What's new

At least 75 killed in bomb blast at Quetta Hospital

And I can post double videos from India(not Kashmir) that how India occupied different territories ruthlessly as compared to Baluchistan which was largely a very peaceful affair.

At least far more peaceful than Hyderabad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24159594
The point is, the logic by which Pakistanis want 'azadi' for Kashmir can also be applied to Balochistan and other separatist movements in Pakistan, the 'peaceful' rhetoric is just that, a rhetoric....the ground reality is very different which you do not show to the world....
India doesn't rake up the Baloch issue to the world as much as you do with Kashmir....but if push comes to shove, India will do that too......You've played all your cards but India still have some cards up its sleeve.....
 
Last edited:
.
Your own logic couldn't figure out he was warned for that, and his posts deleted. Most Indian posters understood that and didn't respond.
Also don't bother tagging me again, if you haven't got the decency to speak to someone with respect.

What was disrespectful in my sentence? I have not used any abuses. I have not used any name calling, I have not called anyone anything which hurts his religious sentiment. Why are you calling me indecent? I want to understand the indecent part of my comment.

For first part, when I first visiting this post, I saw this below post. It has Kashmir word in it, which is troll as this post is about bomb blast. Even after it is pointed out to moderators, this post is still there. Now tell me, what am I supposed to infer from this?

Your glee will be short lived , this act won't make the Kashmir unrest go away
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-8-9_16-35-39.png
    upload_2016-8-9_16-35-39.png
    246.9 KB · Views: 57
.
@User

I hold the same view that you expressed up there and that others expressed.
I am a Jinnah fan way more than that of lawyers. And I agree that there is a
national mentality problem at play.
However there is also a debilitating geo-political environment on the outside.

This said, not all blame should be considered as local and unique. When Irfan
says, in a post that paralleled yours, that :
our ruling party is more interested in defending its
foreign wealth and political point scoring with its rivals..
(a common theme among failed democracies in third wold countries)
for example, it is my documented analysis that what he decries is actually true
in almost every modern democracy. The Far Right shift alone shows it at work.
Pakistan is not particular here, it's a universal woe.

The only reason why my post was a neutral appeal ( although the Again meant something )
is that as Irfan Baloch also pointed out, the perpetrators are deceitful plague.
I extolled courage precisely because it is the only thing clear and untainted here.

Sadly yours, Tay.
 
. .
The point is, the logic by which Pakistanis want 'azadi' for Kashmir can also be applied to Balochistan and other separatist movements in Pakistan, the 'peaceful' rhetoric is just that, a rhetoric....the ground reality is very different which you do not show to the world....
India doesn't rake up the Baloch issue to the world as much as you do with Kashmir....but if push comes to shove, India will do that too......You've played all your cards but India still have some cards up its sleeve.....
The point is Pakistan wants Azadi for Kashmir since it is a disputed territory with completely different history than Baluchistan. No matter how hard you try the fact that would always hurt is that Baluchistan and Kashmir are two different issue and territories with completely different histories and situation.

India cannot and would never rake up Baluchistan issue since not only that would expose its crime of supporting terrorists inside Baluchistan but also because it is nobody in Baluchistan issue. Pakistan whether you like it or not is a party to Kashmir dispute. It would be like interfering inside Pakistan's internal issues in response to which we can start interfering in Khalistan issue and North East states of India. After all it would be India that would broaden the scale of hostilities.

India has already played all its cards. Creating new ones would be completely foolish.

Thank you Ms. Sharif. This should silence the conspiracy theories

It is a fake profile genius.

Still wont get through their think skulls

It is a fake profile.
 
. . .
...this single terror attack eliminated the top people from legal professions of Balochistan. it is a devastating attack...our inaction and political squabbling has played its part. for over 2 years our politicians have wasted time over the so called national action plan which was meant to target all terror organisations, the supporters and the violent mindset but sadly it never got anywhere. law enforcement and forces can conduct operations but they are just firefighting after the events.. the solution is in prevention but still there is no political will and no national consensus due to confusion in leadership and lack of unity of command...
I've been researching historical situations that could be useful analogies to Pakistan's predicament. An interesting one is the American Civil War.

In my analysis of the ACW, social pressures coupled with restrictions on free speech and fear of economic stagnation resulted in an upward spiral of competitive militancy among Southern politicians that eventually split the South from the North. The South was eventually defeated, but why was there no guerrilla war afterwards?

Well, the answer is that there was. President Lincoln was shot by a terrorist in the last days of the war. While the Confederate armies surrendered and most of the officers and men returned to their homes to resume normal economic life under the generous surrender terms, some did not, both out of conviction and from foreign support.

Less than six weeks after the Confederate surrender, Major-General Sheridan was at the Mexican border, for the Confederacy had been receiving arms from the French-supported Austrian "Mexican emperor" Maximilian. Sheridan had to discourage the wavering, insincere ex-Confederate Texan and Louisianan soldiers and prevent the efforts of the French to covertly supply them with weapons meant to reignite the rebellion. As military governor, he intervened in the backsliding civilian Louisiana government, removing corrupt leaders who refused to enforce the laws of the United States, which had resulted in a terrified citizenry. And while Sheridan was forbidden to cross into Mexico in force, secretly he supplied the Mexican republicans with arms. This had the effect of driving the French troops of Emperor Napoleon III out of the country. For Sheridan, the "war of rebellion" truly ended in 1870, when Prussian troops compelled his shadow enemy Napoleon III to surrender at Sedan - an event Sheridan witnessed in person as a military observer in the Prussian Army, representing the U.S.

However, ending foreign support was only part of the story - the most minor part. Other Union generals, specifically Major-General Sherman, foresaw that some of the old Confederate military leaders did not care about danger or cost to the population and might continue a guerilla. (Sherman was especially worried because before the Civil War most Northern politicians deliberately blinded themselves to the possibility of an armed conflict with the South.) One of those Sherman had in mind, Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, helped establish the Ku Kux Klan as an organization that terrorized blacks and infiltrated law enforcement in the South. In such an environment, capital investment was very limited, thus the areas where the KKK was strongest lagged behind the rest of the country economically as a result.

The influence of the KKK was very great, probably peaking in the 1930s. What happened to destroy the KKK network, then?

First, a growing revulsion of the KKK, both its goals and methods.
Second, active cultural push-back to undermine the KKK. Some white citizens gathered courage enough not just to vocally denounce the KKK but bodily protect prominent Negroes from harm.
Third, the KKK was then infiltrated and many of its secrets exposed and it was presented to the public as an enemy of freedom, rather than a protector of white citizenry. It was not the government that began this. It was Hollywood.
Finally, the growing civil rights movement and the court decisions of the 1950s and laws of the 1960s motivated the federal and state governments to investigate the KKK, reduce its influence, and convict its criminal elements in the courts. While the KKK organization remains today, its influence seems just about nil. There hasn't been an incident of mass white supremacist terror for over twenty years, and that was undertaken by an individual, not an organization.

So it seems unlikely to me that concentrating on RAW's influence, real or imagined, is going to be the decisive factor here. You have the advantage of knowing what happened to the U.S. and how it was dealt with. So with motivation and gumption you may be able to defeat in a few years what took American a century to accomplish. Good luck to you!
 
Last edited:
.
R.I.P. for the dead and praying for the speedy recovery of the Injured
 
.
I've been researching historical situations that could be useful analogies to Pakistan's predicament. An interesting one is the American Civil War.

In my analysis of the ACW, social pressures coupled with restrictions on free speech and fear of economic stagnation resulted in an upward spiral of competitive militancy among Southern politicians that eventually split the South from the North. The South was eventually defeated, but why was there no guerrilla war afterwards?

Well, the answer is that there was. President Lincoln was shot by a terrorist in the last days of the war. While the Confederate armies surrendered and most of the officers and men returned to their homes to resume normal economic life under the generous surrender terms, some did not, both out of conviction and from foreign support.

Less than six weeks after the Confederate surrender, Major-General Sheridan was at the Mexican border, for the Confederacy had been receiving arms from the French-supported Austrian "Mexican emperor" Maximilian. Sheridan had to discourage the wavering, insincere ex-Confederate Texan and Louisianan soldiers and prevent the efforts of the French to covertly supply them with weapons meant to reignite the rebellion. While Sheridan was forbidden to cross into Mexico in force, secretly he supplied the Mexican republicans with arms. This had the effect of driving the French troops of Emperor Napoleon III out of the country. For Sheridan, the "war of rebellion" truly ended in 1870, when Prussian troops compelled his shadow enemy Napoleon III to surrender at Sedan - an event Sheridan witnessed in person as a military observer in the Prussian Army, representing the U.S.

However, ending foreign support was only part of the story - the most minor part. Other Union generals, specifically Major-General Sherman, foresaw that some of the old Confederate military leaders did not care about danger or cost to the population and might continue a guerilla. (Sherman was especially worried because before the Civil War most Northern politicians deliberately blinded themselves to the possibility of an armed conflict with the South.) One of those Sherman had in mind, Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, established the Ku Kux Klan, an organization that terrorized blacks and infiltrated law enforcement in the South. In such an environment, capital investment was very limited, thus the areas where the KKK was strongest lagged behind the rest of the country economically as a result.

The influence of the KKK was very great, probably peaking in the 1930s. What happened to destroy the KKK network, then?

First, a growing revulsion of the KKK, both its goals and methods.
Second, active cultural push-back to undermine the KKK. Some white citizens gathered courage enough not just to vocally denounce the KKK but bodily protect prominent Negroes from harm.
Third, the KKK was then infiltrated and many of its secrets exposed and it was presented to the public as an enemy of freedom, rather than a protector of white citizenry. It was not the government that began this. It was Hollywood.
Finally, the growing civil rights movement and the court decisions of the 1950s and laws of the 1960s motivated the federal and state governments to investigate the KKK, reduce its influence, and convict its criminal elements in the courts. While the KKK organization remains today, its influence seems just about nil. There hasn't been an incident of mass white supremacist terror for over twenty years, and that was undertaken by an individual, not an organization.

So it seems unlikely to me that concentrating on RAW's influence, real or imagined, is going to be the decisive factor here. You have the advantage of knowing what happened to the U.S. and how it was dealt with. So with motivation and gumption you may be able to defeat in a few years what took American a century to accomplish. Good luck to you!
Most us don't read ur posts after looking at ur stupid Avatar...
 
. . . .
The writing is on the wall, but like I said. We will return the favor. Every drop of blood will be avenged. Let these sick souls celebrate.
Rather than eliminating all homegrown and foreign terrorist in Your Soil,You are advocating terrorist attack on India...
So brave of you
 
.
Rather than eliminating all homegrown and foreign terrorist in Your Soil,You are advocating terrorist attack on India...
So brave of you

No, carrying out terror attacks is something your country is already doing in Pakistan. I'm rather suggesting an eye for an eye. If you think that we should let you walk after this cowardly attack you are gravely mistaken.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom