Musharraf the US Viceroy!

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Minerva: *
Lets turn this into something constructive. Shall we??

Lets us all assume for a moment that what is stated above is indeed true or better still are the sentiments of a section of society within the country.But a closer look at the circumstances we are faced with show that Mushaaraf did not have much choice. True I understand that we need to learn to say NO too, to something that conflicts or goes against our national interest so that the others know that we can resist their pressure.

But,
1) what are the options we have with regard to the problem in Wana and the resistance being shown by the local malitia in North and South Waziristan?

2) What options did we have at the time when US bombed Afghanistan?Was it difficult for US to bomb Pakistan at the sametime??? List the choices we had and where did we fail to play our cards well.
[/QUOTE]

1) The Wana operation has caused a significant outcry because it led to the Pakistani army fighting and killing its own Muslim population, something it has never done before. What is worse is that it is becoming blatantly clear that the army is being used as slave to carry out the goals of the Americans. The tribal people in Wana have seen their own homes and villages being destroyed and have been forced to defend themselves against the Pakistan military.

2) America had no right political or moral to bomb pakistan they have no link to 9/11. There is no proof or any credible evidence of this.

Secondly the people alleged to have commitied 9/11 are supposed to be from saudi arabia why was'nt a judgement made in public to proove this, it seems everything was done behind closed doors why?

Today Pakistan has doubled its problems, and now has to deal with enemies on two fronts; India and the Northern Alliance. Clearly the current disaster is a result of a long line of policies that have made Pakistan a tool in the hands of America, which it is currently using to full effect on its War against Islam.

22

MAToos and the followers of Mullah Moe will never relent. They will continue fomenting hate based on fallacies and half truth. They will even misconstrue Quran and Hadees for their nefarious purposes. Just ask them why they are spilling blood of innocent Shias, Ahmadis, and Christians. They probably drink that blood mixed with Kokka Kolla.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *

1) The Wana operation has caused a significant outcry because it led to the Pakistani army fighting and killing its own Muslim population, something it has never done before.

[/quote]

Army and police have always killed namak-haram terrorists and anarchist criminals. Just see what happened in Karachi, in the hills of Balochistan, or the towns across Punjab. You steal, then you are a thieve. Police (and if needed army) will come after you and if you resist they will kill you. This is what the public expects them to do and that’s why they carry weapons.

MAToo Munkees have been blasting Shia mosques for quite a while now. Pak army was hoping against hope that they will correct their ways. MAToos as usual treated this as a weakness and started attacking Army generals. Remember what happened in Karachi.

Only then army realized that they can’t treat these Munkees with kid gloves. We all now see the A$$ whooping of the Mullahs. Surely Mullahs will cry uncle while shooting AK47 from the hip.

23

yeah man we dont need musharraff, he is no good..we need real leaders..leaders like those in MMA, who would take real action, who will do what is right and as promptly ban music, cds, movies and television.

I guess the rest of the challenges will be automatically solved once they ban that kinda stuff.

consequently we can turn the land over to our khilafah brethren, who will be very proactive in solving all problems by passing pamphlets at jummah.

24

Musharaf did the right thing for his country. Stop looking at it from one point of view. That's how I was looking at it till some one intelligent gave me the second thought. He simply did what was best for Pakistan.

You must remember when 911 happened, American's were really angry. They wanted Usama bhai and if we rejected their offer then Pakistan would be another Iraq or Afghanistan. May GOD give you knowledge to see that for yourself. When Musharaf did make that decision he mentioned how our own prophet at one time joined forces with his enemies enemy. In the long run... it works out better.

25

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Minerva: *
Lets turn this into something constructive. Shall we??

Lets us all assume for a moment that what is stated above is indeed true or better still are the sentiments of a section of society within the country.But a closer look at the circumstances we are faced with show that Mushaaraf did not have much choice. True I understand that we need to learn to say NO too, to something that conflicts or goes against our national interest so that the others know that we can resist their pressure.

But,
1) what are the options we have with regard to the problem in Wana and the resistance being shown by the local malitia in North and South Waziristan?

2) What options did we have at the time when US bombed Afghanistan?Was it difficult for US to bomb Pakistan at the sametime??? List the choices we had and where did we fail to play our cards well.
[/QUOTE]

People in present day Pakistan will never be unified on an issue unless and until the issue of our identity is resolved.

Are we Muslims first or Pakistanis first? Its sad but this is what it has come down to.

We have enough examples about the understanding of Islam in majority of Pakistanis, like the one mentioned in this thread, about the Prophet (saw) siding with his enemies enemy, I can't recall of any such incident in which the Prophet (saw) sided with the Kuffar against Muslims.

Once we resolve this within, then it would be easier for us to move forward, simply because we would be able to make decisions based on either Divine Laws or man made laws, since at present we are dealing with both and we are not getting anywhere.

Getting back to the questions you've asked, well as far as the resistance by the militia in Waziristan is concerned, I am of the opinion that if Pakistanis had tried to get people registered in that area in 1960, they probably would have had to face resistance from the militia then too, so I would not even consider it to be a recent problem.

At the time when US bombed Afghanistan, we could have provided the proof that Washington gave us, to the Taliban Govt., since they were asking for it in order for them to take action themselves.

26

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RoCKiSTaN: *

You must remember when 911 happened, American's were really angry. They wanted Usama bhai and if we rejected their offer then Pakistan would be another Iraq or Afghanistan. May GOD give you knowledge to see that for yourself. When Musharaf did make that decision he mentioned how our own prophet at one time joined forces with his enemies enemy. In the long run... it works out better.
[/QUOTE]

amerikka was angry so what the US administration done a pearl harbour job on themselves we not going to be thier slave because of that.

27

Ak47, you have been officially owned in this thread (General Musharraf Style)... Stay away from it, if you have any dignity left...

28

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
.... we not going to be thier slave because of that.
[/QUOTE]

Terrorist Munkees are shooting AK47 from the hip again. Their low self esteem may lead them down to being a slave. The reality is quite different.

In this world there are partners and adversaries. There are peace-makers and anarchists. There are suicide bombers and constitutionalists.

You gotta pick your side.

Munkees sided with anarchists, while Musharraf sided with peace and stability. The battle is on, and let's see who wins!

29

Sept. 20, 2004 — Nearly 100 heads of state have convened in New York this week for the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly. President Bush will address the U.N. Tuesday and talk about what he says is the opportunity “to create a safer world.” Peter Jennings spoke to one of the president’s most important allies in that regard — Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. His position has also made him a valuable target for the terrorists.

PETER JENNINGS: I don’t know how many interviews I’ve done, sir, with heads of state, and heads of government, but I’ve never seen a man come to the ABC News headquarters with so much security. Are you a marked man?

PRESIDENT PEREZ MUSHARRAF: I am. Yes.

JENNINGS: And what does that mean in your daily life?

MUSHARRAF: Well, it has restricted my movements to a degree. It has restricted my natural behavior pattern because I have always been very much into people. I’m not an introvert. I am an extrovert. I like meeting people. I like moving around. Having said that, I haven’t become a hermit or anything. I do move around. I do attend marriages. I do go into hotels for some dinner, off and on, with the public, and maybe even at night going to Marriott, and having a cup of coffee, or hot chocolate. I do that very frequently.

JENNINGS: Who are your enemies?

MUSHARRAF: Many. (Laughs) But basically it’s the extremists. Al Qaeda, certainly, because we want to eliminate them, and I make no bones about it. I have told them that I don’t want [them] in Pakistan. “You will be eliminated. Either you surrender, or we eliminate you.” There is no doubt. But then they have access into our extremist lot, unfortunately, and they equip them and finance them. So, the extremist lot — a nexus between al Qaeda and our extremists — they are the main people who are against me.

JENNINGS: How do you think the United States is doing in your part of the world?

MUSHARRAF: How are you doing? Well, they are not popular in the masses, certainly.

JENNINGS: Why not?

MUSHARRAF: Now, that has its history. Until 1990, until we fought the Soviets, we were together, strategically, we were strategic allies. All along, since '47 onwards. Then in 1990, we were abandoned, I think I would use the word abandoned.

more here http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/pervez_musharraf_interview_040920-1.html

30

If that was an attempt at a joke then it was a crap joke :yawn:

Musharaff the slave of the west who has to watch his own back day in day out because his own army wants to kill him what kind of leader is that when your own army is after you!

31

Are you completely blank up there? Do you even know what the Pakistani army is like? The whole army comes under him. And yeah, the army doesnt consist of 5-10 people, its massive, and there are always a few bad elements (fundos), but they cant do jack. Long Live Musharraf, and my he continue to kick some fundo rears(I know that hurts).

Now if you want to repeatedly babble non-sense about this, musharrafs army wants to kill him, continue to do so, but if you have the guts and intelligence (which you dont) answer the real posts here. Otherwise, do us a favour and keep a lid on it, we already know you think the army wants to kill musharraf, so posting that again and again wont do you any good, and you wont get any more replies.

32

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *2) America had no right political or moral to bomb pakistan they have no link to 9/11. There is no proof or any credible evidence of this.
[/QUOTE]

America had no proof or credible evidence that Iraq had WMDs either, but they made it up, bombed and invaded anyway.

After 9/11, 140 million Muslims risked attack from which the Pakistan Government did not have the means to protect them. Bush's "with us or against us" was very easy to interpret as a direct threat to Pakistan, which until that day was "with" the Taliban and thus "against" the USA. Pakistan did not have the means to defeat a US invasion and thus protect its 140 million Muslims from what Iraq. Let alone prevent the USA doing what it did in Afghanistan afterwards.

There was an analogy that I posted on a Muslim forum shortly after 9/11.

A man lives with 3 of his sisters. He has a sword. One day, 1000 men with guns come to his house and demand to be allowed in to gang rape and kill his younger sister. They promise that if he lets them through and lets them rest in his house, then they won't harm him or the 2 elder sisters. If he tries to stop them, however, they will kill him, and then rape and kill the 2 elder sisters too.

What should he do? He could fight, maybe kill a few of them, but they are better armed and he would certainly die and then all his sisters would be raped and killed.

Or he could save himself and 2 of his sisters, but condemn his youngest sister.

That is the position that many believe the Pakistan government found itself in. Either be complicit in what was unleashed upon Afghanistan, or throw Pakistan's people into the same hell and be powerless to do anything about Afghanistan anyway.

33

Pakistan has the equaliser it is called the nuclear bomb!

Why has'nt the US bombed north korea hmmmmmmm i wonder

34

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
Pakistan has the equaliser it is called the nuclear bomb!

Why has'nt the US bombed north korea hmmmmmmm i wonder
[/QUOTE]

Pakistan does have have the means to deliver nuclear weapons to any part of the territory of the USA.

North Korea can turn Los Angeles and San Francisco into a sheet of glass.

There is a clear difference.

35

That is the position that many believe the Pakistan government found itself in. Either be complicit in what was unleashed upon Afghanistan, or throw Pakistan's people into the same hell and be powerless to do anything about Afghanistan anyway.

Yes only Pakistan will allow someone to rape his younger sister, save himself and his two elder sisters supposedly.

First of all a man is not a man if he even thinks of such, a Muslim is not a Muslim even if he thinks of such, saving him self and two sisters by allowing his youngest sister to be brutalized. First offer your self, if not then find each one of your sisters a sword and face the music all together. Lets talk about thinking Islamicaly, that is if you care, that is if you believe that Allah (swt) puts you through tests, what does Islam say you should do? Islam my brother says have faith, have imaan, and put your trust in Allah (swt), that when the Prophet (pbuh) was facing an army of thousands, he didn't make deals, he put his trust in Allah (swt), but Pakistan didn't. Pakistan allowed his youngest sister to be ganged raped, but you see, evil is evil, not only are they going to rape the youngest sister my brother, they will rape the eldest sisters as well, with that they will castrate the brother the most humiliating way possible. We are all witnessing it, you and I and everyone else reading this, we are witnessing the humiliation of Pakistan, the humiliation of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the humiliation of the “Islamic Nation” and its “Islamic bomb” that wouldn’t, couldn’t, haven’t done jack to help its Muslims brothers/sisters, rather allied with those who said, “either with us, or with ALLAH!”

You know what a US senator said on CNN when questioned if Pakistan will help the US in the matter? His words were “Pakistan will sell it’s mother if its has to.” Later Pakistan asked the senator to take his words back, appealed to Washington, though Washington showed the Pakistani government the finger, by brining in “FREESPEECH” ****. Where in Pakistan, a Pashtun general can’t be active in an area where he is from because the US doesn’t like it.

Now my response is a mix of all, emotional, religious feelings and some rational, you take what you wish.

36

Less than 100 years ago, the armies of the Khilafat, the very army of Islam itself, wandered blindly into a war which they never had the physical means to win. Over 4 years the Khalifat, led by the undisputed Khalif and Ameer-ul-Mumineen, threw nearly 3 million believers into battle, and ended up utterly humiliated, with British and French battleships moored in the harbour at Istanbul with their guns pointing at the Khalif’s residence itself.

If the Khilafat of 100 years ago was unworthy, how can Pakistan today hope to fare better, when Pakistani society’s devotion to Islam is weaker than that nation’s was?

And the humiliation of Pakistan is in no way in progress. The Abdul Qadeer Khan affair was, quite frankly, a ridiculous cover up of what was undoubtedly the deliberate policy of successive Pakistani governments, democratic and non-democratic, to assists friendly countries to develop their own nuclear weapons as a defense against superpower aggression. The very fact that Abdul Qadeer Khan was let off with no criminal charges, with all of his money, and with all foreign governments friendly or not prevented from interviewing or interrogating him can realistically only lead to one conclusion: he was a willing scapegoat in a carefully orchestrated scheme to spread nuclear knowledge without government culpability.

There is no humiliation of the “Islamic bomb”; to the contrary, Pakistan has let it been known that it is expanding its arsenal of both nuclear warheads and nuclear delivery vectors. Humiliation of Pakistan? Yes, it’s clearly happening through increased trade, increased investment, greater diplomatic recognition, greater military assistance :rolleyes:

37

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
Pakistan has the equaliser it is called the nuclear bomb!

Why has'nt the US bombed north korea hmmmmmmm i wonder
[/QUOTE]

MAToo Munkee logic at it again! "Equalizer" is the state of economy, arts, science, and above all "industry".

Tonga drivers wearing torn lungi (a skirt like thingy for gay-ish men) do find "equalizers" more in line with "horse power" based on Cholay (black peas for un-initiated).

NK is a little lizard living on the bags of "flies" sent in the name of "aid". MAToo Munkees love to eat the same flies just out of love for the little kimkim.

Many proverbs from Urdu, Sindhi, English, and Pushto come to my mind for the Mullahs shooting AK47 from the hip. But the best and most PG rated saying is captured in Punjabi:

Pullay nahin Dhela, tay kardi Mela Mela.
(Translation: A little 50 pound munchkin, trying to challenge 300 pounder heavy weight)

p.s. No reference to Biddu terrorists here. MAToos went to mods crying uncle uncle yet again.

38

whats the difference b/w Matoo Munkees and Matoo Terrorist?

39

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Shah Sur Khan: *
......a US senator said on CNN ...“Pakistan will sell it’s mother if its has to.” ....
[/QUOTE]

Care to post a reference here Mr. Khane Khali Khana?

I have searched the sites for most leftie senators including little Birdie Byrd. Couldn't find a hateful reference mentioned by you.

If it all from US, the quotation must be coming from the leftie Bonpoo (his master's voice) tanking tank the Carnegie Endowment for International peace.

Anyway, post the CNN page otherwise apologize like a ghairat-mund Marad (proud man) from the Pakistanis on this board.

40

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by antiobl: *

Care to post a reference here Mr. Khane Khali Khana?

I have searched the sites for most leftie senators including little Birdie Byrd. Couldn't find a hateful reference mentioned by you.

If it all from US, the quotation must be coming from the leftie Bonpoo (his master's voice) tanking tank the Carnegie Endowment for International peace.

Anyway, post the CNN page otherwise apologize like a ghairat-mund Marad (proud man) from the Pakistanis on this board.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I think he got it wrong. It was during the Amil Kansi (i think) case (during the Nawaz regime), that a lawyer who was prosecuting Kansi said that.