Muloghonto Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 In Pakistan it's usually the extremists who criticize Jinnah for being a alcohol drinking pork chop eating secularist. And I think your recollection of history is quit be an oversimplification - not that I, as a liberal would ever support a divisive ideology based on religion. But utalk is right here, it was definitely Zia, and Bhutto that sowed the seeds of hatred that have been directly responsible for extremism - I'm sure Jinnah's actions though have an influence as well. The two institutionalized hate right in the education system and whenever you indoctrinate children, the outcomes are always adverse. Err no. Jinnah & Chaudhry whatzizname sowed the seeds of hatred. Zia found a losticially and militarily expidient solution to propagate this hatred, to put the theory in practice.
surajmal Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Just purer killing the pure. Not Rocket Science.
randomGuy Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Actually, serious scholars, or even a layman with a modicum of perspective is NOT at all surprised Jinnah is ridiculed by mullahs. It's the natural culmination of the path Jinnah set for Pakistan. Two nation very quickly becomes two sect and so on and so forth. So did Jinnah not institutionalize hate by categorically saying muslims cannot live with Hindus? How exactly was he different from your average frothing mullah in pakiland when he called for direct action, which is to say, directly and brutally massacre Hindus? very right. Jinnah institutionalized hate which was reinvigorated one more time by zia n co.
KeyboardWarrior Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Thats the problem with mostly ICFers .... when they have no point to prove start getting personal ... instead try to talk in manners ... for ICFers like rahulrulzz .... instead you give me the answers of my Questions about CIA and RAW proxy war in Balochistan and tribal areas you start jumping on typpical "kanspiracy" rants for my posts and getting personal ... have you any Idea how many Indian "Embassies" you have in afghanistan right now ? more thn Indian "citizens" in afghanistan ... Guess what ? India is going to build 16 more Embassies in afghanistan .... :winky: for ROI , get your house in order first , no one help you from outside untill you dont have a mole in your home. I know that we have done wrong ... but we will correct it ... but we cant let others to take advantage of the situations like 71 .... So right now we are handling , Afghani Taliban ,TTP , Kashmir Jihadist, Raw in Balochistan and Karachi, US/CIA/Black Water same time .... the pic in my post is for public becoz its already on Internet .... I cant share more stuffs on Internet ... even if i try to share somethings with you guys, you wont have any answer of that ... the Typpical Civilians of India and Pakistan cant understand the real world outside of Internet .... @ Utalk , bro forget Zia now explain them who was Jinnah etc etc .... The world is not as simple as it seem .... Peace ...
randomGuy Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Meri jaan, aap bahut achche ho, bas apne yahan public opinion banaao tht kashmir belongs to india and tht pak shouldn't support jihad in india, in kashmir n elsewhere. India will be a great friend i promise.
Debutant Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 I always keep hearing about RAW helping destabilize Balochistan or some place. Is RAW really that good ?? If they really are, then :hatsoff: Keep up the good work :bow:
KeyboardWarrior Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Meri jaan, aap bahut achche ho, bas apne yahan public opinion banaao tht kashmir belongs to india and tht pak shouldn't support jihad in india, in kashmir n elsewhere. India will be a great friend i promise. Bhai jaan, Thanks for the compliment... aap bhe bahut achche ho ... In my Personal opinion , In Pakistan a common man on streets dont care/or know about kashmir issue anymore ... If you ask them specifically this question thn they will say " Kashmir banega Pakistan" thing .... but dont know the issue of Kashmir .... people can give "Chanda" in the name of Kashmir to anyone .... they even dont know the issue is not a pakistan's problem anymore ... we have our own problems to solve .... Kashmir was an issue for us for few decades back .... Now its just an Issue of Water Dams .... which can be solve politically ... and talks are going on for that matter ... I always keep hearing about RAW helping destabilize Balochistan or some place. Is RAW really that good ?? If they really are' date=' then :hatsoff: Keep up the good work :bow:[/quote'] Yup, they are good, but problem is that they often use Indian/Pakistani/Afghan Civilians for that purpose .... but not as good as CIA ....
yoda Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Legacy of Zia policy is showing its effects. Pakistani establishment is responsible for the mess country is in today. We should have learnt from 65 that there was no military solution to the kashmir issue. After succeeding in ousting a dead horse in USSR from Afghanistan our army and military establishment naively thought they could free kashmir through them mujahedeens. They didn't realise that the west and US were not interested in that and without political pressure military strategy never succeeds. They were successful in stoking fire in kashmir valley because public sentiment by and large was in their favour. To begin with militancy was locally lead by JKLF but then pakistan brought their hired guys from pashtun belt. JKLF that had local and international support was stabbed in the back by Pakistani agents like this Mast Gul. I remember the whole JKLF military wing leadership was wiped out by pakistani militants but pakistani media blamed it on Indian army. Once musharaf changed state policy these guys were left in isolation. Ideally they should have been rehabilitated but pakistan army leadership had their heads buried in sand. Afghan Taliban story is the same where we tried to treat Afghanistan as our state and control it through Taliban. God knows what will happen if Taliban take control of Afghanistan. Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk :hatsoff:
gattaca Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Legacy of Zia policy is showing its effects. Pakistani establishment is responsible for the mess country is in today. We should have learnt from 65 that there was no military solution to the kashmir issue. After succeeding in ousting a dead horse in USSR from Afghanistan our army and military establishment naively thought they could free kashmir through them mujahedeens. They didn't realise that the west and US were not interested in that and without political pressure military strategy never succeeds. They were successful in stoking fire in kashmir valley because public sentiment by and large was in their favour. To begin with militancy was locally lead by JKLF but then pakistan brought their hired guys from pashtun belt. JKLF that had local and international support was stabbed in the back by Pakistani agents like this Mast Gul. I remember the whole JKLF military wing leadership was wiped out by pakistani militants but pakistani media blamed it on Indian army. Once musharaf changed state policy these guys were left in isolation. Ideally they should have been rehabilitated but pakistan army leadership had their heads buried in sand. Afghan Taliban story is the same where we tried to treat Afghanistan as our state and control it through Taliban. God knows what will happen if Taliban take control of Afghanistan. Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk :hatsoff:
Tailender Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 I'm referring specifically to this talk from Pak government and army on how they are fighting somebody's else war when they are the ones who supported and nurtured these terror groups on their own soil for many years for strategic depth in Afghanistan and Kashmir. There are offices for Lashkar e toiba, Jaish e Mohammad in Karachi and other cities in Pakistan and they collect funds from public too. Don't act so innocent. All these terror groups are cut from the same cloth. You can't nurture them one day and act like victims when they bite you the next day. I - or the vast majority of Pakistanis - are personally responsible? Why the **** do i need to act innocent? I am innocent. So tomorrow if LTTE turns on india and bombs innocent indian civillians it'll be right to say "don't act so innocent, don't act like victims" etc? Pathetic. Stop homogenizing a nation of 180 million distinctly different souls.
randomGuy Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 I - or the vast majority of Pakistanis - are personally responsible? Why the **** do i need to act innocent? I am innocent. So tomorrow if LTTE turns on india and bombs innocent indian civillians it'll be right to say "don't act so innocent, don't act like victims" etc? Pathetic. Stop homogenizing a nation of 180 million distinctly different souls. you are a Pakistani ?
Tailender Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Just noticed it. Is that what Paki "liberals" call Jinnah, a secularist? :hysterical: A secularist who didn't think Hindus and Muslims could live together? I am reminded of Tharoor's quote for the ages - "A Paki liberal is a Paki before he is a liberal". I was talking from the view point of the mullahs - and jinnah might have been a secularist - a two nation theory based on religious division does not mean that the two nations can't keep state and religion separate which is all that secularism entails. I think you need to brush up on your knowledge of what "secular" is. "A Paki liberal is a Paki before he is a liberal" - As a person who doesn't believe in the nation-state theory, criticizes nationalism to the nth degree, and is as liberal as they come I find this statement utterly retarded. But I don't blame you, you seem to be blinded by hate and confused by preconceived notions...
Tailender Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Err no. Jinnah & Chaudhry whatzizname sowed the seeds of hatred. Zia found a losticially and militarily expidient solution to propagate this hatred' date=' to put the theory in practice.[/quote'] Jinnah was naive and the "divide and conquer" rule of the British worked wonders by disillusioning people in their belief of coexistence. Did Jinnah's decisions lead to hate? Yes, they did - although separation itself does not necessarily entail hatred. Two nations can exist separately but peacefully, however, it is the indoctrination of children, under the rule of Zia and Bhutto which has had the most detrimental effect.
NareshK Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Separation doesn't entail hatred? :hatsoff: to the paki forked tongue. So what was separation based on..some trivial bureaucratic expedience? Is that what the pakis think? LOL Jinnah wasn't naive, as a paki 'liberal' you should not take credit away from your prophet where it's due. Jinnah was astute, he knew his real chance at power lay in a muslim majority nation because he simply didn't have the stature comparable to leaders of the rest of pre-partition India...he knew full well he'd be a marginalised figure. That's an oxymoron and a half. :hysterical:
Muloghonto Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Approx. 10 million people crossed the border one way or another in 1947. They did so because, mostly they were made to feel the country they were in, is not for them. You mean to say that uprooting you're whole family to move to a strange new land because your neighbors hate you and make you feel like an illegal alien is not grounds for hated ? Clearly the paki who insinuated such is either a foil of the highest order or didn't have to experience partition migrations themselves. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2
CG Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Thats the problem with mostly ICFers .... when they have no point to prove start getting personal ... instead try to talk in manners ... for ICFers like rahulrulzz .... instead you give me the answers of my Questions about CIA and RAW proxy war in Balochistan and tribal areas you start jumping on typpical "kanspiracy" rants for my posts and getting personal ... have you any Idea how many Indian "Embassies" you have in afghanistan right now ? more thn Indian "citizens" in afghanistan ... Guess what ? India is going to build 16 more Embassies in afghanistan .... :winky: for ROI , get your house in order first , no one help you from outside untill you dont have a mole in your home. I know that we have done wrong ... but we will correct it ... but we cant let others to take advantage of the situations like 71 .... So right now we are handling , Afghani Taliban ,TTP , Kashmir Jihadist, Raw in Balochistan and Karachi, US/CIA/Black Water same time .... the pic in my post is for public becoz its already on Internet .... I cant share more stuffs on Internet ... even if i try to share somethings with you guys, you wont have any answer of that ... the Typpical Civilians of India and Pakistan cant understand the real world outside of Internet .... @ Utalk , bro forget Zia now explain them who was Jinnah etc etc .... The world is not as simple as it seem .... Peace ... Bro stop watching too many movies and trolling on defence forums leave the job to ur security agencies.
Tailender Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Dude stop. :hysterical: This Paki wants the rest to believe that a man who wanted a homeland for a set of people based on their religion and religion alone, to be known as ISLAMIC republic of pakistan, was a secularist at heart. It's not the most absurd bit surprisingly, the real kicker is that the tiny fraction of population in pakistan that calls itself 'liberal' seriously believe it. This is where a paki starts to learn being economical with truth. You know who else doesn't believe in nation state and nationalism? The Mullahs...are they liberal too? :hysterical: The mullahs believe in religious nationalism - establishing an ummah - ie panislamism is a pretty nationalistic worldview... I would go brush up on your vocabulary for what nationalism entails, too. I'm glad you wikipedia-ed what "secular" is. When exactly was Pakistan named "Islamic republic" - can you please share that? No one here is trying to suggest to you that Jinnah was a "secular" man. Read his speeches and you'll find ample evidence of secular as well as religious ideology. He was a conflicted man. I really do feel sorry for you. You're making arguments here based on what wasn't said here by me or anyone else - based entirely on what you're feeble, hate filled mind believes "the Paki" should be thinking. You're ****ing pathetic. Separation doesn't entail hatred? :hatsoff: to the paki forked tongue. So what was separation based on..some trivial bureaucratic expedience? Is that what the pakis think? LOL Jinnah wasn't naive, as a paki 'liberal' you should not take credit away from your prophet where it's due. Jinnah was astute, he knew his real chance at power lay in a muslim majority nation because he simply didn't have the stature comparable to leaders of the rest of pre-partition India...he knew full well he'd be a marginalised figure. Thanks for sharing your interpretation of history that is totally unverifiable... I said separation between two nations does not necessarily entail hatred, perhaps learn to read - If the converse was true no two countries would have any relations. The two nations did not need to necessarily continue to tread on the paths to hatred but the indoctrination of children continued the cycle among future generations. I don't understand why you feel that it's necessary that two nations continue hating each other, but I can tell from the hatred laced in your posts that you're part of the system that produces people with intrinsic misgivings for one another, in a vicious cycle of hatred and division. I feel sorry for you. An of course Jinnah was naive - he was not some infallible man who did not make mistakes. His decisions were often inherently flawed.
Tailender Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 That's an oxymoron and a half. :hysterical: You're telling this to a pro gay marriage, pro abortion, fiscally and socially liberal atheist - but I don't blame you for your lack of ability to see the complex variety of people that are Pakistani. Your feeble mind can't handle the fact that the world is not black and white.
Tailender Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Approx. 10 million people crossed the border one way or another in 1947. They did so because' date=' mostly they were made to feel the country they were in, is not for them. [b']You mean to say that uprooting you're whole family to move to a strange new land because your neighbors hate you and make you feel like an illegal alien is not grounds for hated ? Clearly the paki who insinuated such is either a foil of the highest order or didn't have to experience partition migrations themselves. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 The point I'm making is what you've reiterated in your post itself. Why must people who haven't themselves experienced partition feel hatred for one another? Because of the indoctrination of children due to Zia and Bhutto - that's why. Sadly, all the posters here like to go off tangent based on what they feel "the Paki" should be thinking based on their pathetic predisposition to hate and bigotry.
randomGuy Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Separation doesn't entail hatred? :hatsoff: to the paki forked tongue. So what was separation based on..some trivial bureaucratic expedience? Is that what the pakis think? LOL Jinnah wasn't naive, as a paki 'liberal' you should not take credit away from your prophet where it's due. Jinnah was astute, he knew his real chance at power lay in a muslim majority nation because he simply didn't have the stature comparable to leaders of the rest of pre-partition India...he knew full well he'd be a marginalised figure. Divided the nation on basis of religion, opportunist of the highest order, wouldn't mind the murder of thousands of innocents (in partition) for his hunger for power. Must be naive and must have a secular agenda.:two_thumbs_up: You're telling this to a pro gay marriage' date=' pro abortion, fiscally and socially liberal atheist.[/quote'] Add self-righteous confrontational judgmental idiot to that for a more complete description.
Recommended Posts