We must never forget Ziaul Haq

[sparklingway]

Zia Gift to pakistan Uneducated idiots

http://img27.imageshack.us/i/27013554333778605104034.jpg/

could you please share what was his efforts I would love to read about it.

My thanks just for the comic value of this post. Not one but multiple spelling mistakes. Use the language that you are proficient in. Why the need to use English?

 

[sparklingway]

Once upon a time to get on in Pakistan religion did not matter. On the other hand, a criminal record did not help. Today, by the looks of it, one can have a criminal record and still actually occupy sensitive positions in government or industry. Religion, though, continues to be immaterial; mostly because there is only one religion in Pakistan, the others are extinct, except statistically. But what does count is sect, so much so that one's livelihood, nay, life, may depend on it.

From courageous and outspoken publications that dot the media landscape, amidst much trash, we learn that there are as many as 269 sects and sub-sects in Pakistan. And that since 1989 sectarian disputes have thus far accounted for 5,400 killed. We owe this malady to the fundamentalism injected into our politics by Ziaul Haq and his Salafist backers. It is not only Shias and Sunnis killing each other but, more so, sub-groups within sects that are likewise engaged in slaughter.

Zafar Hilaly in The News

 

[Hammy007]

nobody should forget musharraf, the biggest devil and killer of pakistanis, his efforts have now taken the shape of a civil war in pakistan.

from the very beginning and creation of pakistan has remained under the shadow of US and western countries, being in common wealth is a fine example.

as correctly pointed out by FF, zia is only used as a scape goat to disregard and divert publics attention towards main issues and to justify US drone attacks, killing pakistanis and other crimes. secularists always highlight this issue in order to spread their propaganda. people like nadeem paracha only add to the existing mess.

 

[third eye]

Zia may or may not have been good for the nation - this is something for the ppl of Pak to decide. I have two comments on the subject :

1. Banishing a leader from the books or history serves no purpose.

2. Short cuts in any form - even to grab power without the consent of the ppl may appear successful & rewarding to the nation in the short term but does immense harm in the long run.

 

[Chiru]

Unchallenged power makes anyone corrupt and arrogant. Long run it's not good for country. As a Indian this is just my opinion. Zia may be good for some pakistanis.

 

[zagahaga]

zia ul haque ........ was a great leader..... the only reason why i see people bashing him ? jelious ....... hehehe ...... in what way? he hanged bhutto a great leader but too much curuption ... he put a nice leash on america which leaded to our nukes and was the only guy who had balls to take out the red army....... if you have any pride in pakistan dont disrespect our miltary leaders beacuse they dident put money into their pockets the put the money in the country... unlike sum people

 

[VrSoLdIeRs]

Can anyone please answer me....

Did we had any other choice rather then going to war with russia?? (using taliban or whatever... mind u taliban at that time were heroes of our 'broadminded' friends)

please let your replies be 'to the point' n short

 

[VrSoLdIeRs]

The military backed its ever ready idea of finding proxies and supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. We made them our proxies and the hegemonic ambitions gave its proponents the goody feeling of power. Supporting the Taliban only backfired for us. Alongwith our every ready militancy supporting friend Saudi Arabia, we were the only countries to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government in Afghanistan and supported their armed campaign throughout the civil war.

Zia ul Haq did more damage ideologically, politically, economically, religiously and socially to this nation than all others could have combined to do so.. I won't like going into much debate. We clearly have polarized opinions and his glorification in our curriculum books only leads people to argue irrationally when evaluating him.

I wont push you here for an argument, but still my question remains unanswered. Plus one more thing taliban didnt harmed us much until we back-stabbed them.

Without going into the debate whether they were "leaders" or not, the following people occupied the slots of the head of the executive or head of the state and were hardly controversial:-

1. Fazal Ilahi Chaudhry
2. Nurul Amin
3. Feroz Khan Noon
4. Muhammad Khan Junejo

you are right here these fall among the very short list of our respected politicians. But i was talking about people who had the power n still remained inside their limits!!!

 

[qsaark]

Yes, it was absolutely possible not to get engage in that unholy war called Afghan Jihad (and sacrifice Pakistan). The 'Warm Water' theory was as flawed as was the 'Domino' theory. Even if it was inevitable to stop USSR in Afghanistan, it could have done without letting hordes of Afghans roam in your country, without letting arms and drugs smuggled and without introducing religion into a purely political adventure.

 

[VrSoLdIeRs]

Yes, it was absolutely possible not to get engage in that unholy war called Afghan Jihad (and sacrifice Pakistan). The 'Warm Water' theory was as flawed as was the 'Domino' theory. Even if it was inevitable to stop USSR in Afghanistan, it could have done without letting hordes of Afghans roam in your country, without letting arms and drugs smuggled and without introducing religion into a purely political adventure.

the question still remains 'how?' you can go in detail if you want to....

please keep in mind that russians werent invading afghanistan just to support Babrak Karmal, but to stay n gain access to warm waters.

 

[sparklingway]

please keep in mind that russians werent invading afghanistan just to support Babrak Karmal, but to stay n gain access to warm waters.

Again, the fictitious warm water theory that has been spread to mainstream opinion. I'll contribute in considerable detail in a day or two as I have an exam today and tomorrow.

 

[su-47]

Zia, like all humans, is not 100% good or bad. He did what he felt was necessary to secure Pakistan's interests at the time. In order to encourage more youth to fight the Red Army and to unite Muslims he encouraged fundamentalism. It did serve its purpose for the time, resulting in the defeat of the Soviets, the acquisition of US military hardware and successful implementation of a nuclear program

But the long term consequences of radicalisation were not assessed properly. Zia was too preoccupied with his short term goals. And the fallout of his shor-term policies is harming Pakistan now.

Erasing Zia from history books will accomplish nothing, apart from Pakistani youth forgetting the negativities of short-term policies, dictatorship and radicalisation.

Building statues on the other hand, is used to honour individuals, not as a reminder of tragedy. A statue of Zia will be mistaken as honouring him.

Best policy is to teach the youth about Pakistani history, and show them the harm Zia did. But also show them his achievements, so that they know that what they learned is the truth, not a perception.

 

[pak-marine]

No never .. infact none of the dictators from Ayub to Musharaf they all have ruined Pakistan

 

[Saleem]

So disappointing! always blaming someone else for their own mistakes! So who chose the most ineligible (pk at least the most junior or the Lt Gens among the candidates, just so he would be a tool in their hands)?

The same goes for all the so called dictators - Musharraf admits in his own statements that when he saw his confidential file, after becoming COAS, he was surprised that he became chief at all!

The whole bunch is crooked to the core ........May God give them guidance.....then again, perhaps their hearts are hardened already....

 

[Windjammer]

The US looked the other way as we developed our nuclear program, but was it enough that we bleeded only this out of the US? It is similar to our cooperation with the US in the WoT. We could have negotiated for far more from them.

Indeed we could and should have bargained for more, but a reminder is suffice that during eleven years of Zia's tenure, Pakistan's foreign debts remained less than $15 Billion, however successive democratic musical chairs managed to accumulate another $20 Billion in less than 10 years between them.

Somehow the opium trade is rejected as a legitimate argument. Militant organizations and armed rebels have used drug trade and extortion throughout the world to fund their campaigns. The Taliban use it and justify producing opium and selling drugs.

The menace of the drug trade has a checkered history, it basically originates in Afghanistan, and if Colombian and Mexican Drug cartel can land on the White House lawns, then expecting Pakistan to eradicate this lucrative trade i must say is a tall order.

Without going into how a 90 day promise turned into a 3623 day rule that only ended with his sad demise (SC validation is in invalid argument as he promised 90 days himself), Zia's shadow was visible in us trying to produce proxies for the struggle in Kashmir throughout the '90s.

Since we are prone to keep electing these clay footed politicians, hence we will have to endure such rules, specially when the elected are responsible for rocking the boat, none the less, in Zia's own words, "Whenever i call them, they come running with their tail wagging".
And the benefits of those proxies has culminated into the rude awakening that the culprit once kept busy in fighting these is now instead exercising them on you.

The point on the F-16s is valid and duly noted.

Credit should be duly given where it's due, another point worth noting is that after Indra Gandhi was killed there was jubilation in Pakistan and the same celebrations happened in India when Zia died. I doubt we will witness those scenes when say, M M Singh or Zardari kick the bucket.