Two bomb attacks on Musharraf in one week

[yllus]

Originally posted by: athithi
Why are you taking this so personally? My post clearly indicates this is just my opinion. You are (mis)judging my motives, instead of my opinions.

I'm not taking anything personally, would have put a gun in my mouth years ago if I took P&N seriously. I'm not misjudging your bias, which is demonstrably pro-India in the past. I'm not saying it to be insulting, but it's fairly obvious that your views on Pakistan are practically predetermined.

Politics and Army are indistinguishable in Pakistan. That he has never been political means absolutely nothing in the context of Pakistan. He has always been army. The fundamentalists, the ISI and Pakistani Army ALL threaten not just Pakistan's stability, but that of the entire region. It's sad to see you imply that somehow having the Army in charge of Pakistan has been a 'good idea as believed by people in their right minds'. It's not.

I implied nothing of the sort, and that doesn't really say much for your reading comprehension. I said the religious right, aka the fundamentalists, threaten the nation's stability. It's all well and good to tar everyone with the same brush, but in reality there's a significant difference between Musharraf in charge, and some mullah who rides a wave of popular sentiment into power with promise to stop bowing down to the West. Sure, I'd rather have the army in charge given those choices. But to get that out of what I did say is a remarkable feat of the imagination.

Good job, Don Quixote. I did not ask Musharraf to dismantle the ISI. If anything, I claimed a distinction between the position of the President of Pakistan and Musharraf the individual. That Musharraf does not have the power to control the ISI is only a stark reminder of how the current role of the President of Pakistan is indeed NOT the right way for the country to go (you are really good at debates...with yourself!)

Okay, so speak it - elements of the ISI and the army are radicals themselves. Decades of sham democracy put Pakistan on the brink of bankruptcy in 1999, care of the duly elected kleptocrats. What do you wish to see done? Speak it, and let's see how practical your ideas are.

Woo Hoo! Linkfest! Sorry, I'm not playing that game. We'll just end up debating how biased the sources themselves are :roll: But just on the content though, why are you trying to prove that Musharraf is not pure evil? I never claimed he was

The American line of thought is to "spread democracy". Musharraf's very position as "El Presidente and Grandoise Dictator for Life" of Pakistan fighting for the American line of though is a paradox.

I don't know how you can debate that which is easily independently verified, but okay. Point is, you're wholly incorrect that Musharraf is "prolonging the war between the West and the fundamentalists until a day comes when the fundamentalists can take on the full-force of the West on their own". You don't combat poverty and illiteracy, try to move the populace towards recognizing Israel, try to raise the status of women and deploy tens of thousands of troops into active campaigns against your own people because he "actually believes in backing the fundamentalists".

As I've said before,

You've got proof otherwise, I'd honestly like to see it.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: tvarad
yllus writes

"His intent is to forment a lasting, stable system of government in Pakistan. The guy's never been very political before his rise to power, nor very religious."

And you form a stable system of government by overthrowing an elected govt. again and again and again? And did you forget that NOT ONE elected govt. has been allowed by the army to complete it's term in Pakistan?

The current mess in Pakistan is a creation of the army with support from myopic American leaders who couldn't see past the immediate virtual gains of supporting guys like Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and now Musharaff.

Actually, you form a stable system of government by creating a system in which it can thrive. I don't need to detail the incredible excesses with which the Bhuttos and Nawaz Sharif robbed the country blind.

But maybe I should explain that each Prime Minister, with the help of a majority in Parliament, has played fast and loose with the constitution of Pakistan as is their own best interest. Did Prime Minister Sharif not remove practically the only useful power that existed in the office of the President to maintain a balance of power - the ability to dismiss the Prime Minister? And further manipulate the constitution to make the ability to hold no confidence votes on the Prime Minister practically impossible? With the power to manipulate like that, it's no wonder that one side or another was always running to the army to arbitrate. Good or bad, that's the way it was.

I see the new National Security Council as a positive step. I dislike religion or the military playing into politics in any way, but the difference between me and you is that I'm for pragmatism and realism first, and theory second. Surprise, surprise, you can't use a cookie cutter and parachute democracy in to every country without some changes being made! There's no need to follow failed or failing examples because haughty intellectuals and students think that's the way to go.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: yllus
I'm not taking anything personally, would have put a gun in my mouth years ago if I took P&N seriously. I'm not misjudging your bias, which is demonstrably pro-India in the past. I'm not saying it to be insulting, but it's fairly obvious that your views on Pakistan are practically predetermined.

Being pro-India does not always equate to being anti-Pakistan...or is that too sophisticate for you to comprehend? Is there any Pakistani perspective that can be expressed without dragging India in?

I implied nothing of the sort, and that doesn't really say much for your reading comprehension. I said the religious right, aka the fundamentalists, threaten the nation's stability. It's all well and good to tar everyone with the same brush, but in reality there's a significant difference between Musharraf in charge, and some mullah who rides a wave of popular sentiment into power with promise to stop bowing down to the West. Sure, I'd rather have the army in charge given those choices. But to get that out of what I did say is a remarkable feat of the imagination.

We can trade barbs like this all day. For example, I could claim that you were inarticulate enough to leave your statements open to interpretations beyond what you conceived. That could reveal a lack of control in your written skills. I could claim that, but I won't because this could go on for a long time However, as for the additional qualifications you provided, they are still centered around a cynical sentiment: that either the Pakistani populace will choose poorly even when provided with good options or that there just isn't a better option to a draconian army running the country. If you are right, Pakistan is screwed no matter who rules or with how much stability they rule. If you are wrong, well, that makes me right and I can live with that! Oh, and so much for my bias - if I am right, it would seem I have more faith in the Pakistani people than you do

Okay, so speak it - elements of the ISI and the army are radicals themselves. Decades of sham democracy put Pakistan on the brink of bankruptcy in 1999, care of the duly elected kleptocrats. What do you wish to see done? Speak it, and let's see how practical your ideas are.

What has to be done is quite easy. Disengage Pakistan from both Saudi Arabia and China - they are just exploiting Pakistan. Get away from the India-fixation. Stop interfering in Afghanistan. Have the people, instead of the Army, represent Pakistan. The Pakistani Army lies to its people all the time - mostly about India - but almost as much about Pakistan itself. Now, how all of that has to be done is an entirely different matter. Here's the Catch-22: Musharraf can do whatever he does only as long as the Army is the pre-eminent power in Pakistan. But to achieve what you proclaim he is aiming for would require the weaking of the Army's stranglehold over Pakistan eventually. The minute he does that, he will find himself waiting at the gallows with another grandoise dictator occupying the throne. Essentially, the Pakistani people have to revolt against their own army and not pay obeisance to it thinking that the Army is protecting Pakistan from its greatest "threat" - India. India will not and cannot invade or occupy Pakistan and the sooner the people realize this, the sooner they can overthrow their army, bring it under civilian control and establish a democracy. It definitely needs a strong person like Musharraf to lead the charge, but not a "General" Musharraf. Half-naked fakirs have done far more with far less material power. Surely, suited-booted Musharraf can take a few lessons from elsewhere?

EDIT: "Decades of sham democracy"? I wasn't aware that Pakistan had even one full decade of democracy - sham or otherwise!

I don't know how you can debate that which is easily independently verified, but okay. Point is, you're wholly incorrect that Musharraf is "prolonging the war between the West and the fundamentalists until a day comes when the fundamentalists can take on the full-force of the West on their own". You don't combat poverty and illiteracy, try to move the populace towards recognizing Israel, try to raise the status of women and deploy tens of thousands of troops into active campaigns against your own people because he "actually believes in backing the fundamentalists".

Oh you can debate just about anything these days. All observation is subjective Chew on this for a bit: Could Musharraf back the fundamentalists without being a fundamentalist himself? If yes, then all of a sudden my conjectures do not seem as far fetched!

As I've said before,

You've got proof otherwise, I'd honestly like to see it.

[/quote]
You want me to prove my opinions?

 

[yllus]

Please. :roll: You come out with this silly diatribe saying Musharraf is pro-fundamentalist based, now by your own admission, on opinion. It's silly so I call it silly and back up my refutation, and I'm taking this personally? Or not sophisticated enough to understand? Just because your bias goes unstated - and in your case, pro-India does seem to equal anti-Pakistan - doesn't mean it's not obvious. Deal with it instead of dodging.

How is this open to interpretation:

The fundamentalists in Pakistan threaten the nation's stability as nobody in their right mind believes it's a good idea to have them in charge of the country.

Tell me how you turn that into:

It's sad to see you imply that somehow having the Army in charge of Pakistan has been a 'good idea as believed by people in their right minds'.

Somehow "it's not a good idea to have A in charge of the country" becomes "it's a good idea to have B in charge of the country"? Love to see you use that one in a scientific proof.

Saudi Arabia and China - they are exploiting Pakistan how? The India fixation could use ending, if just to decimate the military expenditure. Interfering in Afghanistan how?

Then the rest of what you said gets back to the silliness Western countries always get caught up in. It's wonderful to talk about what should and shouldn't be - I think supermodels should have a deep desire for software developers - but that doesn't make it reality. The reality is that the army plays a decisive role today in Pakistani politics, and you don't simply yank that away and figure things are going to work out. Reality: You take incremental steps and gradually detach. And those steps are demonstrably already in the works.

"Could Musharraf back the fundamentalists without being a fundamentalist himself?" Before I chew on that, how about you prove it's not a pointless question to begin with and propose with what actions Musharraf has demostrated himself to be pro-extremist? lol, but you figure that by saying yes, you've circularly proved the statement?

Edit: Spelling.

 

[tvarad]

"Actually, you form a stable system of government by creating a system in which it can thrive. I don't need to detail the incredible excesses with which the Bhuttos and Nawaz Sharif robbed the country blind."

That is truly a laugh. The cost to Pakistan from the 1965,1971 & Kargil wars alone that were instigated by the Army would make any excess by the politicians pale into insignificance. Add to that the cost of "fundamentalistism" systematically incubated by Zia-ul-Haq and the institutionalized robbing of the country by the Army in the form of exclusive rights to administrative positions, prime land etc. and you have a country exists solely for the use and abuse of the Army.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: yllus
Terrorists and would-be terrorists in Pakistan despise Musharraf for taking strong action against them - especially in his closing down of madrassas, the extremist schools that create the new generation of terrorists. I think the West is being pretty silly with the guy when it's pretty obvious he's not halfassing this intentionally - he's walking the finest line he can without getting himself killed. You try cooperating with outside nations by taking military action against your own citizens and see how "all out" you can act.

What is Musharraf's intent? Just self-preservation? If so, wouldn't he just be safer getting the heck out of Pakistan and moving to SA or the US or some other friendly nation? Does Musharraf believe in the West's purpose of eliminating fundamentalist Islam? If so, why the fine-line walking? Why not go all out against the fundamentalists? The risk of death surely can't be any higher than this tight-rope act while the chances of success would definitely be higher than a half-assed attempt (deliberate or otherwise). Neither explanation fits.

The only remaining possibility is that Musharraf actually believes in backing the fundamentalists BUT knows that, given the current balance, the fundamentalists cannot win outright. What is achieved by Musharraf standing between the West and the fundamentalists? IMO, it definitely helps keep the casualities on both sides low in the near-term, but prolongs the result of the war. How does it keep the casualities low? By giving the West an excuse to not enter into full-fledged war (Afghanistan and Iraq are merely side-acts) because it fears that the fundamentalists might get hold of nuclear weapons, thereby increasing the number of casualities by an order of magnitude in an all-out war. However, that also helps sustain the fundamentalist movement.

What else brings the fundamentalists to the table? I think it is a combination of the fact that the ISI and Pakistan Military control Pakistan's nuclear weapons and their political face - represented by Musharraf currently - brings in American dollars (yes, I firmly believe that Americans are indirectly paying for the fundamentalists to kill American soldiers and use up American weaponry - kinda like Vegas, where you spend your own money to waste energy on pulling a lever over and over again).

In this scenario, my conjecture is that Musharraf is a product of circumstance. Surely, the man has amazing personal courage. I imagine it must the single most stressful job on the planet right now. But that is objective bravery. I don't perceive it as an artifact of integrity or wisdom in the man. The fine-line walking is an attribute of the position he occupies. Of course, the extent to which he performs his duties depend on his personal skills too. But the wedge between the West and Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan is the position of President of Pakistan and not specifically Musarraf the individual himself. Needless to say, the position and the individual occupying it must be a perfect fit and Musharraf is indeed a great fit for that position.

To cut a long story short, Musharraf is walking a fine-line, but that is the nature of his job. Musharraf's job is prolonging the war between the West and the fundamentalists until a day comes when the fundamentalists can take on the full-force of the West on their own. Ergo, Musharraf is actually helping the fundamentalists.

Frankly, that makes little sense, and it's your bias as an Indian that's twisting you to see it like that.

His intent is to forment a lasting, stable system of government in Pakistan. The guy's never been very political before his rise to power, nor very religious. You've got proof otherwise, I'd honestly like to see it. The fundamentalists in Pakistan threaten the nation's stability as nobody in their right mind believes it's a good idea to have them in charge of the country.

He walks that fine line because this is for real, it's not like in a movie - no dictator is all-powerful, and each fears the populace rising up against him. Cooperating with the West is an unpopular move because, like most such nations, the people are poor and uneducated and are easily swayed by the thought of the big bad West being the cause of all their ills. What would you have him do, disband the ISI? While he's the titular head of state, he doesn't truly have that much power. This is the silliness I speak of in the West (and India). He doesn't have unlimited power, so don't act as if he does.

Instead, he does the next best thing: Deploys infrastructure programs to eradicate poverty and reform radical madrassas to avoid the indoctrination of youth. He speaks of recognizing Israel. He's tried to help emancipate women.

On the terror front, Musharraf has deployed 80,000 troops guarding its side of the Afghan border and established ~900 outposts. They've sent 10,000+ troops to root out terrorists in South Waziristan.

Give the guy a little freaking credit. Better yet, engage your mind and see what the other side says. As a reviewer states, "[Musharraf] is the current Islamic poster boy of Bush - a moderate, liberal-minded leader of a nation whose population (major part of) is not necessarily moderate in its views toward the USA. What's more - he is fighting for the American line of thought at personal risk to life and limb."

Well said. I have got the feeling that after the soldiers who are fighting on the field, Musharaf is the man making the most effort on our war against terror. I read about some of the things you stated some time back and greatly appreciate the man and his courage to try to root out the radicalism in his country as opposed to previous leaders [democratically elected or otherwise] in that country who actively nourished it.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: tvarad
Here's an article which is a classic example of the two-timing nature of the Pakistani leadership. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Karzai's leadership capabilities are questionable. There is a reason he is called the Mayor of Kabul.

 

[firewall]

[repost]

 

[tvarad]

firewall writes:

"Karzai's leadership capabilities are questionable. There is a reason he is called the Mayor of Kabul."

I don't think anyone has illusions about Karzai's leadership abilities. The goal is to incubate a representative government there after decades of civil war.

But the problem is that there are too many vested interests that don't want this to happen and there is a growing realization that the Pakistani military establishment is one of those.

 

[tvarad]

Firewall says:

"Well said. I have got the feeling that after the soldiers who are fighting on the field, Musharaf is the man making the most effort on our war against terror. I read about some of the things you stated some time back and greatly appreciate the man and his courage to try to root out the radicalism in his country as opposed to previous leaders [democratically elected or otherwise] in that country who actively nourished it."

Total BS. By his own admission, Musharaff decided to "join" the war on terror because he had no other options left. Else he would have been bombed back to the stone age (again by his own admission). It's an act of survival not an act of sacrifice as you portray it. It's not for nothing that Pakistan is known to be a cat on it's 7th or 8th life.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: tvarad
firewall writes:

"Karzai's leadership capabilities are questionable. There is a reason he is called the Mayor of Kabul."

I don't think anyone has illusions about Karzai's leadership abilities. The goal is to incubate a representative government there after decades of civil war.

But the problem is that there are too many vested interests that don't want this to happen and there is a growing realization that the Pakistani military establishment is one of those.

I don' believe that. Depending on the viewpoint one uses, one can equally blame the Indian involvement in Afghanistan alongside the Pakistani involvement. The biggest unavoidable mistake we made in Afghanistan was to use and support the warlords. What we should do now is to get rid of them as soon as possible. These warlords are creating a lot of disturbance and when they are gone things will come under control.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: tvarad
Firewall says:

"Well said. I have got the feeling that after the soldiers who are fighting on the field, Musharaf is the man making the most effort on our war against terror. I read about some of the things you stated some time back and greatly appreciate the man and his courage to try to root out the radicalism in his country as opposed to previous leaders [democratically elected or otherwise] in that country who actively nourished it."

Total BS. By his own admission, Musharaff decided to "join" the war on terror because he had no other options left. Else he would have been bombed back to the stone age (again by his own admission). It's an act of survival not an act of sacrifice as you portray it. It's not for nothing that Pakistan is known to be a cat on it's 7th or 8th life.

You have the right to your own opinion. I have the right to mine. What ever the reasons, his commitment to this war is appreciable and is in our benefit [that of the USA]. We would have failed quite miserably in Afghanistan if it wasn't for Musharaf's support.

 

[tvarad]

Firewall writes:

"You have the right to your own opinion. I have the right to mine. What ever the reasons, his commitment to this war is appreciable and is in our benefit [that of the USA]. We would have failed quite miserably in Afghanistan if it wasn't for Musharaf's support."

I prefer facts, not opinions. And the fact is that Musharaff is running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. The numerous reports in the press about how the ISI is helping the Taliban shows that there is a strong suspicion in the West about how altruistic this "commitment" has been. And going by how Musharaff's recent visit to the U.S. went, it is quite obvious that the U.S. Govt. is having second thoughts about it too.

 

[tvarad]

Firewall writes:

"I don' believe that. Depending on the viewpoint one uses, one can equally blame the Indian involvement in Afghanistan alongside the Pakistani involvement."

Well, this is the first time that I've heard someone come up with an India angle to what is happening in Afghanistan. If India is upto anything in Afghanistan, the first people to know about it would be the allies fighting there and so far the only complaints from them is what the Pakistani ISI doing to undermine their efforts, not India.

 

[piasabird]

Terrorists commit these acts of terror in an attempt to influence public opinion and destabilize the political system or a Regime that they disagree with. Terror can be motivated by Religious hatred, or just a lust for power. Often those in power are just as ruthless as the terrorists themselves.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: tvarad
Firewall writes:

"I don' believe that. Depending on the viewpoint one uses, one can equally blame the Indian involvement in Afghanistan alongside the Pakistani involvement."

Well, this is the first time that I've heard someone come up with an India angle to what is happening in Afghanistan. If India is upto anything in Afghanistan, the first people to know about it would be the allies fighting there and so far the only complaints from them is what the Pakistani ISI doing to undermine their efforts, not India.

You replied to that specific point. I suspect you are an Indian and are just being your usual anti-pakistan self from your replies here and in other threads.

 

[tvarad]

firewall says

"You replied to that specific point. I suspect you are an Indian and are just being your usual anti-pakistan self from your replies here and in other threads."

When argument by logic fails, bring on the innuendo.

And frankly I am anti-pakistan. It is a state that never had a reason to be created.

By the time this war on terror is over, it will be broken up or destroyed not by India, but by one of the other countries on whom it is waging war by subterfuge.

 

[athithi]

Please. :roll: You come out with this silly diatribe saying Musharraf is pro-fundamentalist based, now by your own admission, on opinion. It's silly so I call it silly and back up my refutation, and I'm taking this personally? Or not sophisticated enough to understand? Just because your bias goes unstated - and in your case, pro-India does seem to equal anti-Pakistan - doesn't mean it's not obvious. Deal with it instead of dodging.

Diatribe? Boy, you sure are touchy! Bump into more people at the subway? Go read my first post again. If opining that Musharraf is effectively helping the fundamentalist movement is a diatribe, then nothing short of hosannas for the Great Dictator would be seen as fair assessment according to you :roll: Determining that the current Pakistani form of government is inimical to world peace is not anti-Pakistan bias. The demons are in your mind, my friend. And frankly, given Pakistan's record in world politics, there is very little positive that can be said about it. But that translates into an anti-Pakistani sentiment only in your mind. I would be one damn happy Indian if Pakistan saw peace and prosperity and sucks to you if you can't believe that.

Somehow "it's not a good idea to have A in charge of the country" becomes "it's a good idea to have B in charge of the country"? Love to see you use that one in a scientific proof.

In practically every post you made in this thread you are defending the current form of government in Pakistan. Flash News: the Army still runs Pakistan today. You have repeatedly claimed that having B (the army) in charge IS a good idea. This is not just an impression that your posts give - these are outright statements you have made (using various sentence constructs, if not necessarily that one).

Saudi Arabia and China - they are exploiting Pakistan how? The India fixation could use ending, if just to decimate the military expenditure. Interfering in Afghanistan how?

SA is funding a large number of radical madrassas in Pakistan. They are using Pakistan to incubate radical Islam. They openly support the notion of an Islamic Nuclear Bomb. China uses Pakistan to keep the Indian army engaged in Kashmir by providing arms and technology to the Pakistani army. Pakistan nurtured the Taleban in Afghanistan and continue to do so today. And it only shows your tunnel vision when you claim that Pakistan's India-fixation has to go just so they can reduce their military expenditure. How about Pakistan getting away from its India-fixation because it is fundamentally wrong and is largely used as a cynical tactic to subjugate the general population? :roll:

Then the rest of what you said gets back to the silliness Western countries always get caught up in. It's wonderful to talk about what should and shouldn't be - I think supermodels should have a deep desire for software developers - but that doesn't make it reality. The reality is that the army plays a decisive role today in Pakistani politics, and you don't simply yank that away and figure things are going to work out. Reality: You take incremental steps and gradually detach. And those steps are demonstrably already in the works.

Oh ok, so now it is bad to wish for the best? The reality is that Pakistan is a failed state today and imagining Musharraf to be some sort of Gorbachev is what is silly and unrealistic. Which Boris Yeltsin is going to release Musharraf from his Crimean dacha when the Army realizes that Musharraf is trying to weaken its stranglehold on Pakistan? Thinking that Musharraf can save Pakistan by remaining President is a pipe-dream. I will grant you that incremental steps are better than nothing. But for every incremental step in the right direction, there continue to be 10 in the wrong direction. Musharraf has not shown any evidence that he desires the end of fundamentalism in Pakistan. He architected the Kargil war, for crying out loud! Hardly the actions of a visionary :roll:

"Could Musharraf back the fundamentalists without being a fundamentalist himself?" Before I chew on that, how about you prove it's not a pointless question to begin with and propose with what actions Musharraf has demostrated himself to be pro-extremist? lol, but you figure that by saying yes, you've circularly proved the statement?

"Pointless" is relative. If you do not wish to consider the question, that's your choice. In my opinion, Musharraf does not have to perform a single explicit fundamentalist act to be seen as someone that backs fundamentalism. That he is protecting fundamentalism from a Western onslaught is in itself proof enough.

 

[tvarad]

As I keep saying "With a friend like Pakistan, who needs enemies". Here's another article to prove my point (btw, as I write this article, I am watching a TV program on how Pakistani Ramzi Yousef, of the first attempt on the WTC fame, tried to bring down a Phillipine Airlines Jumbo with a bomb in the mid-70's:

Pak-Pyonyang links date to '70s

Times of India (Oct 10 2006)

NEW DELHI: A week after Pakistan exploded nuclear weapons in 1998, the wife of a North Korean diplomat, Kim Sa-nae, was killed in Islamabad.

She was reportedly part of a 20-member North Korean delegations of engineers and scientists invited to witness the tests. No autopsy was carried out, though she was shot.

Her body was taken out of Pakistan in a C-130 military plane incidentally, the same plane that A Q Khan said was used to transport plans and equipment for a nuclear bomb.

The plane, according to sources tracking the Pakistan-Pyongyang nexus, reportedly went back with P-1 and P-2 centrifuges, used to enrich uranium to weapons grade. The cargo, according to reports, carried drawings, sketches, data and depleted uranium hexaflouride gas.

One thing Monday's test proves is that Khan's legacy lives on. It has brought the spotlight back on the Pakistan factor and Khan's nuclear Wal-Mart is back in the news.

The Pak-North Korea link goes back to the 1970s. In 1971, Pakistan asked North Korea to provide artillery and rocket launchers during the war with India.

But by the 1980s, the relationship had entered the realm of ballistic missile cooperation. During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Pakistani and North Korean engineers and contractors worked together in Iran to develop missiles.


In 1991, Pakistan asked for SCUD missile technology from North Korea. A Pakistan military delegation travelled to China in August 1992, but a group broke away and went to Pyongyang, including Aslam Shahid of Khan Research Laboratories.

They negotiated a $50 million deal for rocket motors, guidance systems and control and testing equipment for 10 missiles.

In 1993, Benazir Bhutto as PM visited North Korea and signed a number of defence agreements. Khan visited North Korea in October and November 1997 with a 10-member team.

North Korea reportedly sent 11 consignments of Nodong 1 missiles from January 1997-March 1998 through special flights. The deal was paid for in hard currency, given Pyongyang's perilous state.

 

[tvarad]

One more article that is related to the one above that claims that North Korea tested it's bomb in Pakistan in 1998 itself.

 

[yllus]

*shakes head* More of the same. Let's let theory and the world of fantasy rule real-world decision making!

I don't personally give a fsck about the d!ck measuring each backwards-ass country on the Indian subcontinent has going on. Both are an utter embarassment. But it amuses me how India is perpetually the victim of the 'failed state' of Pakistan, one-tenth its size, which it spends a mighty large amount of time trying to prove does nothing right. One would almost think that it has a vested interest in keeping the boogeyman alive because it provides for such a great whitewash over issues like Kashmir. Oh, excuse me, that couldn't possibly be the case. You're really just genuinely concerned for the well-being of Pakistanis. :roll:

Official gov't Saudi money is flowing to official gov't Pakistani recipients, who then fund the radical madrassas who oddly enough hate and attack the army? I'd like to see proof of that, please. Or is your complaint that the all-seeing, all-powerful dictator Musharraf is simply not using his limitless powers to stop that private flow of funds?

"Musharraf has not shown any evidence that he desires the end of fundamentalism in Pakistan." Of course, you won't both to look at the evidence because it's a "linkfest". Riiiight.

Originally posted by: athithi
In my opinion, Musharraf does not have to perform a single explicit fundamentalist act to be seen as someone that backs fundamentalism.

Pretty much summarizes your entire position. You don't need evidence for your opinion because you've already made up your mind. Good job. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: tvarad
As I keep saying "With a friend like Pakistan, who needs enemies". Here's another article to prove my point (btw, as I write this article, I am watching a TV program on how Pakistani Ramzi Yousef, of the first attempt on the WTC fame, tried to bring down a Phillipine Airlines Jumbo with a bomb in the mid-70's:

You mean the Ramzi Yousef who was arrested by Pakistani Intelligence on February 7, 1995 and turned over to the U.S.? Yeah, who needs friends like that.

 

[athithi]

*shakes head* More of the same. Let's let theory and the world of fantasy rule real-world decision making!

What wild imagination! Theory should be dumped because it is meaningless and pointless, right? :roll:

I don't personally give a fsck about the d!ck measuring each backwards-ass country on the Indian subcontinent has going on. Both are an utter embarassment. But it amuses me how India is perpetually the victim of the 'failed state' of Pakistan, one-tenth its size, which it spends a mighty large amount of time trying to prove does nothing right. One would almost think that it has a vested interest in keeping the boogeyman alive because it provides for such a great whitewash over issues like Kashmir. Oh, excuse me, that couldn't possibly be the case. You're really just genuinely concerned for the well-being of Pakistanis. :roll:

You are the one that keeps dragging India into this thread, not I. You don't seem to be very self-aware. It is your anti-Indian bias that is causing you to see my views as anti-Pakistan. You decided, "this guy is an Indian and has criticized Pakistan's government-sponsored terrorism in the past and hence he must be anti-Pakistan" :roll: And putting 'failed state' within quotes does very little to mitigate the fact that Pakistan is indeed a failed state today, run by a dictator who is bartering between fundamentalists, the army and a rogue intelligence network.

A victim does not defeat his tormentor in 4 wars - 3 of them outright. 90,000 POWs and several thousands of sq.km of Pakistani territory were returned precisely because Pakistan is the runt in the neighbourhood trying to drag the big boys into a fight (and then goes whining to its master, the US, about how unfair the world is :roll: ). Unlike Pakistan, India actually does not spend a vast amount of its time fixated on a neighbouring country. Otherwise, it wouldn't have progressed this far in 60 years - not to imply that India is perfect, but compared to the Pakistani form of government, the Indian form of government is paradise. The whitewashing in Kashmir lies in the genocide and explusion of 100s of thousands of native Hindu Pandits even more than any excesses of the Indian army in trying to fight insurgency. There are 28 other states in India, almost every one of them working with the rest of the country towards prosperity and somehow people like you imagine there to be a deep, dark, dirty secret for India in Kashmir :roll: This is beyond fantasy - this is sheer insanity.

In the well-being of Pakistanis, I see the well-being of the entire neighbourhood and indeed, the rest of the world. Apparently, the reasonabless of that thought process blows a few circuits in your mind. I really can't help that.

Oh, the profanity does not make you sound any smarter, btw.

Official gov't Saudi money is flowing to official gov't Pakistani recipients, who then fund the radical madrassas who oddly enough hate and attack the army? I'd like to see proof of that, please. Or is your complaint that the all-seeing, all-powerful dictator Musharraf is simply not using his limitless powers to stop that private flow of funds?

Wonderful. Your support for Musharraf is entirely built around the assessment that he is powerless to do the most important things. The linkfest may yet begin - just something I find ineffective because any evidence presented by India is going to be discounted by you as biased.

"Musharraf has not shown any evidence that he desires the end of fundamentalism in Pakistan." Of course, you won't both to look at the evidence because it's a "linkfest". Riiiight.

If the incremental policies of Musharraf are going up against the blitzkreig of fundamentalism spreading throughout Pakistan, forgive me for not being enthralled by evidence you provided.

Pretty much summarizes your entire position. You don't need evidence for your opinion because you've already made up your mind. Good job. :thumbsup:

It is only a matter of googling and searching for the right phrases to provide evidence either way. A lot of the evidence is presented by the immediate parties involved and between India and Pakistan, they are often contradictory - except, the Indian media is largely free and reputed and India's standing in the world is far, far better than Pakistan's - not even in the same class. But I know up front you are only going to discard any evidence I provide because you won't accept anything unless it is provided by Pakistan or the West (which is entirely clueless about what is happening in the other half of the world). I am merely trying to avoid a futile exercise in link-wars. A better option would be for you to go and try to disprove your own theories. If you make your best efforts and still fail to disprove your theories, you can then sit back contended that you have been right all along.

 

[tvarad]

Yllus writes

'You mean the Ramzi Yousef who was arrested by Pakistani Intelligence on February 7, 1995 and turned over to the U.S.? Yeah, who needs friends like that."

Reminds me of this snake-charmer who used to surreptitiously let lose a number of snakes on our farm and then turn up at the door and offer to capture them all - for a fee of course.

 

[Hacp]

Those bomb attacks are nothing compared to the real bomb that North Korea tested this week. Bush failed to protect the United States Citizens. Six years of republican rule and all we get is more terrorism.