Not just Hamid Mir, most people from media were asking similar questions. This is their job. If journalists do not ask tough questions, then they are not doing their job. After the event it was the same media that was asking how come so much blood was spilt. If a government acts on media portrayals, then it is not a government but a joke. Any attempt to shift the blame from the government to the media is an excercise in futility. It is government's job to protect its citizens. It is media's job to ask questions on various aspects and differing perspectives of an issue to bring out relevant information. The two can not be equated.
It would be relevant to discuss the contents of the said column instead of trying to pass the blame onto people who were not the decision makers.
When Ch. Shujaat and Anwar-ul-Haq had negotiated a surrender, why did then Musharraf order the operation over-ruling people deputed to resolve the matter without bloodshed?
1. In such a situation any state answerable to its people would try its best to preserve the lives of people involved. A state can not assume extra-judicial execution to be a valid response. I hope you are aware of the debate on drone usage by US? Same thing, even though the people concerned are not US citizens.
2. I think you are alluding to David Koresh of Branch Davidians cult and his band of followers. You are misapplying the case here. First though there was a violation of the law, the ATF personnel had no mandate to kill. Second the cult members themselves put their compound on fire. ATF personnel did not kill them. Third ATF came under massive criticism for its handling of the stand-off. Fourth, this incident led to increased radicalization within fringe groups in USA, with the most visible effect being the Oklahoma City Bombing by Timothy McVeigh.
From the above it is clear that you can not apply this example to Lal Masjid. In fact this example does clearly shows that Lal Masjid issue was handled in the worst possible way without any regard to the likely outcome that we saw later in massive retaliation on our Army, police, and people in general.
3. There is nothing 'Islamic' about how the seige of Haram Sharif was handled. Those people were committed to violence, unlike the people within Lal Masjid who were clearly divided but were pushed into a position where they had no option but to resist force. It would be interesting to speculate what would have been the attitude of Saudis had the radicals been amenable to negotiations. There is a world of difference between Pakistanis and Saudis after all. It is a pity that the commando general self-imposed president over-ruled the saner elements in governments to make a self serving show that was devastating for our nation in its aftermath.
Musharraf supporters would go to any length, twist any fact, and display any extent of illogicality to defend the indefensible. You should answer why Musharraf order the operation when government's team of negotiators had found a solution that would have avoided blood shed. Why was timing made to coincide with a big political event? Why was the aftermath not thought about?
You can not use that argument to support bloodshed by government. It was widely reported that the people holed up inside Lal Masjid were divided among themselves with some radicals pushing for violence. Why did the government use brute force instead of smart approach?
If you look closely at today's Paksitan, we have been reaping the aftermath of Musharraf's autocratic decisions. We are not done dealing with blowback just yet. It is rather simple-minded to assume that Musharraf's era was all honey and milk. Not quite so. Look closely.
I suppose Musharraf rule for you was counterpart of Rahidun caliphate? All the security was for the poor man and no security for VIPs? I can understand your sense of outrage, but then simply point to Musharraf's decisions and their effects.
Clearly you are way off the mark here. My case is precisely that Lal Masjid was not handled well. One idiot overruled everyone else and caused unnecessary blood shed and an unmanageable blowback. You have to be blind not to see that.
Just to facilitate you, let me ask you to dig what do the government negotiators have to say about negotiations and with what response were they met from Musharraf? That should close this case if you be non-partisan for a while.
Again, I can understand your sense of outrage, but this outburst in neither here not there when it comes to Lal Masjid. In fact politicians are eminently suited to negotiate. Military men can only make a mess. Just look at Musharraf and his string of disastrous decisions and brute-force approach.
I am sure you are going to do exactly what @
FaujHistorian did on this thread: blow a lot of hot air, fire off all sorts of tangents, fill pages with empty rhetoric. One thing you would not do is face the issue squarely in the face and answer me point by point.
This is what has been happening with @
Zarvan and @
mdcp.
