What's new

Watch How General Zia ul Haq Fooled America To Make Nuclear Bomb Exclusive Vide

Bhutto paid the price of building the bomb, so did Zia. Musharraf was booted for weaponizing the bomb with delivery capability, which allows Pakistan today to counter the CVGN. Everyone who sees Pakistan in an Indian scenario is mistaken. It has never been about India, and Pakistan was/is always seen as a threat to western interests/desires in the middle east.

some people may think you are a Conspiracy theorist ..
 
.
Zia-ul-Haq took a lot of wrong decisions but reading about him even from the sources of his critics and sworn enemies, I imagine that if he was still alive today and ruling Pakistan, there would be no Baluchistan problem, Afghanistan would still be a friendly neighbour and Khalistan and Kashmir would have either already been freed or nearing the freedom and India would be suffering huge losses....so much so that attacking Pakistan would be an impossible task. The people who followed him were / are mostly traitors (BB, NS and Zardari)...
 
Last edited:
.


Freedom has no price.

He's right.

Zia has promoted terrorism and fanaticism in our society. It is a reality we should not ignore or deny.


Desi liberals tend to blame everything on Zia. The reality is far more complex.

Everything is NOT Zia’s fault – here are 6 reasons why



cruel to be kind. lolz it works. see at 59.00 onwards hand of love and affection lolz


Many blame Zia to excuse Kiyani's inaction and indecisiveness. The mismanagement of WoT falls squarely on Kiyani.
 
Last edited:
.
Which political leadership?



He deliverd.. and that's what matter most.
He wasn't corrupt... like Asif Ali Zardari and company.
He was not traitor like rest of the politicians or most of bureauocrats.
He was feared by enemy.
He kept Pakistan safe.
He didn't went to IMF for trillions of dollars of loan even in time of worst sanctions in history of earth.

Thats not entirely true.

He brought extremism into Pakistani society through religion backed by KSA. This helped easy recruitment in 1980's till now in madrassas/masjids etc.
He opened up doors to millions of refugees who slashed local business as well as labourer jobs in Pakistan.
He should have disposed off mujahideen groups and not let them enter Pakistan after the war but most of them setttled down in FATA. These mujahideen formed Talibs and became a menace even for Pakistan.
He brought the AK47 culture and opium trade into Pakistan, obviously he couldnt control it even if it wasnt intentional.

and worst of all,
He funded and backed MQM to counter PPP in Sindh. He made MQM strong.
What Pakistan faced after 2001 till today (2016) are the seeds sowed in 1980's Afghan-Russo war.

Pakistanis have suffered and Pakistani troops have been killed due to Extremism in our sociey, Talibs, AK-47 culture, and MQM gangs.
 
.
Starting from this guy Zia when religion became a matter of state,when quaid -e-azam said
quote-religion-should-not-be-allowed-to-come-into-politics-religion-is-merely-a-matter-between-muhammad-ali-jinnah-110-84-72.jpg
Jinnah never said that. Period.



BTW what about the countless of Jinnah's speeches where he declared Islam as our ultimate source of guidance in running the affairs of the country?
I am quoting from one of his speeches:

“The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and taught us democracy. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan.”

YES, ITS FROM THE SAME 11th AUGUST SPEECH WHICH THE SECULARISTS ARE SO FOND OF QUOTING.

 
.
Pakis lied back then and again during the war on Terror. Sorry to break it to you but pakis are now known in America as two face liars that'll do anything for $$$.

It can be witnessed how the **** govt/military went from sleeping with USA to cuddling with Russia and China. I don't think this is anything to be proud of... shameful actually
 
.
@BATMAN Zia took over in July 1977. Watch this documentary from June 1980. Assuming the first thing Zia did when he took over was to go for the Atom Bomb, that makes it exactly 36 months. So you friggin think the "bumb" was built in 36 months by Zia. Have some sense and please stop peddling garbage. I doubt your going to change your mind - your type have their heads firmly stuck inside the sand but please consider the two facts below.

Fact A - Zia launched coup in July 1977 and took over Pakistan.
Fact B - BBC programme Project 706 was aired in June 1980.


And I saw this programme back in 1980 with my dad. The reality and the truth is Bhutto gets the credit 100%. @BATMAN You can say crap as is your want. But produce some proof of your contention. Think again about the two facts I have given. Extrapolate > 36 fu*ckin months?


You're absolutely correct in that it was Bhutto who lobbied in Pakistan to start a civilian nuclear program. He came to understand the politics of nuclear technology while studying in US. In Pakistan, he laid the ground work for a nuclear program starting 1958 by establishing Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and appointing key people who would later become central characters, i.e., Munir Khan (1958) and Nobel-laureate Abdus Salam (1960). In 1964, China tested a nuclear device. By 1965, Bhutto was diverting funds for research into nuclear weapons based on his assessment that India will go nuclear which it did in 1974. By 1983, Pakistan had cold tested a working nuclear device.


FCrc5ji.jpg


Source: Overcoming Pakistan's Nuclear Dangers by Mark Fitzpatrick
 
.
Pakis lied back then and again during the war on Terror. Sorry to break it to you but pakis are now known in America as two face liars that'll do anything for $$$.
Yes and we have and we will make your country a hell hole. Anything you can do about that other than bitchin?

Afghanistan(Kabul regime) is the only country in the world which likes to cut the branch on which it sits. What do you expect from us after you befriend Pakistan's enemies, to mow your lawns? Pakistan tried to warm up with Karzai and Ghani but what we got in return was you people teaming up with India.

It can be witnessed how the **** govt/military went from sleeping with USA to cuddling with Russia and China. I don't think this is anything to be proud of... shameful actually
If your governments have been unable to adapt to the realities of the changing world then I guess you have only your government to blame.
 
.
Pakis lied back then and again during the war on Terror. Sorry to break it to you but pakis are now known in America as two face liars that'll do anything for $$$.

It can be witnessed how the **** govt/military went from sleeping with USA to cuddling with Russia and China. I don't think this is anything to be proud of... shameful actually


Calm down.

India, too, lied about its nuclear weapons program.

Here's a clip from a CBC interview conducted on May 20, 1974 where Indian Ambassador to UN Samar Sen blatantly lies about India's nuclear weapons program even after India had detonated a "Peaceful Nuclear Explosive" device in 1974. India euphemistically labelled the detonation "Smiling Buddha." Full interview at CBC Digital Archives.

@Kaptaan @MastanKhan @waz @pakistani342 @T-Rex Enjoy this audio clip. :partay:

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Transcript:

Two Days After the Smiling Buddha

CBC Barbara Frum (BF) Interview with India UN Ambassador, Samar Sen (SS)

May 20, 1974

BF -Ambassador Sen, did India not violate some agreements with Canada in developing its atom bomb?
SS -India did not develop an atom bomb.

BF -What did it develop?
SS -India just exploded an atomic device, nothing to do with a bomb. It is just one of the processes which is necessary for using atomic energy. How did you get the idea for an atom bomb? :woot:

BF -What can you imagine that nuclear device being used for?
SS -Well, to be used for economic purposes. Does anybody deny us the process or the facilities or the technical knowhow of using whatever we can to grow more food, a little more comfortable, a little less hungry?

BF -Could that device not be used as a bomb?
SS -Of course it could be used as a bomb, but why should it be used as a bomb? Why voice this distrust? :woot:

BF -But why develop it at all?
SS -Because we have to have more food, more energy, obviously everybody knows that India is a very poor country. :woot::woot::woot:

BF -I believe your own Prime Minister described this as being a “peaceful bomb.” I think that turned up in the news.
SS -I haven’t seen the text, but I think she has made it quite clear that if she means by bomb, that it makes a lot of noise and explosion, then of course one could call it a bomb, but I think she has made it amply clear that this is to be used for peaceful purposes, for economic development. :woot::woot::woot::woot:

BF -Well if that is so, Ambassador, why not sign the Non Proliferation Treaty?
SS -Because if we sign the Non Proliferation Treaty we cannot even do what we have done. We have already said we shall sign the Non Proliferation Treaty if everybody gives up any kind of, what you call, horrible weapons they have got, and everybody settles down to peaceful use of atomic energy, but the Non Proliferation Treaty was so discriminatory we could not accept it. But if everybody says that we shall give up atomic energy for destructive purposes, we shall be the first one to sign.

BF -All right Ambassador Sen, lets say that out of its Candu reactor, Pakistan now wanted to develop a peaceful bomb, what would you say then?
SS -Well, what does this mean, “peaceful bomb?” Can you explain that?

BF -What if they wanted to develop a peaceful nuclear device?
SS -If they were to develop a peaceful device which were to be used for peaceful exploitation of resources…

BF -So you would have no objection if Pakistan developed its own nuclear devices?
SS -If Pakistan, or any other country, including the USA or the USSR, or any other country wishes to find nuclear energy, or any other form of energy for exploiting its natural resources by peaceful means, then we are all for it.

BF -How would you control that it was, in fact, for peaceful purposes?
SS -Well, how has it been done so far? Has anyone controlled the USA or USSR or China, or Russia or anyone else?

BF -Ambassador Sen, thank you for talking to us.
SS -Thank you

BF -Bye bye
SS -Bye
 
Last edited:
. .
Jinnah never said that. Period.
Okay then I say what you say "Jinnah never said that"
we can go on this all day MR psychic
Anyway here's another secular quote for you
“You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”-Quaid-e-Azam
 
.
There is nothing to fool. If we want the nuke because we will have it whether anyone likes it or not. It is simple.
 
.
Zia did not fool anyone, Americans knew all about our Nuclear program. Hell they knew more than Benazir Bhutto when she was in office for the first time. Americans never did take much of an action mainly because they needed us and they thought they could always control us even if we came to a point where we might have a nuclear weapon. Americans knew, so did some of the European countries.
@Bratva , thoughts?
 
.
Thats not entirely true.

He brought extremism into Pakistani society through religion backed by KSA. This helped easy recruitment in 1980's till now in madrassas/masjids etc.
He opened up doors to millions of refugees who slashed local business as well as labourer jobs in Pakistan.
He should have disposed off mujahideen groups and not let them enter Pakistan after the war but most of them setttled down in FATA. These mujahideen formed Talibs and became a menace even for Pakistan.
He brought the AK47 culture and opium trade into Pakistan, obviously he couldnt control it even if it wasnt intentional.

Nothing wrong with islamising Pakistani society.

Zia simply did not know that some of the mujahid groups would become khawarij later on after his death.

He funded and backed MQM to counter PPP in Sindh. He made MQM strong.

MQM was made to counter the greater evil of Sindhi separatism.

What Pakistan faced after 2001 till today (2016) are the seeds sowed in 1980's Afghan-Russo war.

No. I believe the post-Zia rulers are the ones responsible for the mess after his death.
 
.
Zia did not fool anyone, Americans knew all about our Nuclear program. Hell they knew more than Benazir Bhutto when she was in office for the first time. Americans never did take much of an action mainly because they needed us and they thought they could always control us even if we came to a point where we might have a nuclear weapon. Americans knew, so did some of the European countries.
@Bratva , thoughts?


One can still credit Zia for his successful engagement with the US over Afghanistan which imposed a willful choice blindness on Reagan administration. Unclassified documents show that the American intelligence community certainly knew:
In July 1982, the Reagan administration sent former CIA deputy director General Vernon Walters to meet secretly with Pakistani dictator General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. U.S. intelligence had detected an upswing of clandestine Pakistani efforts to procure nuclear weapons-related technology and unwanted publicity could jeopardize U.S. government economic and military aid to Pakistan, a key partner in the secret war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Confronted with the evidence, Zia acknowledged that the information “must be true,” but then denied everything, leading Walters to conclude that either Zia “did not know the facts” or was the “most superb and patriotic liar I have ever met.” While Zia restated earlier promises not to develop a nuclear weapon and made pledges to avoid specific nuclear “firebreaks,” officials from Secretary of State George Shultz on down would conclude time and time again, that Zia was breaking his word.


We know the latter to be true now.

Source: New Documents Spotlight Reagan-era Tensions over Pakistani Nuclear Program
 
.
Back
Top Bottom