Teaching Science Badly – and Well Re: Tahmed32

Folks, since Tahmed32 has chosen to not respond to #177, I would say that in addition to being disingenuous, he is a HYPOCRITE. Although he talks up his `character` and `being honest` (#151), he does not demonstrate any of these traits by continuing to duck serious questions that cast aspersions on his character.

It is due to these `educated` deluded individuals like Tahmed32 that Pakistan is in such a mess today.

Teaching Science Badly – and Well Re: # 151 Tahmed32
``Speaking for myself, I am very comfortable with being a muslim because religion in our household was first and foremost developing a good character - the thing that was emphasized were basic values like being honest at all times....``

Was accepting responsibility part of this cheery upbringing? In case you are wondering what this is in reference to, I am referring to the fact that you have no qualms defending General-President Musharraf with a call to arms when your country`s neighbors threaten to pay back in kind when he sends murderous agents to their civilian centers, but express no such calls to action when he engages in such provocative acts in the first place.

Pakistans Permanent Revolution Re: # 316 Tauheed
``...how elated I as a Pakistani felt at the magnificent manner the country came together as one....``
Your attitude sums up the West Pakistani (aka Punjabi) sentiment, and not the `national` feeling - the impact that it had on Bengali separatism eludes you to this day. Your `nation` clearly did not consider the Bengalis as part of that `nation`, as your post so eloquently demonstrates. Many Pakistani Punjabis to this day do not recognize how vulnerable East Pakistan felt at the time, and how the reckless adventure by Ayub left them completely defenseless in yet another `magnificent` example of GHQ (Rawalpindi) of `strategic, bold` thinking and that `the defence of the East lay in the West` (the precursor to the `strategic depth` theory now in vogue). You see, all of East Pakistan was defended by a grand total of a two-infantry brigade division (14 Division) without any tank support. This foolish adventure persuaded Mujibur Rehman for a greater need for regional autonomy because he correctly recognized that the Bengali had little stake in Kashmir, but the Punjabi masters would not let go of their wet dreams and would continue to drag the `nation` in an endless conflict.

``...I on the other hand was living in Pakistan at the time...``
Did you ever visit Dhaka to gauge the Bengali feeling?
CIAO

Girls Gone Wild Re: # 172 Zee
``...the efficient relief camps...``
More efficient than the Nazi SS?

Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan Re: # 242 Tahmed32

``earlier you were saying that if I disapproved of the use of militants to fight proxy wars (as in Kashmir), then it follows that I should also disapprove of Pakistan maintaining an effective defence against an Indian attack.``

That is exactly what I am saying. If `you disapprove the use of militants to fight proxy wars (as in Kashmir), then it follows that you should also not be surprised in case of an Indian attack following such a proxy war`. In other words, once a war (proxy or otherwise) is initiated, then one should be prepared for the consequences that might logically follow. Of course, the best thing would be not engage in such (proxy) wars in the first place, but that is a separate matter.

The double-speak arises, when you make calls for defense following any escalation of proxy war, but make no such calls when these (proxy) wars are initiated or being waged. THAT is being disingenuous.

Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan Re: # 238 Tahmed

Actually, Iraq/US are not quite the same situation as India/Pak. You are in effect defending a dictator (Musharraf) who is at best a bad neighbor, and at worst a grave provacetuer who jeopardizes the safety of his own by climibing the hills of Kargil. Saddam never sent his agents (or protectees) on murderous missions to the US, but your dictator does to both Afghanistan and India. Therein lies the difference, but you find the two situations morally equivalent, or draw comparisons where none exist! See what I mean?

Let us take this a little further -- you are willing to accept such acts of provocation, but are compelled to come to his defense when the victims of such provocation respond in kind? Why the dichotomy? See what I mean, again?

``All your ``argument`` implies is that opposition to a government policy implies supporting the attack on the country``

I am implying that you get quite riled when your General-President`s irresponsible acts draw threats (think Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, GWB- `I have come to check if the General is still with us`, or those from India in response to well-publicized instances), but you do not get quite as riled by the root causes, i.e. the provocative acts in the first instance. Ignoring these, you are unwilling to accept the consequences that might result and are ordinarily considered by most people to be appropriate.

That is what I will call being `disengenous`. You see, if you accept provocative acts as being acceptable, then you should be willing to live with the consequences too. Musharraf`s dual policies are becoming transparent worldwide and most can see through his double game. Can you?

Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan Re: # 234 Tahmed32

All you have succeeded in confirming is that you are indeed the two-faced person that I have always suspected you are. You have no spine and no principled position to defend. When groped, all one finds is a cloud, vapor - no meat and no substance, and no enduring values that emerge that earn univeral respect. Don`t be crushed - a lot of ordinary people are like that. So take heart, you are no exception - just one more run of the mill talking head.

I don`t think that pushing you more on the specific issues raised in #230 or #228 is going to bear any fruit. Your future response will be as vacuous as the last. You will still ask for `strong arguments`, #230 or #228 nothwithstanding.

Ciao

Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan Re: # 231 Zeenuts

Read...and dismissed.

Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan Re: # 228 Tahmed 32

And here is another delectable oxymoronic assertion from you:

In #226 you give Musharraf `credit` for pursuing a `responsible policy` `effectively`. Then, in exactly ONE post later (#228) you say, `Musharaff is wrong in his policy...`. Never does it cross your mind that his policies (Afghan Jehad, appeals to GW Bush to `talk` to Taleban after 9/11, Kargil fiasco, and numerous others) are as muddled as horse shit. Yet, you jump back and forth across the fence like a trapeze artist. Hamidm (whom Raw Dust erroneously compared with you) is unambiguously clear in lampooning the General-President, but not you!!

See my point about being disingenuous in #225. At best you are one confused man. At worst, you are indeed disingenuous.

QED. Ciao

Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan Re: # 228 Tahmed
``...Musharaff is wrong in his policy of prolonging his stay in power by pushing down the mainstream parties while giving religious parties an edge up...``

Right, and when these religious parties follow his diktat through either jehad in Kashmir, or his prized commandos capture peaks in Kargil, and India threatens to pay back in the same coin, you scurry over to his side of the fence, don`t you - and then that is when all your talk about missiles and bombs starts!

Explain that!

Ciao

Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan Re: # 226
Well, let us start with Afghanistan. How do you feel defending your dictator Musharraf while looking the other way to his support for Taliban? Which side of the fence are you on?

Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan Re: # 221 Raw Dust

Actually, Tahmed32 is the most disingenuous of the three. At least, zeemax and hamidm are consistent with their positions, whereas Tahmed32 wavers from one end to the other, and in the end satisfies nobody. His shifting positions cast a deeper shadow over his self-righteous character as compared to the other two, and reveal a streak of unbridled pride that does not mesh with reality. One moment he is quoting the Koran and mouthing meaningless slogans on peace and brotherhood, but a few posts later, he is defending his dictator leader and talking up missiles and bombs! Zeemax can be disregarded because he is vile, but powerless. His type don`t amount to much.

Finally, it is not fair to compare Hamidm with the other two. Hamidm is in a class all by himself. His irreverent humor has brought many a smile to me and brightened up a moment. He is straightforward, says what he means, and means what he says. And most importantly, has no ideological agenda, beyond common sense - I`ll buy him a drink anytime! He qualifies as one of Chowk`s most gifted contributors.

Ciao

Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan Re: # 204 Tahmed

At what age did you learn the art of double-speak? What was the inspiration? I know that you are squirming under the harsh glare of some pointed questions, but wishing `nice days` wont wish the questions away!
Ciao

Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan Re: # 202 Tahmed

``In case you didnt notice, that post was addressed to a fellow pakistani.``

Thanks for confirming a lingering suspicion - that you say different things to different people and are not above massaging the truth to fit your needs.

Ciao.

Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan Re: # 180 Tahmed
``...the love and appreciation I have for Pakistan and indeed every other country in the world that I have visited ...``

Have you visited Afghanistan? Do you know how much love your ISI has for Afghanistan? Do you still love Pak and Afghan equally with your sense of moral equivalency? How about India (overnight trips notwithstanding as your `visits`)? Catch my drift? Do you really love India as much as you love Pakistan? In the past you have been quick to defend your dictators - something that is incompatible with equal `love`. You won`t fool us.

Or how about equally `loving` Pakistan and USA? We know how much praise the Washington Post today was full of for Pakistan. When Director, DNI says `Any new attack on the United States is ``most likely`` to emerge from Pakistan`, we will rest assured that you `love` both countries equally.
Not fooled by your empty rhetoric
CIAO

Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan Re: # 162 Tahmed

“…while trying to paint Pakistan as a US-hating country…”

I could not agree with you more, especially after reading this from the NY Times, Pakistanis love USA . Go down to the 2nd page and read this delectable piece, ‘his (Musharraf) awareness that many Pakistani people — and the intelligence service — have strong sympathies for Al Qaeda and the resurgent Taliban.’
QED. Ciao.