardware that is not going to be used is the biggest waste of foreign exchange in the world.....Any ideas....``
If my neighbor already has five times the guns I have, and then buys many more, which can only be used against me, and not against other neighbors, what could be his motivation......
As for Asghar Khan, yes I agree. Unfortunately, people like him and Imran Khan have very little chances in a feudally dominated politcal system like Pakistan`s. At least Imran Khan won one seat. Asghar Khan couldn`t even do that. Interestingly, from the same area as his, Ayub Khan`s son and his extended family completely dominate every election. Even Ayub Khan`s grandsons win from there.
Asghar Khan`s son, unlike Asghar Khan, would have done well in politics, I think. He, like Imran Khan, was a genuine philathrapist, and loved by people whom he helped. And a Cambridge educated very progressive Pakistani. And like Imran Khan, very good-looking also.
#62 Posted by sims on February 5, 2004 9:35:48 pm
Jay
I agree with you to a large extend. My column was for the consumption of Pakistani elites, including the bosses, to be printed in NEWS on SUNDAY. I could write candidly but that would not wash down well with many who matter in the country. My sugar coated style of wrapping bitter truths is for this specific purpose. There is little point in `converting the converted`.
However, now that I will be writing for CHOWK, my gloves will come off, promise.
I.M.
I agree with you to a large extend. My column was for the consumption of Pakistani elites, including the bosses, to be printed in NEWS on SUNDAY. I could write candidly but that would not wash down well with many who matter in the country. My sugar coated style of wrapping bitter truths is for this specific purpose. There is little point in `converting the converted`.
However, now that I will be writing for CHOWK, my gloves will come off, promise.
I.M.
#61 Posted by arjun_m on February 5, 2004 8:59:51 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- altar: I am going to... The Heart of Starkness:
- KaalChakra: "Now or Never" is... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- muqaddam: If one did a... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- muqaddam: Omar Abdulla is just... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- banneditem: Oye Ehtisham, meet us... Losing the Battle, Losing
- pinku: Indian society never persecuted... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- masadi: banneditem writes "Ras, In my... Three Cups of Tea
- masadi: He says a few... Three Cups of Tea
