Pervez Musharraf Excellent Reply To Indian Anchor

[Irfan Baloch]

It was because of his decision that many Afghans lost their lives and still are losing their lives.
If Gaddafi had nukes do you think that Libya would what it is now? If Assad had nukes do you think that Syria would be what it is now? If Iraq had nukes do you think it would what it is now? I mean they are not everything but they still hold significant deterrent powers.

How many Pakistanis have been killed, civilian and soldiers even with his decision? Now there is hostile nation on both sides of Pakistan. This war against Pakistan is a long war. They cannot do to Pakistan what happend to Iraq or Libya. But if they get their way, there will millions of Pakistanis dead, homeless and in prostitution.

did you ever have a pet cat?
if you did or if you know someone who had it. then there is an issue of clearing its mess inside the house when it does "its business". if you simply cover it with a rug and say yourself that you have fixed the problem will never help.
now when you do start to clear it.. no matter how careful you are .. you will have to clean the floor and your hands if you value basic hygiene.

hostility of Afghanistan &India is independent of what decision Musharraf took back in 2001. India was going to remain Indian with us and Northern Alliance (with bunch on morbid anti Pakistani communist generals & druglords) were going to be installed in Kabul.

one can debate it Bush was too impatient to attack or Mullah Omar was absolutely clueless and myopic about consequences of housing a most wanted person of the world..

Afghans have not been killed due to his decision. but because of American invasion & because of the path .. the then Taliban regime chose to follow. as for Pakistan I don't expect anything better.. without support of the National community and siding with NATO.. Pakistan might have faced more than just Drone strikes on suspected locations in tribal areas... wait... why do I state the obvious? Nukes are only good against India .. against America they mean jack.. pull the thumb out of your behind and without smelling it clean it and try to understand that we had no way of deterring American invasion of Afghanistan.. what were we going to hit? Timbuktu?

 

[TMA]

9/11 happened during his tenure. He found himself in a tough spot and was not given the choice of neutrality.

Bush administration was sincere in its efforts to curb the menace of terrorism and militancy in the region. It also kept India at bay.

India gained foothold in Afghanistan during the tenure of Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai. We might blame them for nefarious designs against our country but there is more to this story than meets the eye.

Zia-ul-Haq conducted politics of militancy and gun culture was the consequence of it in our country. 9/11 was a wake-up call for us. Politics of militancy is never productive in the long-term. Sooner of later, it backfires.


US has unparalleled power projection capabilities. It could/can engage Pakistan from long distances. Never underestimate an enemy of such rapport.

Pakistan had nukes back then (i.e. 2000) but was terribly lacking in delivery capabilities and arrangements to keep them safe. Musharraf realized this and made sincere efforts to address shortcomings in these areas in the later years.

There is no concrete evidence that 9/11 attacks were False Flag operations. You cheapen suffering of thousands of civilians who lost their lives on that day, with your perception.

---

Today we proudly advertise our efforts against the menace of terrorism in the region to the entire world. Guess who set our country on this course?

I am open to most if not all of what you have written save the bit about 9/11 not being false flags.
http://tomatobubble.com/id1053.html

did you ever have a pet cat?
if you did or if you know someone who had it. then there is an issue of clearing its mess inside the house when it does "its business". if you simply cover it with a rug and say yourself that you have fixed the problem will never help.
now when you do start to clear it.. no matter how careful you are .. you will have to clean the floor and your hands if you value basic hygiene.

hostility of Afghanistan &India is independent of what decision Musharraf took back in 2001. India was going to remain Indian with us and Northern Alliance (with bunch on morbid anti Pakistani communist generals & druglords) were going to be installed in Kabul.

one can debate it Bush was too impatient to attack or Mullah Omar was absolutely clueless and myopic about consequences of housing a most wanted person of the world..

Afghans have not been killed due to his decision. but because of American invasion & because of the path .. the then Taliban regime chose to follow. as for Pakistan I don't expect anything better.. without support of the National community and siding with NATO.. Pakistan might have faced more than just Drone strikes on suspected locations in tribal areas... wait... why do I state the obvious? Nukes are only good against India .. against America they mean jack.. pull the thumb out of your behind and without smelling it clean it and try to understand that we had no way of deterring American invasion of Afghanistan.. what were we going to hit? Timbuktu?

Ok so Pakistan had no choice in 2001. Surely though Musharraf would have known that NATO will set up base to destabilize Pakistan, bring to Kabul an anti-Pakistan government (which was the case before the Afghan Taliban) and allow Bharat to come into Afghanistan? Did he try to mitigate these during his role as dictator and President. I would be interested to know.

 

[TMA]

I am open to most if not all of what you have written save the bit about 9/11 not being false flags.
http://tomatobubble.com/id1053.html



Ok so Pakistan had no choice in 2001. Surely though Musharraf would have known that NATO will set up base to destabilize Pakistan, bring to Kabul an anti-Pakistan government (which was the case before the Afghan Taliban) and allow Bharat to come into Afghanistan? Did he try to mitigate these during his role as dictator and President. I would be interested to know.

I wish to to know that when Musharraf said that if Pakistan did not become an "ally" on the WoT, the US would bomb her back to the stone age, is this actually true? Did this threat have any reality? Or was it just pomp?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/22/pakistan.usa

Richard Armitage denies ever such threat.

Was Musharraf just saying this to try and convince the Pakistani public that Pakistan had no choice but to become an "ally"? Was there any possibility that Pakistan could have remained neutral? As in not allow the US passage to Afghanistan?

I am asking this as I am engaged in a conversation with a PDF member on another thread and I wish to now why Pakistan became an "ally"? My understanding had changed after @MastanKhan, @LeGenD, @Irfan Baloch had posted above. That Pakistan either submitted to the US demands or faced what happened to Iraq, Syrai, Libya etc. The PDF member I am engaged with feels that there was no threat by the US on Pakistan.