Is Dr. Qadeer Guilty as Accused?
Karamatullah K Ghori February 4, 2004
#198 Posted by ballukhan on February 10, 2004 9:01:14 pm
Reg #194 by Inquirer on February 9, 2004 2:21pm PT
From a decent Pakistani:
What is the “national interest”?
I am in complete agreement with Najam Sethi. This ``national interest`` crap is just another of the bogies raised by the power elites in Pakistan to justify and exonerate criminal acts being perpeterated by them- in fact any one who tries to hide the facts of complicity of army , european black marketers, US companies, chinese army personnel in the guise of ``national interest`` is guilty of complicity himself- he is giving them enough time to erase the evidences, tutor the people, arm twist press.
That is what mush was doing in his press conference that I saw on PTV- that rascal was obliquely threatening people in Pakistan to stop talking about it- blaming press for his limitations in not being able to shield Xerox Khan properly because they kept on blowing up the covers and facts. I know that if all the facts are not brought out regarding the deals that Khan was making with the rogue nations then Mush would go down into the history of mankind as a rascal of first order! The world has the right to know whether Khan has supplied the technology for the dirty bomb to the Jehadist or not!
From a decent Pakistani:
What is the “national interest”?
I am in complete agreement with Najam Sethi. This ``national interest`` crap is just another of the bogies raised by the power elites in Pakistan to justify and exonerate criminal acts being perpeterated by them- in fact any one who tries to hide the facts of complicity of army , european black marketers, US companies, chinese army personnel in the guise of ``national interest`` is guilty of complicity himself- he is giving them enough time to erase the evidences, tutor the people, arm twist press.
That is what mush was doing in his press conference that I saw on PTV- that rascal was obliquely threatening people in Pakistan to stop talking about it- blaming press for his limitations in not being able to shield Xerox Khan properly because they kept on blowing up the covers and facts. I know that if all the facts are not brought out regarding the deals that Khan was making with the rogue nations then Mush would go down into the history of mankind as a rascal of first order! The world has the right to know whether Khan has supplied the technology for the dirty bomb to the Jehadist or not!
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#197 Posted by XeroxKhan on February 10, 2004 11:38:37 am
My Hero AQK is being publicly humiliated for helping fellow Muslims and our Friends (who are supplying us with the long range missiles) -the N Koreans. All He has done is extracted a fair price for the knowledge he has had.
Chori to nahi ki hai
Daka to Nahi Dala
Ghaddar Mush is more of an agent of the Banias next door, to DO this kind of dirty deed. Look at the Indians! they are not saying anything.
Bus! Tamasha enjoy kar rahen hai!
I hope somebody from Indian side says something, I hope that it is as stupid as the Pakistanis are saying about how the Military and the gormint (what is the difference?) was never involved in proliferation. How can the Pakistanis infect the Indians with the ``foot in the mouth`` disease which is endemic among the PML-Q (mush ke kutte) in the land of pure?
Mera tau bus mind ghoomne lag jata hai!
I hope for Musharraf to loose his ``jewels`` before IAEA asks Pakistanis to ``roll back``. IAEA wants to convert the ``bums`` into 3 inch suppositories. There will be enough to ``cleanse`` the barins of all the Q Party MNAs.
Washington Post and NY Times, are lefty limey, and anti Pakistan. They write terrible propaganda. Their editorials and columns are full of anti-Pakistani sentiment (they call us ``axis of evil````- hain ji! Ye Bhi koi baat hai kya?) Somebody should read them to Mush....
Sar-dard kum ho jayega...without the suppositories!
He says one thing in the morning and does exactly opposite in the afternoon and then in the evening, spews some BS on PTV before retiring -early. Repeats the whole thing day after day. He is more of a foreign hand, than all the foreign hands combined.
What do you say CHOK-WALO
Chori to nahi ki hai
Daka to Nahi Dala
Ghaddar Mush is more of an agent of the Banias next door, to DO this kind of dirty deed. Look at the Indians! they are not saying anything.
Bus! Tamasha enjoy kar rahen hai!
I hope somebody from Indian side says something, I hope that it is as stupid as the Pakistanis are saying about how the Military and the gormint (what is the difference?) was never involved in proliferation. How can the Pakistanis infect the Indians with the ``foot in the mouth`` disease which is endemic among the PML-Q (mush ke kutte) in the land of pure?
Mera tau bus mind ghoomne lag jata hai!
I hope for Musharraf to loose his ``jewels`` before IAEA asks Pakistanis to ``roll back``. IAEA wants to convert the ``bums`` into 3 inch suppositories. There will be enough to ``cleanse`` the barins of all the Q Party MNAs.
Washington Post and NY Times, are lefty limey, and anti Pakistan. They write terrible propaganda. Their editorials and columns are full of anti-Pakistani sentiment (they call us ``axis of evil````- hain ji! Ye Bhi koi baat hai kya?) Somebody should read them to Mush....
Sar-dard kum ho jayega...without the suppositories!
He says one thing in the morning and does exactly opposite in the afternoon and then in the evening, spews some BS on PTV before retiring -early. Repeats the whole thing day after day. He is more of a foreign hand, than all the foreign hands combined.
What do you say CHOK-WALO
#196 Posted by sadna on February 10, 2004 10:52:03 am
AlephNull #170
``I made the connection with Gog and Magog, just as I made the connection between Varuna and Uranus, Ushas and Eos``
Doubtless you made this connection too - Brishaspati, Zeus ``pater``, Ju-piter.
``I made the connection with Gog and Magog, just as I made the connection between Varuna and Uranus, Ushas and Eos``
Doubtless you made this connection too - Brishaspati, Zeus ``pater``, Ju-piter.
#195 Posted by soysauce on February 9, 2004 4:09:05 pm
#193 arjum_m
Of course he is lying/embellishing. Your faith in the system is touching. It`s like saying nobody lies because everyone is accountable. Tenet would lie precisely because he is under fire. What was he doing sitting next to Powell when Powell was lying to the UN? Now he claims the CIA was correct and did not mislead.
Of course he is lying/embellishing. Your faith in the system is touching. It`s like saying nobody lies because everyone is accountable. Tenet would lie precisely because he is under fire. What was he doing sitting next to Powell when Powell was lying to the UN? Now he claims the CIA was correct and did not mislead.
#194 Posted by Inquirer on February 9, 2004 2:21:20 pm
From a decent Pakistani:
What is the “national interest”?
Advertise Here
Najam Sethi`s E d i t o r i a l
mong President General Pervez Musharraf’s many winning ways is his ability to talk straight and stay cool. This is a welcome relief from the hypocritical doublespeak of politicians. We can therefore hope that he won’t get too hot under the collar by some candid comments from us.
A pardon for Dr A Q Khan was apparently unavoidable. We are told that Pakistanis perceive him as a national hero, never mind that this perception was assiduously manufactured, never mind that this was at the expense of several brilliant but unsung Pakistani scientists and organizations, never mind that lesser mortals acting on Dr Khan’s instructions have been given no such grand reprieve, and never mind that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who envisioned the nuclear programme in the first place and can lay claim to be Pakistan’s most popular prime minister ever, was sent to the gallows by General Musharraf’s military predecessor General Zia ul Haq on the dubious evidence of a cowardly approver. General Musharraf has also reportedly decided not to deprive Dr Khan of his billions in ill-gotten wealth, never mind that two twice elected prime ministers have been exiled and disqualified from political office for stealing much less, never mind that NAB has hunted down scores of businessmen and civil servants for lesser crimes, and never, never mind that the official hunt is still on to compel foreign banks to cough up the relatively piddling sums gulped by all these undesirable elements. General Musharraf’s response is that, all things considered, a swift pardon was in the “national interest”.
That may or may not be the case. Certainly, the controversy over who and how many people and institutions were culpable, who was made the fall guy, and why, will inevitably spill over into the history books. Meanwhile, it is time to dissect one fundamental question: What is the “national interest”?
Apparently, every military coup d’etat was in the national interest, never mind what happened to democracy. The Islamic jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan was in the national interest, never mind its crippling legacy of sectarian warfare, drugs and Kalashnikov culture. The support for the Taliban regime was in the national interest for six years, never mind that it plunged Pakistan into the eye of the storm only days after 9/11. The jihad in Kashmir was in the national interest for over a decade, never mind that the deaths of tens of thousands of Kashmiri and Pakistani jihadis have been in vain because it is no longer in the national interest. The Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report was buried in the national interest, the Ojri camp was covered-up in the national interest, the testing of the nuclear bomb was in the national interest, the subsequent freeze on forex accounts was in the national interest, the Kargil adventure was in the national interest, and Nawaz Sharif’s exile was in the national interest.
Who determines the national interest? The rulers determine it, of course. War mongering is therefore in the national interest and the peace dividend is not. Accountability of politicians and civil servants and businessmen is in the national interest, but accountability of generals and judges and nuclear scientists is not. So it goes on, ad nauseam. And now General Musharraf is thundering against the Pakistani media for “damaging the national interest” by publishing “foreign-inspired” stories about the proliferation affair.
General Musharraf is a hard man to please. He likes to boast of the free press in Pakistan as one of his great achievements. Then he rails against it for not behaving like the gagged press in Iran and Libya and North Korea. Does he think that the American press which is lampooning the American government for screwing up in Iraq and getting its soldiers killed there is unpatriotic and acting against the American national interest? Does he think the BBC was acting against the British national interest when it alleged that Tony Blair had “sexed” up the inspector’s report on Iraq? The problem with most dictators, benevolent or otherwise, and most democrats, autocrats or not, is that they think they are infallible, that they know best, that what suits them personally suits the national interest.
But the business of a free press is to hold rulers accountable, to challenge their self-righteous notions of right and wrong. One way of doing this is to present the people with as many facets of any situation as possible and let them determine where the truth lies. Another way is to make assessments of the national interest that are independent of particular individual or institutional or class or ethnic or regional or sectarian vested interests and concerns. This is a complex process in which debate and discussion are of the essence. Attempts to muzzle any divergence of opinion tend to defeat the very purpose of locating the real and enduring “national” interest in any situation.
We do not doubt General Pervez Musharraf’s integrity or patriotism. But he shouldn’t doubt ours either. The army and its generals cannot be allowed to have a monopoly over determining the national interest. In fact, history suggests that they have been wrong more often than right in defining and defending it.
What is the “national interest”?
Advertise Here
Najam Sethi`s E d i t o r i a l
mong President General Pervez Musharraf’s many winning ways is his ability to talk straight and stay cool. This is a welcome relief from the hypocritical doublespeak of politicians. We can therefore hope that he won’t get too hot under the collar by some candid comments from us.
A pardon for Dr A Q Khan was apparently unavoidable. We are told that Pakistanis perceive him as a national hero, never mind that this perception was assiduously manufactured, never mind that this was at the expense of several brilliant but unsung Pakistani scientists and organizations, never mind that lesser mortals acting on Dr Khan’s instructions have been given no such grand reprieve, and never mind that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who envisioned the nuclear programme in the first place and can lay claim to be Pakistan’s most popular prime minister ever, was sent to the gallows by General Musharraf’s military predecessor General Zia ul Haq on the dubious evidence of a cowardly approver. General Musharraf has also reportedly decided not to deprive Dr Khan of his billions in ill-gotten wealth, never mind that two twice elected prime ministers have been exiled and disqualified from political office for stealing much less, never mind that NAB has hunted down scores of businessmen and civil servants for lesser crimes, and never, never mind that the official hunt is still on to compel foreign banks to cough up the relatively piddling sums gulped by all these undesirable elements. General Musharraf’s response is that, all things considered, a swift pardon was in the “national interest”.
That may or may not be the case. Certainly, the controversy over who and how many people and institutions were culpable, who was made the fall guy, and why, will inevitably spill over into the history books. Meanwhile, it is time to dissect one fundamental question: What is the “national interest”?
Apparently, every military coup d’etat was in the national interest, never mind what happened to democracy. The Islamic jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan was in the national interest, never mind its crippling legacy of sectarian warfare, drugs and Kalashnikov culture. The support for the Taliban regime was in the national interest for six years, never mind that it plunged Pakistan into the eye of the storm only days after 9/11. The jihad in Kashmir was in the national interest for over a decade, never mind that the deaths of tens of thousands of Kashmiri and Pakistani jihadis have been in vain because it is no longer in the national interest. The Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report was buried in the national interest, the Ojri camp was covered-up in the national interest, the testing of the nuclear bomb was in the national interest, the subsequent freeze on forex accounts was in the national interest, the Kargil adventure was in the national interest, and Nawaz Sharif’s exile was in the national interest.
Who determines the national interest? The rulers determine it, of course. War mongering is therefore in the national interest and the peace dividend is not. Accountability of politicians and civil servants and businessmen is in the national interest, but accountability of generals and judges and nuclear scientists is not. So it goes on, ad nauseam. And now General Musharraf is thundering against the Pakistani media for “damaging the national interest” by publishing “foreign-inspired” stories about the proliferation affair.
General Musharraf is a hard man to please. He likes to boast of the free press in Pakistan as one of his great achievements. Then he rails against it for not behaving like the gagged press in Iran and Libya and North Korea. Does he think that the American press which is lampooning the American government for screwing up in Iraq and getting its soldiers killed there is unpatriotic and acting against the American national interest? Does he think the BBC was acting against the British national interest when it alleged that Tony Blair had “sexed” up the inspector’s report on Iraq? The problem with most dictators, benevolent or otherwise, and most democrats, autocrats or not, is that they think they are infallible, that they know best, that what suits them personally suits the national interest.
But the business of a free press is to hold rulers accountable, to challenge their self-righteous notions of right and wrong. One way of doing this is to present the people with as many facets of any situation as possible and let them determine where the truth lies. Another way is to make assessments of the national interest that are independent of particular individual or institutional or class or ethnic or regional or sectarian vested interests and concerns. This is a complex process in which debate and discussion are of the essence. Attempts to muzzle any divergence of opinion tend to defeat the very purpose of locating the real and enduring “national” interest in any situation.
We do not doubt General Pervez Musharraf’s integrity or patriotism. But he shouldn’t doubt ours either. The army and its generals cannot be allowed to have a monopoly over determining the national interest. In fact, history suggests that they have been wrong more often than right in defining and defending it.
#193 Posted by arjun_m on February 9, 2004 12:39:17 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#192 Posted by soysauce on February 9, 2004 10:03:14 am
#191 arjun_m
It`s lame to keep quoting Tenet to show how great his CIA is. What do you expect him to say? It`s like quoting Musharraf to prove how great pak army is...
It`s lame to keep quoting Tenet to show how great his CIA is. What do you expect him to say? It`s like quoting Musharraf to prove how great pak army is...
#191 Posted by arjun_m on February 9, 2004 9:31:04 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#190 Posted by jang on February 9, 2004 8:29:02 am
nazarhayatkhan #169
This whole affair is very humiliating for all honest pakistanis, and to some extent all s. asians, as one of the few modern developments stands tarnished. Indian strategic community is ever aprehensive of the Trojan Horse syndrome in any manipupations from the west even if they seem tactically to be a windfall. Therfore, I agree that the Indian establishment at this juncture has no reason to gloat. Indeed, most of the political establishment (e.g. NDA govt loudspeaker Gorge Fearless Fernandes) have uncharacteristically been quiet..this is after all election season. Yet, your sensitivity picked up a lone and very guarded statement by Sinha, who gave a comment which sounded more like an observation of what is likely to be happen rather that what should happen. Nontheless, I must point out that the blame for this humiliation lies west of wagha.
This whole affair is very humiliating for all honest pakistanis, and to some extent all s. asians, as one of the few modern developments stands tarnished. Indian strategic community is ever aprehensive of the Trojan Horse syndrome in any manipupations from the west even if they seem tactically to be a windfall. Therfore, I agree that the Indian establishment at this juncture has no reason to gloat. Indeed, most of the political establishment (e.g. NDA govt loudspeaker Gorge Fearless Fernandes) have uncharacteristically been quiet..this is after all election season. Yet, your sensitivity picked up a lone and very guarded statement by Sinha, who gave a comment which sounded more like an observation of what is likely to be happen rather that what should happen. Nontheless, I must point out that the blame for this humiliation lies west of wagha.
#189 Posted by arjun_m on February 9, 2004 8:29:02 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#188 Posted by whippinzed on February 9, 2004 7:28:46 am
A question to ROMAIR, URSTRULY, TAHMED and ANY OTHER KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON (APOLOGIES FOR NOT NAMING YOU IN PERSON).
- Libya and Iran named Pakistan as the surce of their nuclear techology. SO I guess AQK and mush-e-ruff`s cohorts agreeing to this makesit a fact. NOW THE QUESTION IS North Korea DIDNOT NAME PAKISTAN AS ITS SOURCE, AND YET AQK AND MUSH-e-RUFF Added THIS COUNTRY TO THE LIST.
WHAT DID THESE GUYS GAIN BY PUTTING THE NORTH KOREANS IN IT? DO WE REALLY TRUST THESE TWO GUYS AQK - the THEIF OF KAHUTA and Mush-e-Ruff? DID PAKISTAN HAND OVER ANOTHER PERSON BECAUSE IT WANTED TO KEEP SOMETHING A SECRET? WHat is it? enquiring minds want to know.
oopps caps lock guys - I had no intention of shouting.....
- Libya and Iran named Pakistan as the surce of their nuclear techology. SO I guess AQK and mush-e-ruff`s cohorts agreeing to this makesit a fact. NOW THE QUESTION IS North Korea DIDNOT NAME PAKISTAN AS ITS SOURCE, AND YET AQK AND MUSH-e-RUFF Added THIS COUNTRY TO THE LIST.
WHAT DID THESE GUYS GAIN BY PUTTING THE NORTH KOREANS IN IT? DO WE REALLY TRUST THESE TWO GUYS AQK - the THEIF OF KAHUTA and Mush-e-Ruff? DID PAKISTAN HAND OVER ANOTHER PERSON BECAUSE IT WANTED TO KEEP SOMETHING A SECRET? WHat is it? enquiring minds want to know.
oopps caps lock guys - I had no intention of shouting.....
#187 Posted by whippinzed on February 9, 2004 7:28:46 am
A question to ROMAIR, URSTRULY, TAHMED and ANY OTHER KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON (APOLOGIES FOR NOT NAMING YOU IN PERSON).
- Libya and Iran named Pakistan as the surce of their nuclear techology. SO I guess AQK and mush-e-ruff`s cohorts agreeing to this makesit a fact. NOW THE QUESTION IS North Korea DIDNOT NAME PAKISTAN AS ITS SOURCE, AND YET AQK AND MUSH-e-RUFF Added THIS COUNTRY TO THE LIST.
WHAT DID THESE GUYS GAIN BY PUTTING THE NORTH KOREANS IN IT? DO WE REALLY TRUST THESE TWO GUYS AQK - the THEIF OF KAHUTA and Mush-e-Ruff? DID PAKISTAN HAND OVER ANOTHER PERSON BECAUSE IT WANTED TO KEEP SOMETHING A SECRET? WHat is it? enquiring minds want to know.
oopps caps lock guys - I had no intention of shouting.....
- Libya and Iran named Pakistan as the surce of their nuclear techology. SO I guess AQK and mush-e-ruff`s cohorts agreeing to this makesit a fact. NOW THE QUESTION IS North Korea DIDNOT NAME PAKISTAN AS ITS SOURCE, AND YET AQK AND MUSH-e-RUFF Added THIS COUNTRY TO THE LIST.
WHAT DID THESE GUYS GAIN BY PUTTING THE NORTH KOREANS IN IT? DO WE REALLY TRUST THESE TWO GUYS AQK - the THEIF OF KAHUTA and Mush-e-Ruff? DID PAKISTAN HAND OVER ANOTHER PERSON BECAUSE IT WANTED TO KEEP SOMETHING A SECRET? WHat is it? enquiring minds want to know.
oopps caps lock guys - I had no intention of shouting.....
#186 Posted by XeroxKhan on February 9, 2004 6:30:20 am
I WANT YOUR FEEDBACK:
Now that the N Korean and Chinese missiles and missile parts will NOT be coming, I wonder what would Pakistan do with all the enriched Uranium it has stockpiled?
My ideas:
1) Nuclear Suppositories! to remove the Jihadi ``mentality`` which has been stuffed into Paki brains.
2) Military Medals: The ``useless Tamgas``, which Mush and his khaki biradri wears on all occassions...say, how many wars did Pakistan win? A. All of them, according to the Pakis tani Hostory books :)
ANY MORE CONSTUCTIVE IDEAS......?
Now that the N Korean and Chinese missiles and missile parts will NOT be coming, I wonder what would Pakistan do with all the enriched Uranium it has stockpiled?
My ideas:
1) Nuclear Suppositories! to remove the Jihadi ``mentality`` which has been stuffed into Paki brains.
2) Military Medals: The ``useless Tamgas``, which Mush and his khaki biradri wears on all occassions...say, how many wars did Pakistan win? A. All of them, according to the Pakis tani Hostory books :)
ANY MORE CONSTUCTIVE IDEAS......?
#185 Posted by ballukhan on February 9, 2004 1:55:46 am
nazarhayatkhan #169 you write ``If it all sounds very stupid, please forgive me. ``
He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC), The Confucian Analects
The firm, the enduring, the simple, and the modest are near to virtue.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC), The Confucian Analects
He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC), The Confucian Analects
The firm, the enduring, the simple, and the modest are near to virtue.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC), The Confucian Analects
#184 Posted by rsridhar on February 8, 2004 10:27:48 pm
re: Pak`s nukes
Pak`s nukes are under Uncle Sam`s control. URL:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-483052,curpg-2.cms
Sridhar
Pak`s nukes are under Uncle Sam`s control. URL:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-483052,curpg-2.cms
Sridhar
#183 Posted by tahmed32 on February 8, 2004 10:27:48 pm
nazarhayatkhan #169 you write ``If it all sounds very stupid, please forgive me. ``
Agreed on the first part above (with all due respect).
As for forgiveness, it is interesting that you ask this given the joke that Qadeer Khan just made of the entire nation by asking forgiveness and promptly getting pardoned.
Agreed on the first part above (with all due respect).
As for forgiveness, it is interesting that you ask this given the joke that Qadeer Khan just made of the entire nation by asking forgiveness and promptly getting pardoned.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- pinku: Re #19 Posted by... Faith and Religion
- MeiraJ08: Not borrowed, not stolen One... In Memory of Ahmed
- tahmed32: #161 it is deplorable... How real is your
- allah001: dost_mittar: Very pertinent points in... Faith and Religion
- Regards: Murad, I agree with most... Faith and Religion
- VRV: SRK, Then it's deplorable (I... How real is your
- tahmed32: majumdar sahib #157 On the... How real is your
- SRK: VRV, In one instance,... How real is your
