Recent Terror in Egypt

Re: # 169
I don`t think BJ said that Jinnah managed to stop this marriage.
What I know about this is from my elders who happen to know some people at that time who mattered in India.

It is clear that Jinnah was not happy that his only child was marrying outside his religion. I can understand his concern, I probably would feel the same. However, he tried to influence this match by threating to disown his daughter and tried to use his sister to convince Dina.

``Lekin, Mushaq-E-Mohabbat Chupee Naye hai Ankhay Sain Delhiyani``

She reminded Jinnah of own marriage to Rutti(a Parsi) and could not reason back with him.
Later on her Parsi husband tried to patch but of no avail.

This is the story that is very consistent with old timers of that time.

Thank you for listening, Now I have to attend to my bagle & Cream`n Cheese.

Re: # 172
Friend Sahib:
Thumbs Up wala Icon here.

#169
This was perhaps first article by Yaseer Latif Hamdani where he didn`t mention Jinnah. I thought that their was some hope.. However, this idiot keeps digging Jinnah`s corpse out of his grave. Jinnah mar gaya 58 saal pehle.. Fina some new icons for Pakistan..

Romair#167, 168:

I only said that Ayaz and Irfan agree on Musharraf`s ambiguity in fight against terrorism, not on other subjects. I might add, however, that Ayaz is not always consistent and sometimes does have sober, second thoughts.

...And this article is about Egypt, terrorists, Pakistan and Egypt blaming Pakistan for terrorist acts, not just about Egypt.

#158 by Romair on July 31, 2005 10:00am PT


These unwashed masses never wanted Pakistan to go all out and support the USA in the first Afghan War.


Or in the second war....you, OTOH, were wholly onboard...let`s not forget the heady days post-9/11 when you thought joe 6 pack would be stopping you on the street to thank you when he saw your t-shirt with a paki flag...then you wanted to quit IT and drop bombs on the afghans....

Re: # 166

BeeJay`s statement was that Jinnah managed to stop Dina from marrying Neville. This is not true. Even the La Pierre and Dominique don`t say this. Dina Wadia was married to Neville Wadia and their child is a leading businessman of India. Beejay accepted this point.

Dost-mittar #160: A few differences that I missed in the last reply:

Irfan Hussain is anti-OBL and anti-Hamas. Ayaz Amir is anti-OBL, but not anti-Hamas. Irfan Hussain is simultaneously pro-Palestine (only secular Palestine, though) and pro-Israel. Ayaz Amir is pro-Palestine (secular or non-secular) and anti-Israel. Irfan Hussain wants long-term peace with India, even if Kashmiris interests are ignored. Ayaz Amir also wants long-term peace with India, but not without the interests of Kashmiris being taken into account. Irfan Hussain is generally agains the military, as a whole. Ayaz Amir is against the Generals of the military. But he is very pro-lower ranks of the military, and basically pro-military in general (without its involvement in politics; which he abhors). Irfan Hussain is for totally reducing the miltiary. Ayaz Amir is for keeping a military deterence against India, without any other extravagent spending......

Both are anti-Musharraf, albeit it for different reasons. Irfan Hussain is against Musharraf, because he feels Musharraf hasn`t done enough against maulvis. Ayaz Amir is anti-Musharraf because he feels Musharraf has suppressed democracy, i.e. Irfan Hussain is ready to support a dictatorship if it goes after maulvis (much like I am ready to support a dictatorship if it makes the economy grow). Ayaz Amir does not support a dictatorship, regardless of what it does, or whom it goes after.

Dost-Mittar #160: ``I have written articles on India and interacted when the topic concerned that country.``

Point taken. I agree. The debate, in the replies, should be based on the article. And this article is not on India. Hence, India should not be debated. However, the article is not on Pakistan either. It is on Egypt. Yet you brought in Pakistan, Irfan Hussain and my lack of knowledge of the Pakistani press. I didn`t bring that in. You should be discussing Egypt.

``If you follow Ayaz Amir, you would know that his views are no different from Irfan`s in this matter. Ayaz believes that Musharraf should have been doing the things Ifran wants because they are good for Pakistan and not if and when the US puts a little pressure on him.``

Ayaz Amir`s and Irfan Hussain`s views are actually different on many issues. And both of their views are different from the Urdu press`s views. Within the context of this site, on most issues: the Urdu press`s views would fall in line somewhere along Urstruly`s/Naqshbandi etc. Irfan Hussain`s would fall in line somewhere along Hamidm`s/Godot/NazarHayatKhan/Mantolives (perhaps) etc. And Ayaz Amir`s would fall in line somewhere along mine/HisExcellency/Ahmadzai/Aslam644 etc. I may have slotted an odd name incorrectly............

Ayaz Amir is totally against Musharraf doing anything under US pressure. While Irfan Hussain, at the core of his arguments, somewhat sublty, sometimes openly, supports Pakistan being in line with the USA. Ayaz Amir was against Pakistan`s complete support to the USA in the Afghan War. He though Pakistan went overboard. Irfan Hussain was fully supportive of it. And wanted more support for the USA. They even argued against each other, in their articles. Ayaz Amir is fully against the Iraq war. And is a full supporter of the Iraqi resistance, much like Tariq Ali. Irfan Hussain is only partially against the Iraq War. Ayaz Amir thinks Musharraf has gone too far in giving up on Kashmir, vis-a-vis India, while getting nothing in return. Irfan Hussain thinks Musharraf needs to do more. Ayaz Amir is equally against Indian and Pakistani militancy in Kashmir. However, in principal, he does not consider the targeting of Indian troops by militants (Pakistani or Kashmiri) as jehadi terrorism, if the Indian troops are targeting Kashmiri civilians. Irfan Hussain considers all, ``jehadi`` militarism in Kashmir to be wrong, regardless of what Indian troops do there........

Both are against Islamic extremism and maulvis, albeit in different manners. Much like, myself and Hamidm are against maulvis; albeit in different manners. This is the point I am trying to explain...........

``From what I can gather Irfan would not like to throw 700 mullahs into jail without trial. But he and Ayaz would both like Musharraf to close Madrassahs imparting jihadi education and training; they believe that he was responsible for bringing Mullas to power in the two provinces.``

Irfan Hussain has openly written articles that he supports actions against the mullah brigade, even without judicial due process. He feels that is what the mullahs do to others. Hence they should get the same treatment. He is in support of throwing people in jail, with or without trial. As long as they are maulvis.

Nearly everyone in Pakistan would like Musharraf to close madrasshas imparting any kind of militant training. As would I. However, both Ayaz Amir and I would like that to happen in Pakistan`s interest, and in a judicial manner. Not random acts that round up people everywhere, the moment a bomb goes off in London.

You are correct in saying that both believe Musharraf was responsible for bringing mullahs in power. However, Irfan Hussain thinks Musharraf should clear them out, by hook or by crook. Ayaz Amir thinks he should go by the book and clear them out through elections........

BJ Yaar,
This story about Jinnah`s daughter and family dispute etc.
Yeh tau bacha-bacha jaanta hai, Manto tried to white wash it.

What do you think about it?

Even Dominique Laupier and some other British writers write about it.

Also, Koi ess Siyanay se poonche.

How come Dina Wadia never visited Pakistan till few yrs ago?

Do Aur Do Paanch nahee hotey.

Re: # 156
Dude,
He offered Sikhia that was comprised of East Punjab and parts of UP to Sikhs under the Pakistani dominion at a famous Sikh`s house in Delhi(I think he was brother of H S Malik, Civil Engg of Delhi in 1946). Sikhs at that time had their anger against Muslim atrocities committed against them in Amritsar and other Sikh places. Readers please note that first riots were initiated by Amritsari Muslims in 1945-46. They in their weird logic wanted to take the Gold off the Golden Temple and they killed many Sikh Police and civilians in Amritsar. What happened afterwards in history.

It could not have worked unless Sikhs had their own rule.

Re: # 159
Now that was a very interesting fact that I hope does not slip from Interactors short memory and ego trips.
Howcome then they hold the cards for eveyr major event. Could it be like Englsih were replaced by Brown Sahibs and Maulvis were the interface with the natives.

Re: # 160
DM Sir Jee,
You always have your facts straight. Chowkies can learn from you.

Re: # 142

Dost-ji,

George Bush & the neoconservatives believe in Armageddon just as much as the Islamists believe in Jihad.
The oil wildcatters like Bush & Cheney are ruthless people.
After 911 Bush made a ``Freuden slip`` & said ``Crusade``.

A Freudian slip is when a person lets slip out what he is thinking subconciously.

Bush likes Mushy cause he will do his bidding for the right amount of money.
Why do you think Republicans loooove compliant right wing dictators?
Boost their egos & praise them in public.
They`ll make sure American interests are carried out in their country

Does he TRUST Mushy?
GET REAL!!!!

Wanna bet what Bush tells pigs like Mushy & Prince Bandar in the privacy of his ``ranch``?

``I`m watching your 2 countries like a hawk...
If Al-Qeeda bursts 1 nuclear bomb in an American city...
If I find a Paki connection...I`ll bomb every city in Pakistan & let the Indians scavenge your radio-active wasteland...
If I find a Saudi connection...I wont have any qualms about about blasting Mecca & Medina...

If you guys want a jihad....I`ll give you a Crusade you wont believe``

Re: # 98

Top 6 things Romair will say if Mushy lets out a loud fart in the Oval office

1) He demonstrated to George Bush that Mushy`s sh#t stinks as much as Bushy`s

2) Mushy was extremely daring by demonstrating that Pakistan does`nt care what USA thinks of her.

3)Mushy was increasing Pakistani agricultural exports by giving Americans a whiff of the wholesome foods Pakistani farmers produce.

4) It was Pakistani miltry`s warning if Bushy didnt give him F-16s

5)Pakistanis are just as good as any redneck butthead in uniform

6) He wanted to demonstrate the secret weapon Pakistani scientists are developing to asphyxiate a billion Indians..

Even Murli`s doosra doesnt spin as well as Romair`s does....

Romair#154

If you follow Ayaz Amir, you would know that his views are no different from Irfan`s in this matter. Ayaz believes that Musharraf should have been doing the things Ifran wants because they are good for Pakistan and not if and when the US puts a little pressure on him.

From what I can gather Irfan would not like to throw 700 mullahs into jail without trial. But he and Ayaz would both like Musharraf to close Madrassahs imparting jihadi education and training; they believe that he was responsible for bringing Mullas to power in the two provinces.

As regards India, you may comment on the article posted by Saj81 in post 152. I have written articles on India and interacted when the topic concerned that country. I am not interested in playing the same-same game; in any case we cannot have any meaningful discussion as we would not agree with your premise that BJP in India is equivalent to SSP in Pakistan; one can only dismiss such statements with Arujun-m type one-liners.

Re # 158

May be this is the reason

``Unfortunately, these unwashed masses have never had a chance to directly present their views in Pakistani politics. Because it has been dominated by military and civilian feudal dictators.``

for this

``These unwashed masses, for all of Pakistan`s history, never voted a single maulvi into power.``