Azaadi!

Asim Aquil · 03-27-2006, 23:46 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0338&q=kashmir

One of the best documentaries on Kashmir.

Srirangan · 03-28-2006, 01:51 AM

Lovely flame bait. I love it. There are quite a few who will fall it.

Azzadi! Baloch Azaadi!

Neo · 03-28-2006, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0338&q=kashmir

One of the best documentaries on Kashmir.

Great find Asim!
Allow me to post it on other forums I visit, the world has the right to know...

lemontree · 03-28-2006, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

Great find Asim!
Allow me to post it on other forums I visit, the world has the right to know...

Don't forget to also show pictures of women and children killed by Pakistani terrorists.

Srirangan · 03-28-2006, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

Don't forget to also show pictures of women and children killed by Pakistani terrorists.

Why should they bother about dead kaffir "women" and "children". These were prolly killed by the Hindus and Jews anyway, the same way hindus and jews created the taliban and al quaida.

/sarcasm

Neo · 03-28-2006, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

Don't forget to also show pictures of women and children killed by Pakistani terrorists.

No need to do so Sir, such pictures apprear frequently due large majority of Indian subscribers.

Srirangan · 03-28-2006, 08:19 AM

Umm yea the pictures appear because of the kaffir Indian who post them, not because of the jehadis that kill the people. Kaffirs fault forever!

Ray · 03-28-2006, 12:21 PM

It is wonderful to notice that the Thread has the title "Azaadi".

Only the free can talk about Azaadi.

Pakistan is under a quasi military dictatorship and they (at least most Pakistanis on the forum) love it.

A group that can pawn their freedom for a military upstart are hardly the correct lot to talk of freedom!

Further, a country that lives on doles (from US and China) can hardly be expected to give freedom to anyone.

They should first give themselves Freedom!

Even Bush has to order them to get serious about the War on Terror.

They are neither free nor can they do anything without the bidding of someone else.

Sold to the highest bidder said some!

They have to acquire national pride and moral courage to stand up and do what they should do for their country and not get rapped on the knuckles all the time and then given a sop.

If they feel that they cannot fight Moslems insurgents in NWFP, they should be honest to stand up and say so rather than attempt to fool people.

They should remember one can fool people sometimes but they can't fool them all the time.

This time Bush got on to their game and gave a might swipe!

Karthik · 03-28-2006, 12:57 PM

Pakistan speaking about Azaadi is like an illiterate giving a discourse on education !

Ray · 03-28-2006, 14:34 PM

Here is what Ayaz Amir of DAWN (Largest English Daily of Pakistan) has to say about Aazadi in Pakistan.

We have heard through our esteemed Pakistani forum members how Musharraf is loved by the masses. But.........

But...............Ayaz Amir is not talking the same language as our estemeeed members of Pakistan; and the fact that English is spoken by the elite and the fact that DAWN is the largest selling English daily of Pakistan, does it also mean that the elite echos his views too?

He is full of praise for the Taleban and heaps ridicule of Musharraf's govt for selling Pakistan's honour and is openly critical of the USA, which considers Pakistan as a frontline ally and a country that has salvaged Pakistan's economy and it defence forces!

Loyalty indeed!

Ayaz Amir indicates that Pakistan is indeed under "gulami", forget about any Aazadi! !

Quote:

‘Moderate’ vs. radical Islam

By Ayaz Amir

FEW words today carry a more negative meaning than the term Taliban. It is supposed to stand for everything backward, reactionary and benighted: harsh punishments, the seclusion of women and a mindset conducive to the promotion of ‘terrorism’.

Opposed to Talibanism is something called ‘moderate’ Islam which is supposed to stand for progress and enlightenment. Since September 11 the United States has been spending huge sums of money (ask US-Aid) in this battle of ideas, denouncing ‘extremism’ and promoting a fuzzy picture of ‘moderate’ Islam.

Whether it is meeting with any success in this battle is hard to say because the US has never been more unpopular in the Islamic world. Most rulers of Muslim countries may be America’s friends, if not its satellites, but at the level of popular opinion it doesn’t take much to realize that anti-Americanism is on the rise.

Much of this has to do with American double standards. American atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq, of which there has been no shortage since the invasion of both countries, is all for the good, part of a grand design to promote democracy. Resisting American aggression and occupation is ‘terrorism’.

Dishonesty up to a point is perhaps bearable but when it crosses all limits and becomes a daily occurrence don’t be surprised if the reaction is outrage.

Every time President Bush appears on television and speaks on Iraq it is possible to visualize some more Arabs or Muslims going over to the anti-American camp. Al-Qaeda doesn’t have to stoke anti-American feelings. The Bush administration does that job better than anyone else.

Regarding the Taliban, however, it is easy to be critical about them, less easy to say a word in their praise. But some things stand out and are difficult to ignore.

For instance, for all their narrow-minded interpretation of Islam, the Taliban at least have the courage of their convictions. Many of us supporters may not agree with the austerity and rigour of their doctrine. But it is hard not to admire their courage and tenacity. Against all the odds they are still fighting the Americans and, hard though it may have been to imagine this four years ago, getting stronger by the day.

The best that so-called Islamic ‘moderates’ seem capable of is to curry favour with the US. The long-bearded narrow-mindedness of the Taliban may be frightening but the fawning attitude of the ‘moderates’ is sickening. The Taliban may be too rigid but so-called moderates are too spineless and seem to lack all conviction.

Post-September 11 the US asked the Taliban leadership of Afghanistan to hand over Sheikh Osama bin Laden. Mullah Omar, the Taliban Emir, refused, saying that any charges against bin Laden could be examined by an ‘independent tribunal’. Call the Taliban foolhardy but at least they did not deliver a guest, and an honoured one at that, to his enemies.

Contrast this with our attitude. Mullah Zareef was the Taliban’s accredited ambassador to Pakistan and as such under our protection. But when the Americans asked for him our military government handed him over without a moment’s hesitation. Come to think of it, hardly something to be proud of.

Would the Americans have been impressed? More likely, they would have caught the impression that the Pakistani leadership could be pushed around. No wonder, they have been pushing it ever since.

Avoiding stupidity or rashness, we should have stayed neutral in the impending conflict over Afghanistan. We had no choice but to cut our links with the Taliban. But our military whiz kids went beyond the dictates of prudence and caution. Far from staying neutral, they offered forward bases and other facilities to the Americans. This was uncalled for and went against the sentiments of most Pakistanis.

The argument given was that Pakistan was being saved. In fact, the military government was saving its own skin, ending its international isolation and getting a new lease of life.

No one is saying, and certainly not I, that we should have followed the path of the Taliban. But it would have done us no harm if we could have borrowed some of their resolve. The Taliban are fighting a difficult war from the mountains but they are still their own masters. They have lost power and much else besides but not their self-respect. Mullah Omar, hiding God knows where, remains as defiant as ever.

We have a huge military, nuke capability and all sorts of missiles named after our vaunted heroes: Ghauri, Abdali and, most recently, Babur. (Although Abdali, incidentally, is a poor choice. Despite being the victor of the third battle of Panipat, his repeated invasions of Punjab caused much devastation and suffering.) But of what use all this military muscle when it does nothing to strengthen self-confidence?

Clinton as president comes here for a few hours and ends up insulting us. Bush comes here and there is more humiliation flung our way despite all the services Pakistan’s military rulers are rendering in the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Nukes and missiles are not of much help in such a situation.

We don’t have to seek US hostility. But we can also avoid unnecessary toadying. And we must learn to think for ourselves, which we won’t do unless we get out of the American orbit in which we have revolved for too long.

The demonizing of Islam after September 11 has gone far enough. We don’t have to be apologetic about Islam or fall for the American-inspired dialectic of ‘moderate’ and ‘radical’ Islam. As far as the Americans are concerned, any Muslim country toeing the American line is moderate. Any Muslim country standing up for itself is radical.

There is nothing wishy-washy about Islam. The essence of the faith as propagated by Muhammad, (Peace be upon him), is radical and revolutionary. Stripped off the time-serving interpretations of theologians (theologians being the bane of Islam) it stands for the empowerment of the weak, the humbling of the mighty, the liberation of women, government by consent and consultation, and bread, security, learning and hospitals for every citizen, high or low, of the Islamic commonwealth.

The Islam of the Prophet is a fusion (never attempted before or since) of two great principles, socialism and democracy. The spirit of this fusion was best expressed by Hazrat Omar when he said that even if a dog went hungry by the banks of the Euphrates (some distance from Makkah, the Islamic capital) Omar would have to answer for this on the Day of Judgment. And by Hazrat Ali when he said that a tyranny, even if covered in the mantle of Islam can never endure. There’s nothing ‘moderate’ about these thoughts. They are radical to the core.

Lest anyone be in a hurry to revive that tired chestnut of Islam being opposed to reason and learning, let me quote a few lines from William Dalrymple’s excellent essay, Inside the Madrasas (New York Review, December1, 2005):

“In The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West, George Makdisi has demonstrated how terms such as having ‘fellows’ holding a ‘chair’, or students ‘reading’ a subject and obtaining ‘degrees’, as well as practices such as inaugural lectures, the oral defence, even mortar boards, tassels, and academic robes, can all be traced back to the practices of the madrasas.” (There is more on the same lines in the rest of the essay.)

Nothing is funnier than the frequently heard assertion that people associated with al Qaeda are madmen who hate the western worlds wealth and freedoms. To quote Dalrymple again: “As (bin Laden) laconically remarked in his broadcast timed to coincide with the last US election, if it was freedom they were against, al Qaeda would have attacked Sweden.”

Agree or disagree with Osama bin Laden’s tactics, his aims are intensely political: an end to American hegemony over the world of Islam, justice for the Palestinian people, the toppling of ‘apostate’ regimes subservient to America. Al Qaeda may be inspired by Islam but it is not a religious organization in the strict sense of that term. What it stands for and what it strives to achieve is a response, primarily, to the excesses and double standards of American foreign policy in relation to the world of Islam. Ignoring this sequence of cause-and-effect is both misleading and dishonest.
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

Ray · 03-28-2006, 14:54 PM

Quote:

A tale of two countries

By Irfan Husain

IN the recent parliamentary debate on foreign policy, speaker after speaker lambasted the government, comparing the far-reaching nuclear deal with India announced by President Bush in New Delhi with his homilies in Islamabad.

According to General Musharaf’s critics — a rapidly multiplying tribe — this imbalance is a reflection of Pakistan’s failed foreign policy. Although official spokesmen tried to put their usual spin on this obvious reality, the truth is that Bush’s priorities during his visit ought to have served as a reminder of the changing equation in the subcontinent.

Khurshid Kasuri, our foreign minister who normally weighs his words, termed the American tilt towards India as “unacceptable”. Excuse me? I don’t recall either Washington or New Delhi seeking our “acceptance” of a bilateral deal. Even General Jehangir Karamat, our ambassador in Washington, thought he should lecture his host country on the subject. He was quoted in this newspaper as saying:

“Instead of a country-specific deal on a subject as critical as nuclear technology, there should be a package for both India and Pakistan.” The thread running through the statements of various official spokesmen seems to reflect a common Pakistani perception that somehow, Washington should treat India and Pakistan as equals.

The problem is that reality dictates otherwise. By any measure, [b]India has emerged as a major player on the global scene. Pakistan, on the other hand, has moved in the opposite direction, descending into sectarian and ethnic strife, and seen to be harbouring gangs of terrorists on its soil. Granted, 9/11 has boosted its economy as well as its standing as a strategic ally in the American ‘war on terror’. But remove the ‘9/11 factor’, and we are left with a dysfunctional state in terminal decline.[/B]

These are harsh, unpalatable truths that are difficult for Pakistanis to accept. But unless we face reality unflinchingly, we will be unable to understand why the rest of the world views us as it does. Equally importantly, we need to see Indias rise not in relation to Pakistan, but as an important regional and global event in its own right.

For much of the half century after its independence, the Indian economy grew slowly, stifled by red tape and over- centralization. By contrast, the Pakistani economy grew more rapidly, propelled by a greater commitment to the free market. But in the nineties, the picture changed: plagued with political instability and military interventions, the Pakistani economy went into a sharp decline while terrorism destabilised the entire system.

India, on the other hand, freed from some of its self-imposed shackles, began making rapid progress. Its large pool of well- educated computer personnel drove Indian information technology to the centre of the world economy, apart from moving to American firms in large numbers. A rising middle class provided the market for a consumer boom, and now, Indian entrepreneurs are competing for business around the world. Bollywood movies are hits abroad, and Indian fashions are seen on catwalks from Milan to Madrid.

Currently in London, a trial of seven young men on terrorism charges is making headlines across Britain. Six of the seven are of Pakistani origin, and are alleged to have received training in bomb making in Pakistan. The prosecution has produced a staggering amount of evidence, so whatever the outcome of the case, it will not be ideal publicity for Pakistan. Similarly, most of the suicide bombers involved in the terror attacks in London last July were of Pakistani origin.

At a conference on Pakistan organised by the Economist in London last month, several speakers, both Pakistani and British, dwelt on the investment opportunities available, as well as the liberal government policies. But the elephant in the hall everybody skirted around was the appalling security problems. One British chief executive of an energy firm operating in Pakistan did speak about the need to hire security guards, and mentioned the recent killing of three Chinese engineers in Balochistan. But the Pakistani speakers did not discuss the issue, perhaps because they are so accustomed to the situation.

The real bottom line here is that for investors, the physical security of their employees is even more important than profits. When extremist mobs torch outlets of western fast food chains, for example, images of the burning buildings flash across the globe in a matter of minutes. The most recognisable image of Pakistan abroad is now one of angry eyes, long beards, and men armed with Kalashnikov rifles.

Musharraf has often boasted of Pakistan’s credentials as a key ally in the ‘war on terror’ by pointing to the large number of Al-Qaeda suspects killed or captured on our soil. But the question to ask — and one asked frequently abroad — is what they were doing in Pakistan in the first place. In investigations into Islamic terrorism across the world, the Pakistan connection has cropped up time and again.

In the nuclear context, we forget just how much damage Dr A.Q. Khan’s supposedly freelance activities have done to Pakistan’s image. If he acted on his own, it is a poor reflection on the control exercised over our nuclear installations by the army. The other (and stronger) possibility is that he was officially encouraged to export atomic secrets to foreign buyers. In either case, to imagine that the Americans would now supply us with the latest nuclear technology is to live in a fool’s paradise.

So when we ask to be treated at par with India, foreigners may make polite noises, but everybody knows where the reality lies. Had it not been for 9/11 and the ongoing western operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan would have been relegated to the backwaters of the world, together with Myanmar, Somalia and Rwanda.

We dug ourselves into this hole, and we can climb out of it, provided we accept the fact that we are in a hole. The first obvious step is to understand that there is no place in today’s world for state-sponsored or even state-tolerated terrorism. The presence of thousands of armed men loosely organised under various fundamentalist and ethnic banners is unacceptable to the rest of the world, and should be unacceptable to us.

Musharraf must realise that words are not enough to combat this plague of mindless violence. His litany of ‘enlightened moderation’ must be matched with action, something that has long been missing from his agenda. What is needed is a sustained, consistent campaign. But political will is required, and for this, a consensus has to be built up.

Unfortunately, our current military dispensation has been just as divisive as the previous ones were. Now, even when he makes eminently sensible proposals, they are rejected by a fractious opposition that no longer trusts Musharraf.

Far from providing a solution, he has now become a part of the problem.
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm

Another indicator as to how the Aazadi boon of the Military govt is getting the goat of the common Pakistani!

The article sums up the chaos called Pakistan and the higlighted portion the smozzle!

A great Aazadi, indeed!

Samudra · 03-28-2006, 15:02 PM

Quote:

We dug ourselves into this hole, and we can climb out of it, provided we accept the fact that we are in a hole.

I admire Irfan for recognising this fact!

I'd be glad if Pakistan gets out this hole(Islam,terrorism,mushy the charismatic pressy et all) that it is in now.Its good for India.We can trade a lot with them and their potential is huge.

Well done, Irfan.

Anon · 03-28-2006, 15:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

In either case, to imagine that the Americans would now supply us with the latest nuclear technology is to live in a fool’s paradise.

Entirely true.

Jay · 03-28-2006, 15:32 PM

We want Azaadi for Pakistanis from Pakistani Army!

And we dont need videos to prove this point!!

Ray · 03-28-2006, 15:49 PM

Some more of the tiring that the Aazadi of Pakistan is doing to their citizen.

Though this one is not so vociferous and more tongue in cheek!

Quote:

Tasks before the president

By Anwer Mooraj

PRESIDENT Musharraf has another 19 months to put his house in order, before the nation decides whether or not it should continue to be saddled with a head of state that insists on wearing two hats, and tries to exhibit the same gubernatorial longevity which was displayed by his two military predecessors. (Very sardonic!)

During this time, he will have to successfully tackle a number of thorny issues, the most pressing of which is the revolts (no these are no revolts. They are celebrations I presume!) in the tribal belt in the Frontier and in Balochistan which are threatening to Balkanize the country. The conflict is currently occupying centre stage, and the stand-off is being seen as a victory for the insurgents. But there is also this other issue which is irking the opposition — the nagging business of promising the nation on television about taking off his uniform, and then going back on his word. (nothing usual, Just a fallout of Takiya?) It has been brought up on a regular basis by the chief of the Jamaat-i-Islami, which must be producing a festering sore in the government camp.

Four overarching issues nevertheless remain. The first relates to the appropriate economic strategy for an economy which in spite of setbacks has shown a healthy growth. The second is the clash between the requirements of political stability and the growing demand for greater openness. The third relates to bad governance and the rising crime rate in the country. And the fourth is how the government of Pakistan will in future relate to the incessant demands of the United States to fight its battles overseas. (Really? Pakistan is being repeatedly asked? It just shows that the US cannot do without Pakistan and then hectors them as if they were erring snotty school kids!! ) It is this issue which continues to give President Musharraf a king-sized headache.

On the diplomatic front Pakistan’s options are limited. In spite of President Musharraf’s brief flirtation with Russia in 2003, and his continuing friendship with China, the war on terror has pushed the country into a position from which it cannot easily extricate itself. When President George Bush arrived in Pakistan amid heavy security and a series of anti-US protests in cities across the country, ostensibly to help shore up what is now seen abroad as a shaky regime, one wonders how many members of the Muslim League government in Islamabad recognized the fact that it is the Bush administration that is directly responsible for much of the political turmoil confronting the Pakistani military strongman (Really? Bush founded AQ, right? Who did? ).

Having been forced by Washington to back its ‘war on terror’ (Forced? Or bribed by shoring up the economy and the rag tag Airforce and defence?)in 2001 and to help topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, President Musharraf has increasingly been viewed by broad layers of the Pakistani population as a US stooge.(Pakistan is famour for its stooges i.e. military Presidents. Stooges of the US or China or both?) Throughout the past month, tens of thousands of people took to the streets to demonstrate their opposition to the anti-Muslim cartoons published in European and US newspapers. The protesters then turned their anger on the Musharraf regime for its subservience to the US for ‘enslaving the Pakistani nation’ and for his ‘patriotism to America’.

Far from alleviating the political crisis facing Musharraf, Bush’s visit intensified it by demanding that he take more action to prevent anti-US insurgents infiltrating into neighbouring Afghanistan. At Washington’s insistence, the Pakistani military has already deployed some 70,000 troops in tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan to hunt down Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. These operations, as well as covert attacks by US forces inside Pakistan, continue to generate widespread resentment and hostility towards the Pakistani president.

For his part, Musharraf is acutely aware of his dependence on Washington’s continuing patronage, and it is likely the Bush administration will continue to give its public backing for the regime and completely hypocritical praise for its so-called steps towards democracy. Bush regards Musharraf as a key ally in assisting US ambitions for dominance in the resource-rich Middle East and Central Asia, particularly in helping the US occupation of Afghanistan.

Coming back to the four overarching issues, not a great deal is happening on the economic front. The repeated failure of the government to address the economic and social crises facing millions of Pakistanis impaled on rampant unemployment and poverty is well known. The prime minister, however, feels that there is no undue cause for alarm, especially when the economy is growing at around six per cent. However, things are very different on the political front.

The clash between the requirements of political stability and the growing demand for greater openness and representation is an issue that threatens the very fabric of society. So far, the country appears to have favoured a strong, unelected leadership. And the old cliche that the political history of Pakistan can be summed up as one long extension of military rule, interrupted by occasional bouts of what passes for democracy in this part of the world, is borne out not only by the considerably long innings that the two former military dictators spent at the crease, but also by what is now seen as an attempt by the present head of state to emulate their example. (and Asim talks of Aazadi! Hrmph!)

Leadership will, nevertheless, remain a critical variable in the current political equation. What is interesting, but by no means unexpected, is that for the majority of the electorate the choice of leader appears to be extremely limited. (Anything unusual in a madrassa oriented country?)The question that often pops up in articles and private discussions whenever it is suggested that it was high time the president stepped down and allowed somebody else to take over, is: ‘Do we really want Nawaz Sharif or Benazir Bhutto back in the saddle? Both politicians have had two bites at the national cherry, and we all know what happened. The possibility of the nation throwing up a nationalist leader like Nasser or Allende or Castro just does not exist.

The dispute over his wearing two hats notwithstanding, President Musharraf has displayed considerable maturity in his dealings, both with local politicians and foreign heads of state. He has also tackled the nagging issue of India’s insistence on the prerogatives of a major state in South Asia, which remains a constant irritant to policymakers in this country.

In recent months, however, the rose has shown distinct signs of wilting. Whenever the soldier president has appeared on television, which has now become a regular feature, he has begun to demonstrate increasing signs of weariness and fatigue. Some of the old buoyancy has disappeared and has on occasion been replaced by flashes of irritation and anger, especially when addressing large crowds in the hinterland on the pressing need to step up efforts in stamping out terrorism.

Even in more sophisticated settings the exasperation and vexation has seeped through. Detractors still remember the way he handled a question posed by an American woman of Pakistani descent who had journeyed from another city to attend his press conference in New York. The belligerence he displayed will certainly not win him many friends among members of the Pakistani community in the United States.

The degree of openness that can be expected in Pakistan in the future must take into consideration certain factors which have remained decisive and which are likely to retain their hold on the population for at least another hundred years. The clergy, the army, the civilian bureaucracy and the feudal aristocracy have collectively conspired to ensure that the illiterate masses remained virtually disenfranchised. The two well entrenched institutions of the establishment, the military and civilian bureaucracy, which form part of the hierarchical system established in Pakistan, benefit from their close relations with their benefactor, the United States. Both are closely related and inter-connected in their ideological and political properties.

Pakistan has a strong growth record with current estimates hovering around the eight per cent figure, though there are major regional disparities. But in contrast to India’s secularism, Pakistan has a powerful religious foundation, and a bent towards authoritarianism is, therefore, inevitable. Moreover, embedded in the tribal culture is a pervasive military tradition — one which the British found useful to cultivate. Nevertheless the contest between military rule and openness, authoritarianism and parliamentarianism continues ceaselessly with fluctuating trends.

In Pakistan, as elsewhere, military leaders pledge greater democracy, and on occasion try to ‘civilianize’ themselves, thereby contributing to a course they continue to regard with ambivalence. But while they orchestrate their tirade against unscrupulous politicians, they continue to swallow up top jobs reserved essentially for civilians, and subtly and almost subliminally impose their presence through banking, industry, insurance and landmarks which betray warlike themes. It is this paradox that so graphically epitomizes the quasi-authoritarian state, and does not bode well for the future.
http://www.dawn.com/2006/03/28/op.htm

Aazadi of the military, for the military and of the military!

03-27-2006, 23:46 PM	#1 (permalink)
Asim Aquil Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 06-11-04 Location: Dubai Posts: 8,135 Country:	Azaadi! http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0338&q=kashmir One of the best documentaries on Kashmir.

03-28-2006, 01:51 AM	#2 (permalink)
Srirangan *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-06-04 Location: New Delhi Posts: 3,030 Country:	Lovely flame bait. I love it. There are quite a few who will fall it. Azzadi! Baloch Azaadi! __________________ I rant, therefore I am.

03-28-2006, 12:21 PM	#8 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,149 Country:	It is wonderful to notice that the Thread has the title "Azaadi". Only the free can talk about Azaadi. Pakistan is under a quasi military dictatorship and they (at least most Pakistanis on the forum) love it. A group that can pawn their freedom for a military upstart are hardly the correct lot to talk of freedom! Further, a country that lives on doles (from US and China) can hardly be expected to give freedom to anyone. They should first give themselves Freedom! Even Bush has to order them to get serious about the War on Terror. They are neither free nor can they do anything without the bidding of someone else. Sold to the highest bidder said some! They have to acquire national pride and moral courage to stand up and do what they should do for their country and not get rapped on the knuckles all the time and then given a sop. If they feel that they cannot fight Moslems insurgents in NWFP, they should be honest to stand up and say so rather than attempt to fool people. They should remember one can fool people sometimes but they can't fool them all the time. This time Bush got on to their game and gave a might swipe! __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA Last edited by Ray : 03-28-2006 at 12:27 PM.

03-28-2006, 12:57 PM	#9 (permalink)
Karthik Seeker of Rivendell *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-15-04 Posts: 1,569 Country:	Pakistan speaking about Azaadi is like an illiterate giving a discourse on education ! __________________ "There is no excellence in all this world that can be separated from right living." - David Star Jordan My Blog

03-28-2006, 15:32 PM	#14 (permalink)
Jay Tamizhanban *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-06-03 Location: Edison, NJ Posts: 6,191 Country:	We want Azaadi for Pakistanis from Pakistani Army! And we dont need videos to prove this point!! __________________ A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

03-28-2006, 08:19 AM	#7 (permalink)
Srirangan *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-06-04 Location: New Delhi Posts: 3,030 Country:	Umm yea the pictures appear because of the kaffir Indian who post them, not because of the jehadis that kill the people. Kaffirs fault forever!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: