Featured Bilawal Bhutto Zardari threaten journalist when questioned during a presser

[Joe Shearer]

Every politician should be judged based upon his/her performance and not due to relation or merit/demerit of his/her previous generations. So, family name in politics should be irrelevant.

TELL us about it!

 

[SEOminati]

Yes. But a small lesson in history, if I may:

From late 1950s till his departure from the Ayub govt in 1965/66, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was a giant in the Pakistan's 'Decade of Development'; Bhutto was the architect of many policies, including the failed Operation Gibraltar in Kashmir. But he did manage to make one of the biggest foreign policy achievements in Pakistan's history: The reaching out to China without alienating America. Mind you: Pakistan was then an ally of America like today's Australia or England or some other close ally country would be. And the communist China--against whom the United States had literally fought and shed a lot of blood during the Korean War--was a big threat. And all this was before the Soviet-China split.

For Bhutto to achieve what was, and perhaps is, the singular foreign policy achievement in Pakistan's history, is a major accomplishment! No doubt he was the 'wonder boy' for Ayub Khan and no doubt, in some votes, both Ayub and Bhutto rank in the top two of Pakistan's leaders after Jinnah.

And Bhutto had many accomplishments after he become the leader of Pakistan after the Fall of Dhaka. BTW, I consider him as ONE of the architects of the Fall of Dhaka but not the principle architect.

Coming back to the topic. Bhutto, as ZAB, should live. But Bhutto, as Zardaris, should not.

The fall of Dhaka itself is enough to not consider him a leader or sing praises. Whatever good stuff he did is null and void because of that epic 71 fiasco. Because, you are never going to get Bangladesh back no matter what.

 

[Nilgiri]

Every politician should be judged based upon his/her performance and not due to relation or merit/demerit of his/her previous generations. So, family name in politics should be irrelevant.

“Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.”
― Mark Twain

 

[Nasr]

Devoid of any morality or humanity, progeny of scum, validating that it's still scum. What a waste of human intellect.

 

[El Sidd]

@El Sidd Look at the josh of your twin brother Bilawal. He is such a nice person.

So merciful indeed.

 

[HAIDER]

kitni nazakat se poucha hai .. ap konse channel se hain ..!!

It is fact ARYNEWS, and BOL is getting on their nerves ...

 

[arjunk]

His burger *** accent is so annoying, and his arrogant words are even more annoying. This retard should drown in sewer water like the rest of Karachi and live in Larkana like a normal man. If he doesn't die after a month, then hang him anyway since he's destroyed Karachi and set Pakistan back by decades just like his grandfather and father destroyed Pakistan.

 

[Meengla]

Is this same bhutto who is one of the key person responsible of breakup of Pakistan ? Or are you talking about someone else?

NO! Bhutto was a minor player in the breakup of Pakistan! He did have a vested interest in the breakup but it was the Pakistani MILITARY which was in power and they could have hanged Bhutto if they wanted to. Truth be told, it was Yahya Khan's power lust plus Mujeeb's 'Six Points' which were a call for secession which were the major reason. Just about ALL of West Pakistan and its political parties didn't accept Mujeeb's 'Six Points'.

Again, Bhutto had NO AUTHORITY under the MILITARY rule of Yahya Khan!! When a MILITARY PRESIDENT sits at the top under a MARTIAL LAW administration, that's where the authority lies. These are facts!

And if Bhutto was such a traitor then why did the same ruling military called him back to Pakistan and handed him the power???? Pakistani military must be stupid or suicidal or both!

I simply refuse the myths being thrown around this forum! Easy, lazy way out for most people to put the blame on one person.

BTW, I am quite happy with the secession. The marriage was never meant to happen and so divorce was the course correction!!

As to the surrender, mightier armies have surrendered. The Pakistanis fought bravely against all odds but there was not victory possible in East Pakistan.

 

[The Accountant]

NO! Bhutto was a minor player in the breakup of Pakistan! He did have a vested interest in the breakup but it was the Pakistani MILITARY which was in power and they could have hanged Bhutto if they wanted to. Truth be told, it was Yahya Khan's power lust plus Mujeeb's 'Six Points' which were a call for secession which were the major reason. Just about ALL of West Pakistan and its political parties didn't accept Mujeeb's 'Six Points'.

Again, Bhutto had NO AUTHORITY under the MILITARY rule of Yahya Khan!! When a MILITARY PRESIDENT sits at the top under a MARTIAL LAW administration, that's where the authority lies. These are facts!

And if Bhutto was such a traitor then why did the same ruling military called him back to Pakistan and handed him the power???? Pakistani military must be stupid or suicidal or both!

I simply refuse the myths being thrown around this forum! Easy, lazy way out for most people to put the blame on one person.

BTW, I am quite happy with the secession. The marriage was never meant to happen and so divorce was the course correction!!

As to the surrender, mightier armies have surrendered. The Pakistanis fought bravely against all odds but there was not victory possible in East Pakistan.

Brother what are you talking about? Ayub left in march 1969 elections were held in 1970. Bhutto refusal to let mujib form the government despite having majority was the basis of liberation movement.

Yahya khan was ready to give away the power but it was lust of bhutto who did not let the parliament to start voting.

These r hard facts dont change them

 

[SQ8]

privileged and born with entitlement just because of the cult followers of this dynasty.
this is pretty much the reality of Pakistani democracy.

A US Sindhi whose father was langot ka yaar with Zardari’s father always repeats the same suggestion whenever I broach the topic with him: “Demolish Garhi khuda baksh”

 

[Longhorn]

Devoid of any morality or humanity, progeny of scum, validating that it's still scum. What a waste of oxygen.

 

[Meengla]

Brother what are you talking about? Ayub left in march 1969 elections were held in 1970. Bhutto refusal to let mujib form the government despite having majority was the basis of liberation movement.

Yahya khan was ready to give away the power but it was lust of bhutto who did not let the parliament to start voting.

These r hard facts dont change them

I know Bhutto refused. But who was Bhutto? Leader of a political party in West Pakistan. Who was Yahya Khan? The General President of Pakistan and that too under a Martial Law. Yahya had the absolute authority. And we should not forget that Mujib was unwilling compromise on his Six Points, which were essentially a call for secession. It was not just Bhutto but almost all of West Pakistan and its politicians who didn't accept Mujib's demands.
Bhutto had a vested interest, for sure. But he had no authority to carry out threats. Fine, his party wouldn't take part in the new assembly: Hold new elections on those seats. That's nothing new: You will see that time and again the politicians of even current Pakistan--including even in 2018 elections--have threatened to not take part in new assemblies.
Bhutto is a convenient, lazy scapegoat. Fact is that the East Pakistanis were well on way to secession in Ayub's rule and hence there were those 'Agartala' like conspiracies. Even after the Fall of Dhaka, Yahya Khan was scheming to stay in power and it was the junior officers who deposed him and asked Bhutto to resume power and that was accepted by the rest of the Pakistani politicians and people. The junior officers knew that Bhutto didn't cause the Fall of Dhaka!

Anyway, it's a done deal and I wish the Bangladeshis good luck from a distance.

 

[The Accountant]

I know Bhutto refused. But who was Bhutto? Leader of a political party in West Pakistan. Who was Yahya Khan? The General President of Pakistan and that too under a Martial Law. Yahya had the absolute authority. And we should not forget that Mujib was unwilling compromise on his Six Points, which were essentially a call for secession. It was not just Bhutto but almost all of West Pakistan and its politicians who didn't accept Mujib's demands.
Bhutto had a vested interest, for sure. But he had no authority to carry out threats. Fine, his party wouldn't take part in the new assembly: Hold new elections on those seats. That's nothing new: You will see that time and again the politicians of even current Pakistan--including even in 2018 elections--have threatened to not take part in new assemblies.
Bhutto is a convenient, lazy scapegoat. Fact is that the East Pakistanis were well on way to secession in Ayub's rule and hence there were those 'Agartala' like conspiracies. Even after the Fall of Dhaka, Yahya Khan was scheming to stay in power and it was the junior officers who deposed him and asked Bhutto to resume power and that was accepted by the rest of the Pakistani politicians and people. The junior officers knew that Bhutto didn't cause the Fall of Dhaka!

Anyway, it's a done deal and I wish the Bangladeshis good luck from a distance.

U r giving unnecessary details and explanations
Mujeeb from east and bhutto from west both were responsible. U can say yahya to be part of it but ayub had nothing to do with it.

In any case ayub or no ayub ... yahya or no yahya bhutto was primarily responsible as he did not accept his defeat.

 

[Ivan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1293930165303738369

Blatant blackmailing by this girl.

 

[WarKa DaNG]

Jhusra bhi bolne laga