Re: Re: The real question First, you dont have ballz to do that, you need to grow them first. Second, osama very likely is dead since he was on dialesis for a very long time and without it he may not have survived and don't forget ur daisy cutters Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. If he still is alive and living in pakistan..............*come and get him*Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree that there is relevancy in the land-occupation in addition to the density, it is their area of controll most importantly due to the military abilities of these Pashtuni tribes, however this does not lead to any 'theocratic' possibilities. As far as I know only 8% speaks Pashtu. Punjab and Sindh I suppose ? You mean they do not like to be governed by Pashtun, as that is what 'theocracy' means in this instance, you are correct I doubt they would like it, who were we speaking of again, the 70% Punjab and Sindh ? As in over a 100 million people ? You see you have now disproved your own point of any possibilkity for a 'theocracy' . Pashtun won't hijack 100 million people into their 'Pashtunistan', certainly not if these people include the Pakistani nuclear army. No but's, your assertion was : The real question to be posed is will Pakistan become theocratic by the end of 2004? Now I am very happy that you realized this was really a silly question with a centric premis that proved to fall apart when put to the test, but let's stay focussed for a second before we dwell on to new ways and possibilities. We have seen that the theocracy to be established by the Pashtun faces resistance in numbers Pashtun can't handle. There is no 'first', the rest of Pakistan will never be subjected to some military tribes we have seen there are simply quantitative restrictions. There is also no interest whatsoever for any 'Pashtunistan' to rule Punjab, as you mentioned previously (the Pashtuns who never wanted to be part of Pakistan). The implications are segregative, the following question would be why the Pashtun and their to-be Pashtunistan would want war with their brotherly nuclear Pakistan ? As a matter of fact, I would consider it to be the best thing that could happen both to Pakistan's national development as well as our international Islamic struggle. Pakistan would releave itself from a bad roommate only to gain a friendly neighbour, and perhaps even the Kashmir issue might be put into a new light . More stability in Pakistan and more unity and a stronger front on the war against Amerika in Afghanistan. Are they not only 3% of the population ? Musharaf is a general, certainly after 8 attempts on his live a general here or there thought himself of president. According to the Pakistani analysists it is no problem whatsoever to replace him, and knowing we are spekaing of a military regime here with previous mentioned history and a variety of other issues, I'm willing to believe it couldn't be too hard. I wonder ? the Pashtuns who never wanted to be part of Pakistan Now please explain me how, more or less foreign tribes penetrated the military regime ready to coup after Musharaf ? Either that or they declare a war of annihilation against whoever general would become president. Both are ridiculous options, is there any possibility for the Pashtun to rule over this country that is not ridiculous ? The only option that such ethnic issues can be multi-goverend is when they secularize for instance like the Sunni,Shia and Christians in Baath Iraq. With the Pashtun and the whole 'theocracy' issue we move into the oposite direction, one that is distinctively linked with Pashtuni identity and school of thought and not with many other Pakistani. You are wrong on the first, and you bring irrelevant issues to the equasion, you disregard completely the political context in which these (and other that you dont mention) instances accur or played part. 1) If Musharaf 'epitomized' the west in the Islamic world then how come that Pakistan was the only country to acknowledge TALIBAN as the legitimate rulers and representatives of Afghanistan ? The only reason he sold them out was because the USA was not making jokes with this invasion and their '9-11' terror UBL Taliban hysteria. 2) Secularism is irrelevant, the school of thought to which Usama as well as Taliban belong are collaborating with USA, through the 'kingdom' of Saudi Arabia. 3) 'styles' are irellevant, important are how this regime functioned in political context, after all we are not comparing the military fashion of the Shah and Musharaf now are we ? 4) Loyal armies everybody may have or may have not who cares what is this for ridiculous point ? He may also have had a large army or a small one, greta number of inhabitants or a small number, whats the point to that ? BTW its not very western to be loyal Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 5) Most regimes get to power through a coup, again you point out absolutely irrelevant issues. They both have tanks in their army and they both had uniforms as well. Quash ideas ? It's not a struggle between 'ideas' but between people, please let go for a moment of the virtual abstractualism that you are trying to draw into the picture, it completely distorts reality as experienced and present by the actual people involved. Now as for the differences, his experience has not much relevance either, what is most relevant however is that he opposes an imperial stronghold, namely India. Allthough I am sorry for how a people became divided, reality is that India is a 'democracy' in every horrible sense of the word and more. The Shah did not oppose imperialism, he cooporated with the other imperialist tools (Israel) installed.
Re: Re: Re: The real question This whole idea of terrorism is total bullshit, and you should know better being created through seperatism, what 'terrorist groups' is he cleaning out ? Against who do these groups fight and what is their political cause ? TERRORISM like COMMUNISM is nothing but a military excuse to crack down on popular resistance in countries facing imperialist regimes, so that these regimes remain in power function benefiscious for the imperialists. USA fights terrorism, Israel fights terrorism, Russia fights terrorism, Indonesia fights terrorism, even India fights terrorism tell me what wonderfullness can we see in Musharaf's struggle against 'terror' ? If he, like all the rest, fights as he claims this wonderfull struggle against 'global terrorism' by fighting native forces on their own land, and you propose to be happy with this, we can assume that you are in favor of the war on Islam ? I most certainly do hope this is not the case but If so, please don't think that calling out His name in your post and cursing your enemies will save you from His judgement. I agree that Musharaf has done good on a national basis, and that the development is positive, but when this is making Pakistan an imperialist tool all 'achievements' become void of any value, because it places the life of a Pakistani on a higher level because of the destruction of his Muslim brothers. If he has no care for his Muslim brothers, then he should reconsider his position as part of the Ummah. I am affraid that as it is going today, with these last assaults and the attitudes emmerging from it, it is going worse and worse for Pakistan on a base of piousness. Perhaps to give the Pashtun what they in reality want can get Pakistan out of the picture to be used as a tool, as well as influence Kashmir as well as go on and continue the economical development due to the increased stability inside Pakistan. As a Pakistani, how do you see and judge such a development ? Where's 'here at home' ? I do hope it is where I think, you had worried me with your previous outburst. Why should he be without it, don't say you think he's going from hole to hole or cave to cave like supposedly Saddam would have in Iraq ? Do you see how much better it would be for both the Pashtun as Pakistan if that would be Pashtunistan ? USA can come make war with pashtunistan, they are at war with it already since they are in Afghanistan so Pakistan can pull out it's involvement and watch GI's getting butchered. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I strongly hate this "war on Islam" that is being done by Bush and Israel. In Pakistan, most of these terrorist groups are backed by Indian officials who prevent Pakistan from being a true rich country. The other terrorist groups fight for power or for controlling a region. They don't fight for a religous cause. The terrorism in Pakistan is not the one Bush is fighting. The "terrorists" in Pakistan are not Muslim, for if they were, they would not go and kill themselves, as in the recent attacks. So in no way could Mushareff's crackdown on terrorism be a war on Islam. As they are good people, they are bad. Mushareff has banned the terrorist groups, cut off their funds, but not as he went to go and want to kill every one of them like Bush has. Mushareff is only looking to make Pakistan prosper and to help the people, for the country has been robbed many times from Sharif and Bhutto. Mushareff isn't just looking out for himself. He hopes to help all the Muslim country. Who did the Iraqis go to for help right before the war? Pakistan. Who did the Saudis look to for an ally and aid? Pakistan. I am pleased with this development. Not since Pakistan was founded has any other President made Pakistan a great country. The founder of Pakistan's founder's motto was Unity, Faith, and Disciple. Mushareff has no personal agendas. He wants the country to prosper, to be rid of the people who hold it back, take out the warlords and the torturous private prision camps, etc. 95% of Pakistanis are Muslim. The ones who did the recent attacks are not. As I have said earlier, these people killed themselves for no good reason. They are either supported by warlords or Indian officials. Anyway Ghassan, can you tell me how Pakistan can be used as an imperialst tool? That's the only part that got my confused with your post.
This naive question really makes you to look like an amateur on pakistan's pathetic history and explains your ignorant statments like : "In Pakistan, most of these terrorist groups are backed by Indian officials who prevent Pakistan from being a true rich country. "
Punjab and Sindh I suppose ? Yes, because they were in the fold (meaning Empire) long before the Pashtun or Baluchi tribes, were within the imperial grasp of the British, and because (unlike the former) their nationals weren't all included into the "fold" because of Persia and imperial politics btwn Russia and England. You mean they do not like to be governed by Pashtun, as that is what 'theocracy' means in this instance, you are correct I doubt they would like it, who were we speaking of again, the 70% Punjab and Sindh ? As in over a 100 million people ? The Pashtun are overwhelmingly Islamic, and believe as in Afghanistan that it is a effective form of government. And in reality it was a relatively good government, if you want stability. Surely "Taliban" style government is not wanted in all of Pakistan, but it is a wave. Pakistan I believe is the experiment, whether "theocracy" can sweep the Islamic world or falter. Iraq as well... Pashtun won't hijack 100 million people into their 'Pashtunistan', certainly not if these people include the Pakistani nuclear army. Sure that is a possibility but not a fact, I don't know if the aspirations of the Pashtun include just Pashtunistan or all of Pakistan. I would say that because of the ideals of the Ummah, and a greater Islamic community, they would be in a position to cause havoc in the cities through terrorism, and the tribaly ruled areas in the north is almost impenetrable to the Pakistani army...it would be interesting to see how much they want. There must be supporters of "theocracy" in other ppl's of Pakistan; you never know it could be a populist thing. Musharaf is really lucky that the economy is growing the rate that it is next year a expected 5.1% growth rate. We have seen that the theocracy to be established by the Pashtun faces resistance in numbers Pashtun can't handle. But from whom? The army? Let's say there is a democratic revolution in the Pashtun areas, and they want to establish a "theocratic" state, separate that of Pakistan and in a joint union with the Pashtun areas with Afghanistan. These numbers mean nothing really if you talking about militaristic actions. I.E. the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Pashtun proved to be a touch adversary, and weapons in the region is obviously ample. Now if this is translated into a national Pakistani thing, that's a different story, it's all in the context. Also a note, Musharaf's opposition is a Islamic party, throughout Pakistan. Should be interesting. There is no 'first', the rest of Pakistan will never be subjected to some military tribes we have seen there are simply quantitative restrictions. There is also no interest whatsoever for any 'Pashtunistan' to rule Punjab, as you mentioned previously But you see, you are thinking of it as a nationalist struggle btwn the Pashtuns and the rest. I would assert that the Pashtuns (some of them) would want that, but others would probably cease this opportunity to create a mini-Ummah, that is just Islamic and not nationalist in nature. It’s a possibility and neither of us can say either way. The implications are segregative, the following question would be why the Pashtun and their to-be Pashtunistan would want war with their brotherly nuclear Pakistan ? Again this is nationalist and it is possible...But what I think is that the Islamic revolution will start in Pashtunistan (in both Afghan, and Pakistan), and spread. Surely it can be seen as a Pashtun invasion of sorts, but the country has an increasing Islamist slant, that no one can deny. That could be seized if this looks more like an Islamic not nationalist struggle. The only way I could see a Pakistan vs. Pashtunistan scenario is if the Pashtuns UDI. Are they not only 3% of the population ? And so? They can still rebel, maybe not successfully, but still can burn the nationalist flames. According to the Pakistani analysists it is no problem whatsoever to replace him, and knowing we are spekaing of a military regime here with previous mentioned history and a variety of other issues, I'm willing to believe it couldn't be too hard. I'll give you that, but what about the vacuum? There will be a time of general chaos, also many generals may want to ascend into power, thus creating a power struggle. This could be avoided if Musharaf has a successor? Does he? Now please explain me how, more or less foreign tribes penetrated the military regime ready to coup after Musharaf ? The Pashtun aren't "foreign tribes" they are surely a part of the Pakistani military; there are around 500,000 military personal in Pakistan. They wouldn't be able to do it themselves, I believe more that this will be a alliance of Islam, rather then one of nationalism. Thus there will be a greater base of support. Both are ridiculous options, is there any possibility for the Pashtun to rule over this country that is not ridiculous ? I don't think the Pashtun will "rule the country" per se, I think rather that their religious ideology may. But they may as well want self-rule, is that ridiculous? the Pashtun and the whole 'theocracy' issue we move into the oposite direction, one that is distinctively linked with Pashtuni identity and school of thought and not with many other Pakistani. I wouldn't be so quick to judgment, things chance quite quickly. A alliance of convenience may happen, that is a great threat to the Pakistani secular government. Quash ideas ? It's not a struggle between 'ideas' but between people, please let go for a moment of the virtual abstractualism that you are trying to draw into the picture, it completely distorts reality as experienced and present by the actual people involved. So this is purely a nationalist struggle?
Ignorant statements? First of all, let me ask you why would any Pakistani want his country to be in the drain? There is absolutely no reason. India is the only country that wishes to see Pakistan crushed. For years, India tried to destory Pakistan. They waged wars with it, and when that failed, they have used other tactics. Now that Pakistan is out of a hellhole, why is it that all of a sudden these attacks are happening? Do you have a better explanation than that I have given you? As for ignorant statements, perhaps you should look at yourself.
armchair warriors with their loon theories of invading infidel lands probably have the life expectancy of chipmunks in most parts of LA, let alone the avearge middle eastern/south asian cities...
uh oh.........there goes anti pakistan vomiting by indian fundo...go on. Don't stop now. Talking about venom and vomit.......lovely everno.
Pakman I am glad that you can see that, this pathetic RAW is only good for one thing, killing innocent. Majority of bombings are by indian terrorist groups mixed in with so called political parties of pakistan and by their terrorists camps in Gujrat and close to Rajistan sector. Where they not only train terrorists for pakistan but to teach them how to kill other minorites and specialy muslims in gujrat.
You know, the indians say it exactly the other way around, I suspect a bit of both must be true. Observing this whole situation as a non indian / non pakistani from a distance, you must forgive me if I sometimes make somewhat crude assumptions because I am not as close to the fire to feel the heat and see the tiny details, but on the other hand: I am not as deeply emotionally affected as the people living there, having familly there, wich I believe leaves more room for discussion without defining events from a US vs THEM perspective.... As I understand the indians say they legally inherited Kashmir way back from some maharadja (a kind of local Paul BremerPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, securing the silk route instead of oil )which may be entirely TRUE! As usual it was the British who left this big mess, just like iraq and palestine/israel and numerous other places, leaving the seeds for all kinds of future conflicts to come (one thing I think both indians and pakistani can agree upon on Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) BUT if you look at the large muslim population, was this maharadja chosen by them or forced upon them ? How LEGAL was this choice of this hindu maharadja to affiliate with India instead of Pakistan ? when he might acted against the will of the large majority of the people of Kashmir??? ... one would think in general that being ruled by own kind of people (muslim/hindu/jew/palestine/whatever) wouldn't be a bad idea. Are their any Pakistani / Indians that have considered splitting up Kashmir two-ways , or is this one of those holy undividable entities ?
This whole Kashmir thing makes me sick. Kashmir should be for kashmiris only. Pakistan and India need to Bugg off. But the problem lies with their political structures. Indian and Pakistan politics are run by Kashmir. Very stupid.
Your naivity really surprises me.. or is it a deliberate posture of innocence..? insider job & jehadis A source assigned to a "high strategic position" spoke to Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity, and painted a rather different picture. He confirmed that a number of attempts had already been made on Musharraf's life as a result of his post-September 11 policies in which he abandoned support of the Taliban and threw in Pakistan's lot with the United States in its "war on terrorism" and the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda fugitives in Pakistan. Indeed, said the source, at least five attempts have been made on Musharraf's life since he came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999, of which three came from within the army. All of the attempts were ill-planned and the suspects quickly rounded up. Only one of these case has officially been made public, that involving local jihadis. As a result of these attempts, and in the wake of a recent call by Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri - the Egyptian ideologue and second in command to Laden in al-Qaeda - for the people of Pakistan to stand up against Musharraf, security agencies have been placed on the highest alert. - http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec21_jan3_04/P1_atimes.htm The above is a pakistani source. Latest Attack President Musharraf appeared on state television hours after Thursday's attack. He blamed Islamic militants for the attack and said he was now even more determined to "cleanse the country of extremists". "We are fighting a war against terrorism," Mr Musharraf told state television. Looking calm and composed, he blamed "extremists and terrorists who want damage the country, [and] defame the religion". - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3351207.stm Don't make me to laugh again by saying indians were involved in these attacks.
How can you find out when a paki is saying lies..? When his lips move (or when he types..? ) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
thank you for proving our point. This hate will take you no where.... btw what are you doing here? how come you are not joining your brothers in Gujrat and Ayodeha ?? Here comes the ISI........Boo.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Remember the UBI / Cantrade scandal back 98-99??? it seems the CANTRADE bank still exists! The CIA must still be doing bussiness with drugslords to try keep muslimcountries secular...??? And not entirely unsuccesfully must I say.
It always have been.............Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! pretty sad. I wonder why India can't live in peace with her neighbours.......Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Burma and Bangaldesh. Why everno? why you and your fundo bunndies do not understand how to live in peace?
Your love for india makes me to reciprocate with same kind, despite the fact that india is the victim of pak sponsored terrorism. your tactics of blaming the victim is becoming too telling. Why Nepal, Srilanka.? They are friendly and don't export jehadis into India. Bangladesh is fast becoming east pakistan again. Thank your mullah - ISI ties. Pakistan is not allowing afghanis to live in peace either. Irritating its neighbouring Iran by oppressing minority shia muslims. But alas China is a big brother even if it takes Aksai chin area of the Kashmir from Pak controlled Kashmir. Oh, no Pak would donate that area of Kashmir to China and shed tears for Kashmiris. Why don't you follow the Bhutan example.? why don't you flush out all the criminals and terrorists that bleed india in kashmir and rest of the country.? Why don't you live peacefully in your own country.?
