Re: Who Killed Zia?
dictators are fair game for assassination. kinda like those that hijack flights or kidnap civilians are.
That should include character assissination for those who hijack threads too ...
Re: Who Killed Zia?
He killed himself
Re: Who Killed Zia?
so he was the pilot of that plane? 
Re: Who Killed Zia?
Absolutely wrong comparison, pal!
Don't even try!
I am actually sad to see so many blood thirsty people around this forum.
Assassination is a cowardly act while saving people from immediate threat to their lives is not.
well i guess you are desensitized from all the dictators you have been made to adore and love as leaders in your country as well as in the oil regions. but technically a dictator commits treason and most countries with self-respect reserve pretty severe punishments for treason. nothing personal but dictators are just bad news for everyone. even themselves.
Re: Who Killed Zia?
Someone with a half decent education and open mind can come to his/her own conclusion. As I have...Age has nothing to do with knowing what happened. His question is demeaning and rather foolish at best. People are easily swayed to accept beliefs of others i.e. family/friends but not everyone is brainwashed so easily.
Can you tell me who is responsible for the break up of Pakistan in 1971?
Re: Who Killed Zia?
Can you tell me who is responsible for the break up of Pakistan in 1971?
Pakistan Army , The main responsible through ruling continuously thirteen years with all command in hands of people of western part .
Re: Who Killed Zia?
^ Pakistan army killed 10 of her top general? Who lead that effort if top 10 were not part of it?
Re: Who Killed Zia?
^ Pakistan army killed 10 of her top general? Who lead that effort if top 10 were not part of it?
If you replied to me , See the post again . It was a reply about 1971
Re: Who Killed Zia?
Is this a history lesson or are you genuinely interested in knowing what I think? 
Re: Who Killed Zia?
Pakistan Army , The main responsible through ruling continuously thirteen years with all command in hands of people of western part .
Who had threatened chaos in West Pakistan, had the parliament been convened?
Re: Who Killed Zia?
I know who the Winners were: India
Re: Who Killed Zia?
If you replied to me , See the post again . It was a reply about 1971
I apologize. Yes I replied to you but it was a wrong reply.
Re: Who Killed Zia?
I want to know what you think…or anyone else that cares to answer the question.
Re: Who Killed Zia?
I didn't, Believe me. Okay Okay SORRY, I am going from this post. ~Peace~ ^_^.
Re: Who Killed Zia?
It seems like educated people with an open mind cannot agree on who were/was responsible for the break up of Pakistan.
Was it
a) India
b) Bangalis
c) Army
d) Others
Things aren't always black or white even if you are educated and have an open mind.
Re: Who Killed Zia?
It was a combination of all factors, Bengal at some stage would have had got their independence. It was not feasible to have a country separated by thousands of kilometres in any case, the issue could have been resolved peacefully.
Re: Who Killed Zia?
It seems like educated people with an open mind cannot agree on who were/was responsible for the break up of Pakistan.
Was it a) India b) Bangalis c) Army d) Others Things aren't always black or white even if you are educated and have an open mind.
The thread is about Sardar ul Munafqeen and you are discussing 71 .
Zia was heading the probe of Agartala Sazish Case. He was also leading the unit which was responsible for brutality against Palestine people . He was also Chief in a probe called Attock Sazish case . And if you are talking about mishap of East Pakistan , All four you mentioned were naturally involved but the main responsible is Army .
Re: Who Killed Zia?
I believe it was a amalgamation of entities. Firstly, W. Pakistan government failure accepting the result to the election which was won by the Awami League, the berating of Bengali culture, language and in general life style was also an important factor. This built up frustration in the east and to a certain extent they were rightfully angry. Geopolitically, it was in India's strategic interest to split the country into half. Having two military fronts was proving to be a logistical nightmare proven in the PAF dominance in the 1965 war. If India could separate Pakistan it would double it chances of clean defeating Pakistan in any future war. Also they're control of the Bay of Bengal for economic reasons was another reason as the growing S.E Asian countries were seeing exceptional growth. if separated a much smaller Bangladesh would post close to nothing risk to India on the economic, military, strategic front.
Ultimately, the W.Pakistan government and military leadership should be held responsible for allowing a situation to take place when their could quite easily come to a compromise. I feel Bangladesh should have had full autonomy. Foreign, military and international issues left to federal state otherwise operate like a country in its own right. Hong Kong, Macau have proven great success albeit they came much later.
I can only base my opinion on information I have available. If I lived through it i may have had a different approach however, I concede I may have been biased. My own grandfather is quite a biased individual but that is because it affected him differently.
To conclude. Poor leadership, arrogance and total dissonance lead to a simple altercation turning into a bloody, messy war which resulted in human rights abuses, murders etc....
Re: Who Killed Zia?
It was a combination of all factors, Bengal at some stage would have had got their independence. It was not feasible to have a country separated by thousands of kilometres in any case, the issue could have been resolved peacefully.
I disagree on this. It was a issue of governance. Bangladesh should have total autonomy within the confined of the federation of Pakistan.
Pakistan was designed to house Muslims of India. It was never based on race.
Re: Who Killed Zia?
Personally I blame ZA Bhutto the most as even though the bengalis had a majority of the votes ZA Bhutto was not prepared to let them form a government. He wanted to be the ruler even at the expensive of Pakistan, he put himself first.
Anyway whether you like or dislike Zia his death was a tragedy for Pakistan and it should have been investigated rather than being brushed under the carpet and covered up. The decade after his death was a lost decade for Pakistan. We accuse Zia of being a dictator but forget that even our other leaders like Zardari and Nawaz are also dictators. As far as Islam was concerned I don't believe he was very Islamic but was an astute politician and used it to his advantage as at that time as he knew the mood of that moment among the masses. With the Islamic Revolution having taken place in Iran. We blame a lot of problems on him but a lot of these problems only took hold after his death. With hindsight we can say that we should not have got involved in Afghanistan but at that time Pakistan view the Soviet occupation as an existential threat to itself. With Soviets on one side and their allies India on the other Pakistan could not have lasted long.