I Will Disarm All Militant Groups in Pakistan: Imran Khan

[prabhakar]

Nice Interview...our pakistani friends need to understand that Karan Thapar is absolute devil.

But the points coming out from him

1.End of all militants group-- which are harming more to pakistan than India now.

2.We don't have trust how would you resolve the issues-- do whatever you can but you won't bent the other side. We can only solve it when we show maturity and trust with each other and we don't have any magic wand for that. it will come up gradually with time. The reception Indian team got was exceptional.

@pakistani.. who thinks that we keep on hating India.. I want to ask what the solution they have in their mind to deal with India ?

 

[z9-ec]

What do you find wrong with the highlighted part and what do you find contradictory in his statement? Which statement of his own is he contradicting?

Read it again:

The time has come to not only remove all militant groups, disarm them but also a de-weaponisation in Pakistan because it causing massive problems within the country. So, therefore, once that issue disappears, once there are no militant groups within Pakistan, I think that issue will disappear.

 

[Zarvan]

Musharraf never put Kashmir on a sideline. He had plenty of chances in doing so. Numerous of times backed out of an agreement with India over Kashmir. So spare me the trouble.

Sir because Of Musharraf Blunder we lost or stand on Kashmir and now are at really difficult position when it comes to talks with India on Kashmir this traitor destroyed Pakistan will all worst actions

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Musharraf never put Kashmir on a sideline. He had plenty of chances in doing so. Numerous of times backed out of an agreement with India over Kashmir. So spare me the trouble.

Are you denying the existence of the back-channel dialog that would have essentially resulted in the LoC remaining where it is and greater trade and travel between AK and IAK being facilitated?

How is the goal that Musharraf's back-channel dialog was working towards any different than what IK appears to be suggesting?

---------- Post added at 02:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 AM ----------

Read it again:

The time has come to not only remove all militant groups, disarm them but also a de-weaponisation in Pakistan because it causing massive problems within the country. So, therefore, once that issue disappears, once there are no militant groups within Pakistan, I think that issue will disappear.

Disarm militant groups, de-weaponisation in Pakistan ..... what is wrong with that?

How about you give me a clear and detailed explanation in one post, about why exactly IK's comments bother you, instead of running around asking riddles?

 

[Awesome]

Musharraf never put Kashmir on a sideline.

Just to repeat, neither has Imran Khan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Just to repeat, neither has Imran Khan.

Exactly - IK stated that he considers the 'Human Rights' of the Kashmiris (or any people) more important - so that would mean a continued focus on getting the two militaries to thin their forces and allow greater interaction between the peoples of AK and IAK - which is EXACTLY what Musharraf's back-channel dialog was trying to accomplish.

 

[hembo]

Read it again:

The time has come to not only remove all militant groups, disarm them but also a de-weaponisation in Pakistan because it causing massive problems within the country. So, therefore, once that issue disappears, once there are no militant groups within Pakistan, I think that issue will disappear.

Although its an internal matter of Pakistan & Pakistanis, I would like to ask something.

First of all, Do you or do not you believe what's stated in your quoted paragraph is true or not?

Secondly, With which other statement of his, he is contradicting with this paragraph?

 

[z9-ec]

Just to repeat, neither has Imran Khan.

READ THIS:


Karan Thapar: I’m very interested in what you’re saying about building trust, building confidence. It reminds me of something President Zardari said to this very programme, Devil’s Advocate, three years ago. He said India and Pakistan should try and resolve the Kashmir issue as India and China are seeking to resolve their border dispute. He said ‘put it aside on the back-burner for a later, wiser generation to sort out and in the meantime build confidence and trust in each other by boosting trade, by boosting confidence measures like playing cricket. Then 10 years later the new atmosphere will help solve Kashmir’. Do you share that line of thinking?

Imran Khan: I certainly agree with that line of thinking. I think that the more confidence we build with each other, the more trade we have, the more trust we develop and the moment militancy or intelligence agency roles disappear and the more we solve our issues on the dialogue table that’s the only way forward.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thread title changed - more accurately reflects IK's comments.

 

[z9-ec]

Are you denying the existence of the back-channel dialog that would have essentially resulted in the LoC remaining where it is and greater trade and travel between AK and IAK being facilitated?

How is the goal that Musharraf's back-channel dialog was working towards any different than what IK appears to be suggesting?

Never denied a back channel of diplomacy. However, Musharraf never compromised on Kashmir. He walked out of joint statements and agreements over Kashmir not being part of the solution. You all know it.

Disarm militant groups, de-weaponisation in Pakistan ..... what is wrong with that?

How about you give me a clear and detailed explanation in one post, about why exactly IK's comments bother you, instead of running around asking riddles?

How will he do that? without Army going in? by playing cricket with taliban?

Ofcourse, he will have to send in the military.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

READ THIS:


Karan Thapar: I’m very interested in what you’re saying about building trust, building confidence. It reminds me of something President Zardari said to this very programme, Devil’s Advocate, three years ago. He said India and Pakistan should try and resolve the Kashmir issue as India and China are seeking to resolve their border dispute. He said ‘put it aside on the back-burner for a later, wiser generation to sort out and in the meantime build confidence and trust in each other by boosting trade, by boosting confidence measures like playing cricket. Then 10 years later the new atmosphere will help solve Kashmir’. Do you share that line of thinking?

Imran Khan: I certainly agree with that line of thinking. I think that the more confidence we build with each other, the more trade we have, the more trust we develop and the moment militancy or intelligence agency roles disappear and the more we solve our issues on the dialogue table that’s the only way forward.

Read what Musharraf was upto:

Singh told the US delegation that Delhi and Islamabad had made great progress prior to February 2007, when President Musharraf ran into trouble. "We had reached an understanding in back channels," he related, says the cable, in which Musharraf had agreed to a non-territorial solution to Kashmir. Singh went on to add that India wanted a strong, stable, peaceful, democratic Pakistan and makes no claim on "even an inch" of Pakistani territory.

Singh's comments authenticate Musharraf's assertions last year that India and Pakistan had reached that stage, where they were preparing the final draft for the resolution. He had said the two sides shared drafts through "back channels", and these were in keeping with the four-point template which he had envisaged to resolve the issue. Singh, too, mentions in the cable that the two sides had arrived at the solution through back channels.

Musharraf's four points included demilitarization, maximum autonomy, making border irrelevant and joint management of the area.

Manmohan Singh, Musharraf came close to striking Kashmir deal: WikiLeaks - Times Of India

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ofcourse, he will have to send in the military.

Disarming militant groups does not preclude the use of the military ...

IK believes that neither this nor the past government have approached dialog with the militants seriously - if he is in power, he'll briefed on all past and existing attempts to negotiate in detail, and what the results were and how and when failures happened. Eventually he'll resort to military containment since his entire reason in running for office is to improve Pakistan, and he cannot improve Pakistan if the Taliban renege on peace deals and continue violence.

 

[z9-ec]

Read what Musharraf was upto:

Singh told the US delegation that Delhi and Islamabad had made great progress prior to February 2007, when President Musharraf ran into trouble. "We had reached an understanding in back channels," he related, says the cable, in which Musharraf had agreed to a non-territorial solution to Kashmir. Singh went on to add that India wanted a strong, stable, peaceful, democratic Pakistan and makes no claim on "even an inch" of Pakistani territory.

Singh's comments authenticate Musharraf's assertions last year that India and Pakistan had reached that stage, where they were preparing the final draft for the resolution. He had said the two sides shared drafts through "back channels", and these were in keeping with the four-point template which he had envisaged to resolve the issue. Singh, too, mentions in the cable that the two sides had arrived at the solution through back channels.

Musharraf's four points included demilitarization, maximum autonomy, making border irrelevant and joint management of the area.

Manmohan Singh, Musharraf came close to striking Kashmir deal: WikiLeaks - Times Of India

I'm not denying back channel diplomacy.

What I object is to put KASHMIR in the back burner! for 10 FREAKIN YEARS!

Musharraf sought a solution. Imran Khan wants to put it aside.

 

[hembo]

Thread title changed - more accurately reflects IK's comments.

Just curious. What, according to you, is the difference between disarming the militant groups and dismantling (making them them vanish) them?? If there are any, which one should be more appropriate?

 

[z9-ec]

Although its an internal matter of Pakistan & Pakistanis, I would like to ask something.

First of all, Do you or do not you believe what's stated in your quoted paragraph is true or not?

Secondly, With which other statement of his, he is contradicting with this paragraph?

To the Pakistani people he has repeatedly said in rallies that he will NOT I repeat NOT send in the Army. Rather seek a political solution that is to surrender the area to extremist in turn for peace. Completely contradicting what he has said in this interview.