Re: Musharraf defends Pakistan Army on Indian Media
i agree:biggthumb:
I have never like musharraf, but at the end of the day he is a former soldier, obviously he’s gonna defend his own army.
Re: General Musharraf's Straight Reply's Indian Anchor Leaves Before Time!
**Arnab Goswami **and he's the editor in chief of 'Times Now'
Thanks GA.
I have vaguely heard of Times Now. Not sure if it is a newspaper. Will google.
Re: Musharraf defends Pakistan Army on Indian Media
All throughout he did not defend ‘his’ army just because he was a former soldier. He used logic and condemned anything inhumane.
But again, he should have refused to go on air and disregarded the invitation. There was no need to talk to this emotionally charged and irrational anchor.
Has anyone ever seen Indian officials/PM or General (ex- or present)… on interviews broadcast like this, answering questions to Pro Pakistani media?
Re: Musharraf defends Pakistan Army on Indian Media
The google says Times Now is a 24 h news channel.
Re: Musharraf defends Pakistan Army on Indian Media
^^
And google is right as always.:D
Re: Musharraf defends Pakistan Army on Indian Media
And Mushy is right, if you wanna talk about Kargil, talk about the root cause and talk about Siachen first. You cannot be selective about the topic and discuss it as an isolated issue.
Lastly, Mushy was right when he said that even though we have internal issue of terrorism which our Army is dealing with but India should not take it as our weakness because any misadventure from their side whether on LoC or elsewhere will be handled accordingly by Pak Army.
Let us analyze the interview objectively can we. I think Mush did not handle the interview very well. He was not his charismatic self.
We need to understand why the Kargil issue was raised. There were regular army soldiers as a part of this misadventure. Pakistan did not bother to claim the dead claiming that only Mujaheddin was involved. An army which does not honor its own dead cant be expected to respect the dead of its enemy. Can it.
Kargil was not about root causes. It was a misadventure period. There are root causes for everything. Was it right to dehumanize the soldiers as was done. That is the argument here. Also India has nothing to gain by starting another misadventure. Investment is at its peak and any tensions along the line of control would lead to these investments being taken elsewhere.
Also India is not a country where Army generals make their own decisions and decide to fire across the LOC or send disguised soldiers across the LOC.
Re: Musharraf defends Pakistan Army on Indian Media
Also I honestly believe a person with the stature of Mush should not have come to the program for gaining some brownie points. I agree that the anchor was rude and find him extremely irritating. I am surprised that Mush did not do his homework before attending this talk-show. He should have participated in other shows if required.
That said, I do not know if there is a single anchor who is sane on the Indian media scene at this point in time.
Re: Musharraf defends Pakistan Army on Indian Media
Let us analyze the interview objectively can we. I think Mush did not handle the interview very well. He was not his charismatic self. We need to understand why the Kargil issue was raised. There were regular army soldiers as a part of this misadventure. Pakistan did not bother to claim the dead claiming that only Mujaheddin was involved. An army which does not honor its own dead cant be expected to respect the dead of its enemy. Can it.
Kargil was not about root causes. It was a misadventure period. There are root causes for everything.** Was it right to dehumanize the soldiers as was done. That is the argument here**. Also India has nothing to gain by starting another misadventure. Investment is at its peak and any tensions along the line of control would lead to these investments being taken elsewhere.
Also India is not a country where Army generals make their own decisions and decide to fire across the LOC or send disguised soldiers across the LOC.
Kargil was misadventure that Pakistan should not have done. How about Siachin, was that a misadventure too that India should not have done?
What is the difference between Siachin and Kargil, can you please explain?
Is it not the case that once Pakistan army left Siachin due to cold weather, India entered into and captured Siachin, and in similar way when Indian army left Kargl due to cold weather, Pakistan entered into and captured Kargil?
Only difference is that, Indian political government handled the matter at international level in such a way that no international bodies forced india and thus Siachin is still with India. Whereas Pakistan political government of Nawaz handled the matter at international level in such a way that Pakistan was forced by international bodies to abandon Kargil … else both cases are ditto same.
As far as Musharraf in show: I do not think there was anything wrong what he said or the way he said. Actually, it seems anchor was not prepared to get appropriate and logical reply to his questions, but when he got his surprise, he ended the interview.
For instance, when Anchor said that Pakistan returned mutilated bodies and that they should not have done all this mutilation, Musharraf rightly pointed out that it is untrue and fabrication of India that Pakistan gave them mutilated bodies. Musharraf also backed his answer with logic that anchor could not take and in the end anchor became rude.
Musharraf logic was that, why Pakistan would give India mutilated bodies so that India can use those bodies as propaganda? If bodies were mutilated then Pakistan would not have given those bodies to India, rather Pakistan would have destroyed them as they were not obliged to give those bodies to India. Thus, Pakistan giving those bodies to India in itself is prove that bodies were not mutilated by Pakistan, rather if bodies seen by Indian media were mutilated, then that mutilation must have got done by Indian armed forces (or Indian government) to get millage in their propaganda war with Pakistan.
The above logical answer that Musharraf gave was so convincing that Anchor got frustrated, did everything so that the message in the answer do not get across properly, and in the end, stopped the interview so that message in the answer stays vague for Indian public with low intelligence.
Re: Musharraf defends Pakistan Army on Indian Media
Kargil was misadventure that Pakistan should not have done. How about Siachin, was that a misadventure too that India should not have done?
What is the difference between Siachin and Kargil, can you please explain?
It is easy to compare apples and oranges. Let us understand the situation better. In Siachen it was the army that occupied Siachen and the Indian government was explicit on this. It did not send soldiers disguised as rats to achieve its end goals.
Only difference is that, Indian political government handled the matter at international level in such a way that no international bodies forced india and thus Siachin is still with India. Whereas Pakistan political government of Nawaz handled the matter at international level in such a way that Pakistan was forced by international bodies to abandon Kargil … else both cases are ditto same.
I do not understand why the Pakistani political government did not handle the situation better. Was it a failure on its part. I do not think you can blame India for this. I do not want to go into the reasons on how NS was forced to run to Washington begging for a ceasefire. I hope know how difficult it was for NS to achieve what he did.
As far as Musharraf in show: I do not think there was anything wrong what he said or the way he said. Actually, it seems anchor was not prepared to get appropriate and logical reply to his questions, but when he got his surprise, he ended the interview.
For instance, when Anchor said that Pakistan returned mutilated bodies and that they should not have done all this mutilation, Musharraf rightly pointed out that it is untrue and fabrication of India that Pakistan gave them mutilated bodies. Musharraf also backed his answer with logic that anchor could not take and in the end anchor became rude.
Musharraf logic was that, why Pakistan would give India mutilated bodies so that India can use those bodies as propaganda? If bodies were mutilated then Pakistan would not have given those bodies to India, rather Pakistan would have destroyed them as they were not obliged to give those bodies to India. Thus, Pakistan giving those bodies to India in itself is prove that bodies were not mutilated by Pakistan, rather if bodies seen by Indian media were mutilated, then that mutilation must have got done by Indian armed forces (or Indian government) to get millage in their propaganda war with Pakistan.
The above logical answer that Musharraf gave was so convincing that Anchor got frustrated, did everything so that the message in the answer do not get across properly, and in the end, stopped the interview so that message in the answer stays vague for Indian public with low intelligence.
Let us understand this better shall we. I had asked a simple question for which you had no answer. The reason on why the Pakistani army went ahead and mutilated the bodies is very evident. Battles are won in the minds and not on the battlefields. Winning battles is all about motivating your army men to continue fighting even in the midst of extreme difficulties. I hope you remember your generals stating that one Pakistani army men was equal to 10 or more Indian army men when the Pakistani army was found to be outnumbered.
Here the thought process behind the mutilation and the torture was to show the Indian jawans that Pakistan does not honor Geneva conventions and would do everything possible to inflict the worst kind of tortures on any Indian jawan who is captured. This was a simple message that they wanted to send out.
Re: Musharraf defends Pakistan Army on Indian Media
It is easy to compare apples and oranges. Let us understand the situation better. In Siachen it was the army that occupied Siachen and the Indian government was explicit on this. It did not send soldiers disguised as rats to achieve its end goals.
Truth is that, Indian government and Indian army have no shame in violating agreements (LOC) or violating borders, hence they used their regular armed forces to sneak into Siachin as rats.
As for Pakistan at kargil, they did not needed to send Pakistan army, as Kashmiri freedom fighters are already kicking the ass of Indian armed forces all over Kashmir and at Kargil too.
What happened at Kargil was that Azad Kashmir regular forces (AKRF), an entity not officially part of Pakistan army, joined Kashmiri freedom fighters to occupy Kargil. So, when Pakistan claims that Pakistan army was not involved, they are (technically) right.
[quote]
I do not understand why the Pakistani political government did not handle the situation better. Was it a failure on its part. I do not think you can blame India for this. I do not want to go into the reasons on how NS was forced to run to Washington begging for a ceasefire. I hope know how difficult it was for NS to achieve what he did.
[/quote]
If you do not know the truth and want to comment around people who know, then it is nothing but stupidity. Your BS that NS was forced to run to Washington begging for a ceasefire is nothing but ignorance of truth. What 'Nawaz Shareef' did was, he went to USA when called by his master Bill Clinton who was acting because Indian Prime Minister was begging Clinton to make Pakistan withdraw from Kargil.
I know you would not like to believe me as your Indian propaganda infected mind (helped by lies from Pakistani shameless politicians) would not let you accept the facts I mentioned, so you should get book written by then US deputy secretary of state ‘Strobe Talbot’, who was one of three people (other two were Nawaz and Clinton) in the meeting when Clinton was asking Nawaz for complete withdrawal from Kargil, and everything would be clear.
Actually, Talbot wrote that when Clinton was asking Nawaz to withdraw, Nawaz told Clinton that he would do that if India comes to table for talks on Kashmir, and Clinton got so upset that he started shouting at Nawaz telling him that it would be unacceptable to VajPayee, and when Nawaz agreed for withdrawal Clinton rang Vajpayee to give him good news.
I know that thinking logically and using brain is always lacking amongst Indian, but if you have any of those faculties than you can realise that** if Nawaz was begging for ceasefire then Nawaz was in no position to ask for something from Clinton in exchange of withdrawal from Kargil (Nawaz asked that he would order withdrawal if India comes to table for talk on Kashmir)**, neither Clinton would have rang Vajpayee with good news if Vajpayee was not begging Clinton to make Pakistan withdraw from kargil.
[quote]
Let us understand this better shall we. I had asked a simple question for which you had no answer. The reason on why the Pakistani army went ahead and mutilated the bodies is very evident. Battles are won in the minds and not on the battlefields. Winning battles is all about motivating your army men to continue fighting even in the midst of extreme difficulties. I hope you remember your generals stating that one Pakistani army men was equal to 10 or more Indian army men when the Pakistani army was found to be outnumbered.
Here the thought process behind the mutilation and the torture was to show the Indian jawans that Pakistan does not honor Geneva conventions and would do everything possible to inflict the worst kind of tortures on any Indian jawan who is captured. This was a simple message that they wanted to send out.
[/quote]
Can’t you be logical and understand that Pakistan army is not stupid that they would give Indians mutilated bodies so that Indians who are always looking for propaganda material would make propaganda out of that? … Rather, everyone in Pakistan knows Indian crooked and devilish mentality so much that they could never trust Indians, because even if there is no propaganda material, Indians are good (though clumsy) in creating propaganda materials, as they did this time by mutilating bodies of Indian dead soldiers themselves, without realising that such things they cannot sell to anyone in the world except to their own brainwashed audience with vegetable minds.
But then, I can understand that you would not be able to understand all this.
Re: Musharraf defends Pakistan Army on Indian Media
It saddened me to read the last para. Your posts normally do not hit below the belt. IMO, the part about Shiva, Krishna and the Vanaras was not necessary.
Re: Musharraf defends Pakistan Army on Indian Media
lol some of this stuff is really funny. nothing ever unites pakistanis like talking **** about india.
anyway, i wonder why this superhero musharraf cannot set foot in his own country even after all this.
Re: Musharraf defends Pakistan Army on Indian Media
It saddened me to read the last para. Your posts normally do not hit below the belt. IMO, the part about Shiva, Krishna and the Vanaras was not necessary.
I am sorry, I should not have written that.
Actually, I did wrote earlier that Pakistan army in their right mind would never give mutilated bodies to India, as that would be self defeating in every respect (as it would be playing in the hands of India using that as propaganda), and People in Pakistan army are not that stupid to do that (something Musharraf pointed out in his interview too), but 'StormRaiser' could not understand that simple logical fact. So, what I quoted was to show to him that he or many people in India could be very illogical in their beliefs that are prevalent even today.
Still I am sorry for mentioning that, as such stories that seems illogical, one can find in mythologies all over the world, and Indian mythology is no exception.
Re: Musharraf defends Pakistan Army on Indian Media
^ good man.