What's new

Musharraf ka ab kiya banay gaa?

lulldapull

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
221
Reaction score
0
Interesting to note kay yae musharraf sahb ab kiya karain gay?? He is flouting his bullshiit book (In the line of embarrassment).....Not to mention toured the U.S. with 100's of his fellow chamchay and now claims that he has our MMA kay wahabbi mulla under control, and Peace with Pukhtoons and blah blah.....and after killing Bugti he has done a greaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat service to Paksitan and the so called development of Balochistan. this guy is the biggest joker and the biggest CIA agent just like Zia. I am totally disgusted with him and hope that he meets his unfortunate fate like the rest of these lotay/ chamchay (so called leaders of that pathetic nation)......:angry:
 
He retains my support for three main things:

1. An obvious upturn of the economic situation of Pakistan.
2. Liberalizing Pakistan. It's not perfect, but seriously switch on the TV. Back when our best program was an old guy from AIOU teaching us "Nazareen sui main dhaaga aisa daaltay hain". Compared to that our entertainment media is way up there. Any leader that is not scared of empowering the artists of the nation must have balls.

Remember what Junoon did to BB and NS? Made a mockery out of them since they opposed our basic freedoms. We all rememeber the song, "Ehtehsaab".

The ability to for writers to get up and call Musharraf a piece of sh*t.

3. Kashmir Issue. He has been flexible from the typical Pakistani point of view, "Hey India give us all of Kashmir". Of course he has kept insisting that India would have to be flexible as well.
 
He retains my support for three main things:
1. An obvious upturn of the economic situation of Pakistan..

There are other opinions as well.The economic situation in pakistan has improved in paper all the time dictators were in power,but it dissappeared as soon as they were out.

Kashmir Issue. He has been flexible from the typical Pakistani point of view, "Hey India give us all of Kashmir". Of course he has kept insisting that India would have to be flexible as well.

Flexible with what?Kashmir thats bushit.We had made a bold step when vajpayee visited lahire and we got Kargil in return.

So for anymore of Mushraffs stupid media idiosyncracy - Indias reply is going to be "no thanks".
 
He retains my support for three main things:

1. An obvious upturn of the economic situation of Pakistan.
2. Liberalizing Pakistan. It's not perfect, but seriously switch on the TV. Back when our best program was an old guy from AIOU teaching us "Nazareen sui main dhaaga aisa daaltay hain". Compared to that our entertainment media is way up there. Any leader that is not scared of empowering the artists of the nation must have balls.

Remember what Junoon did to BB and NS? Made a mockery out of them since they opposed our basic freedoms. We all rememeber the song, "Ehtehsaab".

The ability to for writers to get up and call Musharraf a piece of sh*t.

3. Kashmir Issue. He has been flexible from the typical Pakistani point of view, "Hey India give us all of Kashmir". Of course he has kept insisting that India would have to be flexible as well.

1)The economic upturn is solely due to him 'kow-towing' the party line in Washington. Agr na karta (on 9-12-2001) then things would have been like during nawaz's time when these jokers didn't even have $600 million in the forex....You remember that??;) ...uss waqt gunja was not on these world federalists good side. And pakistan had lost its value as a useful chamcha, because wahabbi jihad was starting to be looked down at by Clinton and Co, and these Army kay generals were turned down by the Clintonites and China in the confrotation with India over Kargil. yae Kargil ka barra mash-hoor plan in hee musharraf sahb ka tha, not to mention the 500+ dead NLI and Paksitan army guys he got killed over what??? Withdrawl??:tdown:

2) liberalising Pakistan is also another agenda of the West in aprticular a 180 deg. hair pin after 9-11. We have video's on U-tube with these harami christian fundo thugs from the Congress and Senate standing in those madarsay that were being opened up throughout Waziristan and NWFP during the early 80's with I repeat U.S. Congressmen and Senators standing with our jahil taliban and professing in speeches that:

'This jihad that you are fighting with the evil red army....you are fighting not only for yourselves but for us as well'

Fighting and supporting CIA's jihad's one day.......... in kashmir, Afghanistan and Chechnya.........To suddenly claiming that now we are enlightened moderate Muslims has about the same value as a tuft of my you know what.....

Leads more credence to the fact that Musharraf chamcha bika hua hae...just like his Pakistani army and its coterie of sold out leadership.

3) Forget about Kashmir yaar. Kashmir is a dead issue. The Kashmiri's themselves don't want to live with these pakistani's, or for that matter Indians.

The problem Asim is that tomorrow our pakistni army kay generals might be asked to embark upon yet another 'Jihad'.....from the White House. phir kiya ho ghaa??? As is the Baloch don't want to live with pakistan, and the Pukhtoons are pretty upset too, from being jerked around from one jihad to the next.

if these guys don't gert sorted out then the country will split. Already there are strong indications that the nukes are no longer under Pakisatni sovereignty, and the NSA has a direct role in safe guarding them. Either Pakistan has a socialist revolution or the country has a bleak future like that of the former Yugoslavia......at the mercy of these World Federalists.
 
Interesting to note kay yae musharraf sahb ab kiya karain gay?? He is flouting his bullshiit book (In the line of embarrassment).....Not to mention toured the U.S. with 100's of his fellow chamchay and now claims that he has our jahil MMA kay wahabbi mulla under control, and Peace with Pukhtoons and blah blah.....and after killing Bugti he has done a greaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat service to Paksitan and the so called development of Balochistan. this guy is the biggest joker and the biggest CIA agent just like Zia harami. I am totally disgusted with him and hope that he meets his unfortunate fate like the rest of these lotay/ chamchay (so called leaders of that pathetic nation)......:angry:

No matter how much one dislikes Musharraf or Zia ( all readers of the forum know that I disliked Zia Ul Haq immensely), I would never use the words 'Zaleel' or 'Harami'.

Regardsless of of how bad they are/were, both of them are/were Presidents of Pakistan. I feel by using such words, one is showing the kind of disrespect for one's President which is unbecoming of a Pakistani.
 
1)The economic upturn is solely due to him 'kow-towing' the party line in Washington. Agr na karta (on 9-12-2001) then things would have been like during gunja's time when these jokers didn't even have $600 million in the forex....You remember that??;) ...uss waqt gunja was not on these world federalists good side. And pakistan had lost its value as a useful chamcha, because wahabbi jihad was starting to be looked down at by Clinton and Co, and these Army kay guddhay were turned down by the Clintonites and China in the confrotation with India over Kargil. yae Kargil ka barra mash-hoor plan in hee ullu kay putthay musharraf sahb ka tha. Saala saaree dunya kay saamnay zaleel hua tha. not to mention the 500+ dead NLI and Paksitan army guys he got killed over what??? Withdrawl??:tdown:
For me, I would've really hated the guy if he would've wanted to be hero and decided to take on the US after 9/11. First the economic upturn wouldn't have been that great, plus of course we'd probably have been the 1st country invaded since there's no Afghanistan without going through Pakistan.

And look at the way he has kow-towed the Bush-line. He goes to the US, and the first thing he does is, answer back Bush's statement that they'd send in thousands of troops into Pakistan. Then he reveals the tidbit about the stoneage. Result? Bush was under heavy fire from the left. Even though America might be a police state, they don't want to appear as one.

As one CNN newsdesk reporter put it "Mr. President I don't know what is more disturbing that your administration threatened an Ally, or this is the first time you're hearing of it".

So what's the benefit of this? Musharraf could say no, to the new demand of sending thousands of troops into Pakistan and Bush can't repeat "Better say yes, or we'd bomb you back to the stoneage".

Delicate business politics. We don't enjoy the luxury of being gung-ho.

2) liberalising Paksitan is also another agenda of the West in aprticular a 180 deg. hair pin after 9-11. We have video's on U-tube with these harami christian fundo thugs from the Congress and Senate standing in those madarsay that were being opened up throughout Waziristan and NWFP during the early 80's with I repeat U.S. Congressmen and Senators standing with our jahil wahabbi taliban and professing in speeches that:

'This jihad that you are fighting with the evil red army....you are fighting not only for yourselves but for us as well'

Fighting and supporting CIA's jihad's one day.......... in kashmir, Afghanistan and Chechnya.........To suddenly claiming that now we are enlightened moderate Muslims has about the same value as a tuft of my jhaantain.

Leads more credence to the fact that Musharraf chamcha saala bika hua hae...just like his Pakistani army and its coterie of sold out leadership. [/quote]
What that shows to me is that Americans will aid you while you are needed. So you better reap advantage of that and make longterm plans. Zia didn't realize this. He probably got assasinated by the agency.

Mullahs make a smaller portion of our society than lets say the youngster in urban cities. The liberalization would empower them and the next generation would grow up listening to Noori rather than some Maulana. In one of my interviews with Salman Ahmed (lead guitarist of Junoon) he said that either people can come and listen to some mullah's waaz or they can come to our concert and perhaps get the same message by listening to "Allah Hoo" (a popular Junoon track). What happens when they make that switch is that the Mullah has then basically lost his gig.

3) Forget about Kashmir yaar. Kashmir is a dead issue. The Kashmiri's themselves don't want to live with these pakistani's, or for that matter Indians.
That is exactly what I look forward to. Kashmir can't be ours even if Kashmiris wanted to. Indians would throw a tantrum and never let it be ours. So let's find a way to close this issue.

We don't want India to rule over Kashmiris. We don't want India to rule over our waters. We want to see an end to the occupation of Kashmiri lands and removal of all foreign forces.

Which Kashmiri option fullfills these objectives easily?

Complete Independence to Kashmir from Pakistan's side and India's side.

The problem Asim is that tomorrow our pakistni army kay guddhay might be asked to embark upon yet another 'Jihad'.....from the White House. phir kiya ho ghaa??? As is the Baloch don't want to live with pakistan, and the Pukhtoons are pretty upset too, from being jerked around from one jihad to the next.
Pakistan doing the whiteman's Jihad, inspite of all the closeness is less likely now than it was during Ganja's time. Pakistan was asked to participate in Iraq, which it refused. It has given the clear message that it will oppose the invasion of Iran. Which leaves China and we're not attacking China, that's clear.

if these guys don't gert sorted out then the country will split. Already there are strong indications that the nukes are no longer under Pakisatni sovereignty, and the NSA has a direct role in safe guarding them. Either Pakistan has a socialist revolution or the country has a bleak future like that of the former Yugoslavia......at the mercy of these World Federalists.
The splits in the country are unfortunate. But it can't be any other way. Tribal culture has got to go from Pakistan. Afterall look at what they've done with it. It's reduced to listening to the bossing some warlord or at least feudal lord (or both). Then women are raped left n right.

The operation in Waziristan HAD to happen. The operation against Bugti also had to happen. His movement wasn't bigger than Dera Bughti, but it could've become one. He had bombed and killed local and foreign civillians. Disrupted our gas supply and hence harmed our economy. People had been calling for his removal for ages IIRC. It should've happened sooner.

Most of the rifts are due to dictates from Foreign lands. Pathans have involvements from Afghanistan (the local leaders if not the government). The Bugti movement got theirs from India via Afghanistan. Eight Indian consulates on the border of Pakistan, it's obvious that it wasn't going to keep things pretty for Pakistan.

Personally I think when the US asks to send troops into Pakistan we should let them. In return we should ask for our troops to do the job with those Indian consulates.
 
Yaar I agree and disagree on these points.

1) First if this Chhotta (next door) can stnd up to these imperialists, and thumb his nose at them, because iranians have played their cards right from the beginning, when they realised in 1979 that they were just being used by these hillbilly's for an agenda. The revolution had a powerful following with estimates of upto and over 45% of the population directly supporting it. the mullah's hijacking it is another matter altogether but the essense was always there from the time of mossadegh! They literally made a point to these guys that get the hell out of our country, and fukking stay out! believe me oil and alliances were not the reason for the viability of this revolution. It is in their nature to reject outside interference in their country's internal affairs. Even throughout history Iran (Persia) stayed out of the Ottoman empire, and didn't want anything to do with it. They didn't have the crude oil (had not been discovered yet) or the luxury of alliances with Russians and Chinese back then either. So its just excuses.....kay jeee Amreeka nay saaddee bhund lugga dainee thee.....;)

Any way moving on.....this whole book thing and I will post a dead on article by Ayaz Amir's column that he blasted Musharraf sahb's bullshit rationale/ reasoning and logic for kow-towing to U.S. dictates. Yaar bohat hee bekaar insaan hae yae Pakistan kay liyae. He is the epitome of disaster that has already happened. I don't have the words to describe the damage he has done to that country!

As far as the alienation of the Baloch (since I am one) and i can say for certain how the Baloch feel towards these Pakistani army Jurnails and their jahil CIA inspired agenda, you will be hard pressed to find a single Baloch who would really want to stay with pakistan. He has alienated us beyond anything. the same thing with the Waziri's, leaving both these communities withj no choise but to look for alternatives...anything other than living with pakistan.

I am digressing now...but this broad topic basically emcompasses all these facets of the complex pakistani politics. Here check out this Ayaz Amir's article on musharraf and what a buffoon he really is:

In the line of embarrassment



By Ayaz Amir


HEADS of state are usually not into the business of ghost-writing their memoirs while in office, much less hawking them in the course of leisurely foreign visits. But stranger things have happened in Pakistan where it is not unusual for the bizarre to become the norm.

There is the precedent of Field Marshal (self-appointed) Ayub Khan’s ghost-written attempt at autobiography, ‘Friends Not Masters’. It made a splash as long as he was president. But it ended on the footpaths where second-hand books are sold when he left office. In time it was sold as raddi, the more evocative Urdu word for rubbish, for wrapping meat, fruit and other items of daily use.

So we shouldn’t be too surprised if another soldier-president has fallen for the same temptation although as patriotic Pakistanis we should hope that Gen Musharraf’s book, ‘In the Line of Fire’, doesn’t meet a fate similar to that of Ayub’s unfortunate memoirs.

Understandably, the general’s American trip has been divided almost equally between diplomacy and book-promotion. Accompanying him was an entourage of about seventy, including a clutch of cabinet ministers, only going to show that in the matter of foreign travel Pakistani leaders like to do things in style.

The title, In the Line of Fire, evokes the image of a leader surrounded by danger, battling huge odds and coming out on top. But it is not beyond the usual cynics to think that more than the leader it is the people of Pakistan who have been in the line of fire for the last seven years that the general has been in power.

After all, the general consulted no one when he came to power. He has since done things much his own way, consulting his convenience rather than anyone else’s. Even now if there is any roadmap for Pakistan’s future, it revolves around his wishes.

But this is not a great problem. The people of Pakistan are used to uninvited rulers. What rubs them the wrong way is something else: the constant insulting of their intelligence when they are expected to believe that night is day and darkness incandescent light. Not only that, they are also expected to applaud the fiction.

The attitude of our American friends, however, is instructive. They know how to drive a hard bargain. Simon and Schuster, the publishers, are said to be paying Gen Musharraf upwards of a million dollars for his literary labours. Impressive perhaps in Pakistan but not a huge sum by American standards where presidential memoirs — ask Bill Clinton — fetch much more.

Even so, the general has been more than loyal to his side of the bargain, not allowing false modesty to come in the way of book promotion. On CBS’s “60 Minutes” (CBS being a sister company of Simon and Schuster) the general set off a minor explosion when he said that then US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, had threatened to bomb Pakistan into the Stone Age unless it cooperated in the “war on terror”. Asked about this revelation at a joint press appearance with Bush, Musharraf famously replied: “I am launching my book on the 25th and I am honour-bound to Simon and Schuster not to comment on the book before that day.”

A book promo can’t get any better than this.

As for the substance of the book, it is an extended tribute to the art of spin, the inconvenient filtered out, the rest seen through rose-tinted glasses. Understandably we hear nothing about broken promises, such as the general’s public pledge to take off his uniform by this and this date. Kargil of course figures but as victory not defeat. Or at least it is presented as a military victory which turned into a political defeat when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif ordered the army to vacate the heights it had captured.

This is self-serving history, the awkward truth being slightly different. As even unbiased Indians admit, our troops showed great valour but by end June ‘99 they were getting no supplies and were not being relieved. Pushed into the jaws of death (this not being a melodramatic statement), they were left to fend for themselves. They did not flinch. The army high command lost its nerve, realising belatedly it had taken on more than it could handle. Despite suffering heavy casualties, the Indian army had started retaking the lost heights one by one.

The expected masterstroke turning into a fiasco, the high command more than the political leadership was desperate for a way out. Nawaz Sharif dashed to Washington for a meeting with Clinton on July 4, American Independence Day. Withdrawal had become unavoidable but he wanted to put a respectable face on it by giving an impression of American involvement. This was not undermining the army. It was covering up for it. (How Sharif was repaid for his pains is another story.)

It takes some audacity to put such a spin on events. But it is wholly in character and hardly surprising, no one yet accusing Gen Musharraf of timidity when it has come to giving his version of history.

The Stone Age remark (since denied by Armitage) presents a problem of its own. Was it because of that threat that Pakistan changed direction and decided to become a US satellite as the US prepared to attack Afghanistan? Perish the thought. “I wargamed the US as an adversary,” we are assured. “The question was: if we do not join them, can we confront them and withstand the onslaught? The answer was no...our military forces would be destroyed....”

This is strong stuff because no one has ever suggested Pakistan should have taken on the US. That wasn’t the question at all. It was, and still is, whether Pakistan should have swung to the other extreme and bowed to US pressure so completely. There was a middle way. Without incurring the risk of being bombed into the Stone Age, we could have turned our backs on the Taliban, cut all ties with them, but excused ourselves from providing military bases and becoming a pawn in American hands.

This would have required some courage. What we were getting was a meltdown. Maleeha, our ambassador in Washington, and Lt Gen Mahmood, the ISI chief, who happened to be visiting the US, went to meet Armitage, little realising that an elephant likely to go on the rampage was best avoided. They got a rough handling, Armitage, by his own account, telling them, “...for Americans this was a black and white issue. Pakistan was either with us or against us, that US-Pakistan relations would begin on that day...if they agreed to help, I would give them a list of requirements that were not negotiable... So it was a strong presentation.”

Strong? A Mafiosi would have been proud of it.

Maleeha can be tough as nails when she wants. Mahmood (one year my senior in Lawrence College) was the person who, at the head of an army contingent, marched into the Prime Minister’s house on October 12, ‘99, and spoke in a threatening tone to Nawaz Sharif. Neither showed much toughness in Armitage’s presence, in fact crumpling in the line of fire. When their panic was transmitted to Islamabad, Army House was ready to crumple. Colin Powell didn’t have to do much persuading when he made his famous telephone call to Gen Musharraf. The pitch had already been queered.

‘Line of fire’ suggests standing up to fire. We see precious little standing up, a lot of falling down. But we are expected to believe it was all worth it because Pakistan was ‘saved’.

On “60 Minutes” Musharraf says Armitage made a very “rude remark”. That he may have but it did not prevent him from being warmly welcomed during his several trips to Pakistan, each time being received by the president.

The A. Q. Khan nuclear proliferation saga is regurgitated. It may sell the book but it is a moot point how Pakistan’s interests are served by reminding the world once more of our reputed irresponsibility in this field? Or how national honour is enhanced when the President of Pakistan says that his country has received millions of dollars (in bounty money) from the CIA in return for handing over Al Qaeda suspects? The book may be good for the president’s image but out of its pages Pakistan comes out looking poorly. After reading it the average American may come away thinking that Pervez Musharraf is a hell of a guy standing up to all these dangers but he is likely to take a dim view of a country which has so many dangerous people running around.
 
Check this one out too yaar! Yae in begherat pakistani Army key harkatain hain.......:lol: its amazing that Mulla Zaeef was an emmisary and a diplomat....He must have had a lot of close links with our ISI kay begherat jiallay aur mosttanday????.....Apnay hee dost ko CIA kay hawaalay kar diya yaar! This guy was tortured for 4 years, for absolutely nothing (just for association)! I mean I am setting high standards for these bastards in our govt. who hand over our own innocent citizens over for torture......Mulla Zaeef to door key baat hae....Anyway you will find this interesting.....And like I said....Musharraf sahb nay hudd kar dee hae beghertee key. He is a disgrace to our country:

The ordeal of Mullah Zaeef



By Ayaz Amir


WE know, to our lasting shame, how our overlords, dazzled by American power, and afraid of God knows what, handed over the ex-Taliban ambassador, Mullah Abdus Salam Zaeef, to the Americans in January 2002 — in violation of every last comma of international law.

But until now we have not been privy to the details: how exactly did the handing-over take place? Now to satisfy our curiosity, and perhaps outrage our feelings, comes Mullah Zaeef’s own account, published in Pashto and parts of which have been translated into Urdu by the Express newspaper.

To say that the account is eye-opening would be an understatement. It is harrowing and mind-blowing. Can anyone bend so low as our government did? And can behaviour be as wretched as that displayed by American military personnel into whose custody Zaeef was given?

On the morning of January 2, 2002, three officials of a secret agency arrived at Zaeef’s house in Islamabad with this message: “Your Excellency, you are no more excellency.” One of them said, no one can resist American power, or words to that effect. “America wants to question you. We are going to hand you over to the Americans so that their purpose is served and Pakistan is saved from a big danger.”

Zaeef could have been forgiven for feeling stunned. From the “guardians of Islam” this was the last thing that he expected, that for the sake of a few “coins” (his words) he would be delivered as a “gift” to the Americans.

Under heavy escort he was taken to Peshawar, kept there for a few days and then pushed into his nightmare. Blindfolded and handcuffed, he was driven to a place where a helicopter was waiting, its engines running. Someone said, “Khuda hafiz” (God preserve you).

There were some people speaking in English. “Suddenly I was pounced upon and flung on the ground, kicked and pummelled from all sides. So sudden was the attack that I was dumbfounded... My blindfold slipping, I saw a line of Pakistani soldiers to one side and some vehicles including one with a flag...My clothes were stripped from my body and I was naked but ‘my former friends’ kept watching the spectacle. The locks on their lips I can never forget... The (Pakistani) officers present there could at least have said he is our guest, in our presence don’t treat him like this. Even in my grave I will not be able to forget that scene.”

Zaeef suffered unspeakable tortures at the hands of his American captors. He was kept in Bagram, then taken to Kandahar and from there flown eventually to Guantanamo. He was released from Guantanomo and flown to Kabul in September 2005, charged with nothing, nothing having been proven against him. He remained in American captivity for close to four years.

I have read accounts of KGB prisons but to the best of my knowledge the KGB, while no collection of innocents, did not keep prisoners in metal containers and metal cages. This seems to be a method perfected by our American friends.

In the Second World War the German army confined itself to fighting, leaving the dirty work of prisoner detention, abuse and torture to the Gestapo and SS. But in Afghanistan and Iraq it is the American military involved in the most despicable acts of torture. Abu Ghraib was an American military facility as is the prison system in Guantanomo Bay. In Basra soldiers of the British army have been involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

These are the standard-bearers of human rights and freedom from whom we are supposed to take lessons in democracy. Why does the Bush administration and its acolytes in Britain so loath President Ahmedinejad of Iran and President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela? Because they look America in the eye and are not afraid of speaking the truth.

It is hard to fault Hugo Chavez when before the UN General Assembly he calls Bush a devil and the Bush administration the greatest threat to world peace. From the shores of the Mediterranean to the Hindukush mountains on our western border this entire region is in strife, all because of the evil — there is no other word for it — flowing from the US. The ‘evil empire’ is very much here and its capital is Washington.

The Nazis dabbled in lies as a matter of policy. They said — Goebbels being the prime exemplar — that the bigger the lie and the more it was repeated, the more it would be taken as the truth. But the Nazis did not prevaricate. They were bold enough to call their lies lies. The Yanks and the Brits are less honest. They want us to applaud their lies as the truth.

The US covered itself in a garb of hurt innocence when the Sep 11, 2001, attacks took place. But using those attacks as a pretext, it has done so much harm around the world, especially in the Middle East and our region, that its hands are covered in blood.

We can only thank our stars that American aggression has not gone unchecked. If Iraq had been a cakewalk, if the US had not met its second Vietnam in the killing fields of Iraq, there is no telling what the Bush war administration would have done, what further conquests it would have embarked upon. Redrawing the map of the Middle East would not have remained a mere slogan. It might actually have happened.

Complementing Iraq is the developing situation in Afghanistan where the anti-American resistance is gaining strength and growing stronger by the day. In Lebanon Israeli designs have received a severe check. Iran is defiant and standing up to pressure. In Latin America Chavez looks set to don the mantle of Castro.

What a dramatic change has been wrought in a mere five years. The US was unassailable at the beginning of this period. But thanks principally to the Iraq fiasco, it looks less invincible now. Its material power has not diminished but its moral worth stands degraded. It remains a colossus but with feet of clay.

This is not the end of history. This looks very much like the beginning of a new history. The free-market model American-style is not the crowning achievement of human existence.

Indeed, if we are at all interested in sustainable development, we’ll have to think of something better and less destructive than unbridled capitalism. And something less arrogant than the new imperialism to which our region is being exposed.

Spare a thought for our military rulers who take such pride in supping with the devil. Indeed, closeness to the Bush administration is the ultimate yardstick by which they like to judge themselves. Whatever the mess in domestic affairs, it means nothing if their equation with Washington remains strong.

Did the Pakistani officers present at the scene of Zaeef’s humiliation feel nothing when the Americans were laying into him? Did the thought not cross their minds that more than Zaeef’s humiliation it was their humiliation?

And who was the senior officer, with a flag on his jeep? My course-mate Ehsan — 41st PMA — was then heading ISI, the organization in overall command of such sensitive matters. Maybe he throws some light on this incident if he sits down to write his memoirs.

There is no shortage of sages who, in relation to Pakistan’s post-Sep 11 capitulation before the US, still ask: what would you have done? They miss the point altogether. From cravenness and appeasement no good can come, none whatsoever. And a country which proves itself to be craven in one sphere can do nothing right or bold in any other sphere.

If toadyism is to be our second nature, we will be swayed this way and that by every shifting wind. Our national endeavours will lack conviction and purpose and democracy and the rule of law will remain distant dreams. We will have to master our fears and our perennial tendency to vacillation before we can hope to master anything else.
 
Mr Lulldapull,

Degrading others is the simplistic way of posting we have seen of you on PDF. If Musharraf is bad then the alternatives are even worser. Looting the Pakistani people or doing a pathetic job while calling it democracy isn't exactly perfect. We should look at the Pakistani people that elect those people. I am not favouring "dictatorship" either but if 150 million people are that **** that they elect the wrong or cannot create democratic leadership then this is the road we should travel... It took years but probably you are still the same person without broader view.

Munir.
 
No need to post any old pics. Devon street ki yaadein wese hi rahain toh achi hain.

We do not encourage hurling insults onto Pakistan (or any other country, including India). But in the interest of freedom of speech, a few transgressions are obviously allowed. It's his right to be dissatisfied, to be anti-Pakistan. I can censor him but he'd remain anti-Pakistan.

We can deal with them. They are still human beings with different political ambitions. Some might be traitors. Especially people like Bugti who used violence against the state. The UNION is something that has been agreed to for decades now and everybody is right now a citizen. There are like 3 to 6 million balochis. Without knowing who is really a terrorist and a traitor we can't be hurling threats to them. That would be to pronounce someone guilty till proven innocent. So I wouldn't threaten my fellow countrymen numberin 6 million to drive them out into the Arabian sea since clearly that too would be treachery.

Baloch concerns are real. Not all scenarios end with a division of Pakistan and that's what we want. Now we also have to pay some attention to what the Baloch want.
 
Mods would u mind checking the F.i lthy langage lul is using.

we all know civilised language is the halmark of PFF if u cant stop this kind of dirty and F.i lthy language which can only be used by F.ilthy people, im afraid civilised people like me would end up leaving PFF.
Rightly said. So guys lets heed some advice from one of our senior members on PFF, and lets keep the debate about topics. Topics are for e.g. Musharraf, Pakistan, Balochistan, India, Timbuktoo. Not Lulldapull, Munir, Sparten, Asim Aquil, etc.

No matter how outrageous be anyone's comment on a political topic, you ONLY and ALWAYS comment on that topic, not the person. Not once, not ever. It's just good conduct.
 
One can start by posting only in English and decent language. Whether his opinion is reality or not. It is not much further then putting LCA als 4 th gen superjetfighter or still explaining that Arjun is top tank. But then again I agree that a forum is about giving and taking info and opinions. Otherwise it would be a dull day. Let us see how it unfolds. I am in.
 
No matter how much one dislikes Musharraf or Zia ( all readers of the forum know that I disliked Zia Ul Haq immensely), I would never use the words 'Zaleel' or 'Harami'.

Regardsless of of how bad they are/were, both of them are/were Presidents of Pakistan. I feel by using such words, one is showing the kind of disrespect for one's President which is unbecoming of a Pakistani.
Thanks for pointing it out, lets keep that out of thread titles.

Munir said:
One can start by posting only in English and decent language. Whether his opinion is reality or not. It is not much further then putting LCA als 4 th gen superjetfighter or still explaining that Arjun is top tank. But then again I agree that a forum is about giving and taking info and opinions. Otherwise it would be a dull day. Let us see how it unfolds. I am in.
I wouldn't expect any less from you anyway, Munir.

As Lull said why should we be afraid of his opinions. It doesn't change our perception about Pakistan. So lets challenge any opinion, perception and preconception that may be posed towards us. True patriotism cannot be exhibited by censoring someone, rather it'd be shown by bringing them into the "maidaan" and taking it all on.

Just in case if anyone's wondering a lot of stuff from here has been shifted to the complaints thread in the CSRFF.
 
There are other opinions as well.The economic situation in pakistan has improved in paper all the time dictators were in power,but it dissappeared as soon as they were out.
Doubt it. We've got better streets in Urban Cities, we've got bigger buildings, parks, roads and highways. You can actually see the development in Pakistan. Especially in all the major population areas.

Flexible with what?Kashmir thats bushit.We had made a bold step when vajpayee visited lahire and we got Kargil in return.
Big deal. That wasn't bold enough. Bold would be to let go of Kashmir and ask Pakistan to do the same too. So Kashmiris can form their own free nation.

So for anymore of Mushraffs stupid media idiosyncracy - Indias reply is going to be "no thanks".
Like it was any different before Musharraf. New guy, new excuses.
 
As some new democracies have shopwn transition it van only be done by temp dictatorship that pushes away fundamentalistic and old-powe-people and gives the people the right to educate and develope. I think that Musharraf has said that clearly so do please look on google video where in the first part a "taleban" figure makes fun of Musharraf and in the second part Musharraf shows him the reality.

If Musharraf is bad then what exactly did others bring. Was Zia good? What about Bhutto world? And how did Nawaz achieve better prosperity for Pakistan? I am looking forward to answers my friend lulldapull (I hope that he atleast starts using his real name).
 
Back
Top Bottom