Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP) : 24 July 2012

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 30 Jul 2012 12:45

What's the probability that Jinnah was in reality batting for India's long-term survival? Its India's 13% Muslim minority that gets veto rights on the party forming the government even today (prime beneficiary being the UPA). Is it at all possible that Jinnah may have had the vision to foresee that an India with a 30%+ minority with way of thought completely different from the majority (his two-nation theory) would not be able to keep its 'tryst with destiny'?

In short, was Jinnah in reality a Crypto-Indic who did what he felt was right for India's future ?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 30 Jul 2012 13:16

Seeing Jinnah through the prism of an Islamist is quite wrong. Jinnah neither liked the common unwashed abduls (a trait shared by ZAB) nor was he particularly religious (some would call him a blasphemer) but still built his political philosophy on religion (again a trait shared by ZAB). He was a nationalist and staunchly against Khilafat movement, which showed his distaste for both abduls and religion.

But every thing changed. He supported the activities of INC till it was reserved to a few select members who would gather together and hold debates about solving India's problems.

Gandhi's emergence turned the tables. Apparently he used to give speeches about importance of toilets, hygiene, fasting and dieting. All aimed at common abduls. Jinnah was an aristocrat and a feudalist, who could not stand the erosion of aristocratic power. It was clear to him that the system was going to change, with unwashed dregs assuming power instead of educated, moneyed and feudal elite. This is what caused him to switch sides. The fact that he was not a nationalist anymore is supported by historical records. For one, he secretly conspired with Churchill

See here: http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/75870/ and here:

Sir Martin Gilbert, the British biographer of Winston Churchill revealed that Churchill had asked Jinnah to dispatch secret letters to him by addressing them to a lady, Elizabeth Giliat, who had been Churchill’s secretary. This secret interaction continued for years. Jinnah’s key decisions between 1940 and 1946, including the demand for Pakistan in 1940, were taken after getting the nod from Churchill or Lord Linlithgow and Wavell, both Churchill’s admirers.

Jinnah's attempt to preserve the power of aristocratic mussalmans were also seized by the feudals of Pakjab, who (rightly) realized their loss of power. Vestiges of it can be seen to this day
1. Pakjabi feudals are still Pakjabi feudals and have effectively resisted land reforms for over 65 years after Pakistan's independence.
2. The "loss" of JK to India threatens their lifeblood -- water from the Indus river system -- and you have "Cashmere issue" alive to this day.

Jinnah's appeal to various princely states also echoes this common theme. Letting the princelies have their title and wealth in return for swearing allegiance to Pakistan. With the Indian union, it was exactly the opposite. The appeal to religion was just a convenient way for Jinnah to incite the common abduls.

That is why you see a vast deal of incoherence in Jinnah's speeches. On the one hand he grandly declares that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. And on the other hand he (allegedly) declares minorities in Pakistan have nothing to fear and can continue practicing their religion and can co-exist with Muslims. On the one hand religion has influenced nothing in his life -- he drank, ate pork, did not pray and had nothing but contempt for religion types. On the other hand he thought religion could be used to unify a country. All contradictions.

On the other hand, if you see Jinnah as bent on preserving aristocratic and feudal power, his actions and speeches are remarkably coherent.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 30 Jul 2012 13:44

Jinnah being Indic?

Sorry I cant agree, he was the man in charge which started the blooshed on an unprecedented scale, any sane person would have shifted sides ever since the violence started and would have tried to quell it. Jinnah did nothing of the sort.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 30 Jul 2012 13:54

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world ... &ref=world

The American-led coalition on Sunday bluntly rebutted an assertion made last week by a senior Pakistani official {that would be sherry} that American forces had on 52 occasions done little over all to stop Pakistan Taliban militants from using Afghan territory as a springboard for attacks on Pakistani forces in the mountains along the poorly marked frontier.

The coalition statement was unusual in its directness. Even at the lowest points in relations between Pakistan and the United States, American officials in Afghanistan have usually left direct public criticism of Pakistan to more senior officials in Washington.

But with Pakistan increasingly trying to draw equivalence between Afghan Taliban havens in their own country and the presence of Pakistan Taliban factions in Kunar and Nuristan Provinces in northeastern Afghanistan, the coalition pushed back unequivocally on Sunday, offering a reminder of the fraught relationship that the United States and Pakistan are struggling to improve. {Pakistan-US equal equal. There are extremists on both sides. Terrorism is a common Af-Pak problem, and it is unhelpful to point fingers. Before US complains about Taliban attacks, it should realize Pakistan itself victim of taliban attacks.}

All I can do is Lulz.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 30 Jul 2012 14:03

some of the "useful idiots" wanted to export power to Pakistan when this is the situation in India.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/power-cr ... 96504.html

Firstpost India
Power crisis in Punjab: Office timings changed, ACs banned

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 30 Jul 2012 14:38

Virupaksha wrote:some of the "useful idiots" wanted to export power to Pakistan when this is the situation in India.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/power-cr ... 96504.html

Firstpost India
Power crisis in Punjab: Office timings changed, ACs banned

Today would be a good day for Bleeding heart WKK's to discuss export of Power to Pakis know, even the normally quiet Indian would rise up now.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 30 Jul 2012 16:34

Now we have global pakis getting syria(ous). This is sure to wake up the rest of the ummah. Syrian Rebels Free 2 Journalists After Weeklong Ordeal With Islamic Extremists

Two foreign journalists captured by Islamic extremists in Syria and held for a week were rescued by Syrian opposition fighters, one of them said on Friday.

Mr. Oerlemans said their captors apparently included no Syrian fighters, but instead jihadists from Bangladesh, Britain, Chechnya and Pakistan.All pakis or paki wannabee

“They were only foreign jihadis; I don’t think there was one Syrian among them,” Mr. Oerlemans said.

“They would cock their weapons and say, ‘Prepare for the afterlife,’ or, ‘You better repent and accept Islam.’ Yep, that's a paki.

Daily Whines confirms the paki contribution to the internal struggles of its ummah ally. UK probes British Pakistanis’ ‘support’ to Syrian extremists

The British government has started an investigation after the revelation that some British Muslims of Pakistani origin have joined extremist groups in Syria to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al Assad.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 30 Jul 2012 16:43

Allies Rebuke Pakistan on Cross-Border Attacks

Remember that comment by Sherry Al-squeezed Rehman in Aspen that the pakis have informed Nato 52 times about the tellibunnies regrouping in Afghanistan? Yes, she had pulled that number out of her ....er, geelani.

The American-led coalition on Sunday bluntly rebutted an assertion made last week by a senior Pakistani official that American forces had on 52 occasions done little over all to stop Pakistan Taliban militants from using Afghan territory as a springboard for attacks on Pakistani forces in the mountains along the poorly marked frontier.

“Recent allegations that the Pakistani military has notified the International Security Assistance Force 52 times that insurgent elements were crossing the Afghan-Pakistan border are incorrect”

The coalition did not say how many times Pakistan had requested and received assistance, but American officials said the number was far fewer than 52.

Why 52? There is no relevance to 72, is there?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Jul 2012 16:56

anupmisra wrote:Allies Rebuke Pakistan on Cross-Border Attacks
The American-led coalition on Sunday bluntly rebutted an assertion made last week by a senior Pakistani official that American forces had on 52 occasions done little over all to stop Pakistan Taliban militants from using Afghan territory . . .
Why 52? There is no relevance to 72, is there?

May be the ISAF accused the Pakistanis of attacking Afghan territory 51 times. The Pakis, being Pakis, want to be one up on them (pun intended).

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Jul 2012 17:00

anupmisra wrote:Daily Whines confirms the paki contribution to the internal struggles of its ummah ally. UK probes British Pakistanis’ ‘support’ to Syrian extremists
The British government has started an investigation after the revelation that some British Muslims of Pakistani origin have joined extremist groups in Syria to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al Assad.

There is credible report that Her Majesty's Government sent Omar Saeed Sheikh to Bosnia to assist the islamists.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 30 Jul 2012 17:16

SO Paki Islmic terrorism is used of Western Geo political interests, generally the West rewards Pakis with weapons for such behaviour. I hope the pakis have not been given somthign detrimental to us.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 30 Jul 2012 17:17

SSridhar wrote:There is credible report that Her Majesty's Government sent Omar Saeed Sheikh to Bosnia to assist the islamists.

As a delivery boy. A trucker's assistant, if I remember correctly.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jul 2012 18:12

Johann wrote: Jinnah opposed separate electorates and reservations for Muslims, and the use of religious passions in the Khilafat movement.

No, Jinnah was for separate electorates and reservations, except for a few brief months; and he abandoned that stance when he saw that he would not be able to carry Muslims with him.

For that matter, the Majlis e Ahrar also floated the idea of joint electorates. Remember they were ideologically opposite of Jinnah. They too abandoned that position.

Contrasting the Sikh position to the Muslim position is instructive. The Sikhs generally said, no reservations or separate electorate is needed, but if you are going to make concessions to Muslims, then we want the same provisions.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Jul 2012 18:48

The trouble with characterizing leaders based on a specific incident here or an utterance there would be similar to the seven blind men of Hindoostan figuring out an elephant. We have to look at the overall thrust of their actions over a sustained period of time. Aberrations here and there can be forgotten or even forgiven when one looks at the overall approach.

I would like to recall what the eminent lawyer Chimanlal Setalvad had said in 1947: "What has happened is, indeed, a great personal triumph for Mr. Jinnah. Within seven years after the Lahore Pakistan resolution of 1940, he has succeeded in defeating a great political organisation of sixty years' standing with the backing of the large majority of the Indian people. But has he succeeded in doing good to the Muslims themselves and to his country? When the whole world is trying to integrate, it is no service to India to disintegrate the country. India divided and speaking with two voices cannot pull her proper weight in the councils of the nations. But, above all, the division of India has laid the foundations of interminable quarrels and chaos which will bring untold suffering to generations yet unborn."

Did Jinnah do anything good for the Muslims of this subcontinent, whom he claimed could not live side-by-side with the Hindus and hence needed a different nation ? In that case, why were a large number of Muslims left behind to fend for themselves ? Did he think through the whole process of partition ? Did he or the Muslim league ever have a road map for governance of the new nation ? Did he set a precedent for good governance himself in the brief period that he ruled a nascent Pakistan ? There could be many more such questions.

Shri Setalvad was extraordinarily prescient in his last sentence quoted above. Jinnah was a complete failure in every which way one looks at or slices him. His failure was because of his evil outlook. His wickedness has today put the whole world in great danger.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 30 Jul 2012 18:51

A_Gupta wrote:
Johann wrote: Jinnah opposed separate electorates and reservations for Muslims, and the use of religious passions in the Khilafat movement.
No, Jinnah was for separate electorates and reservations, except for a few brief months; and he abandoned that stance when he saw that he would not be able to carry Muslims with him.

You're talking about the communalist Jinnah that emerged in the 1920s and the separatist Jinnah of the 1940s.

The Jinnah before that was a different person. Its one of the most enigmatic personal transformations I've ever seen, and the historical impact speaks for itself.

I'm talking about the Jinnah before Khilafat and Non-Cooperation, when he was one of the most prominent nationalists and a leading member of the INC. He was admired by nationalist Hindus and Muslims alike because of his principals, his lack of communal prejudice, as well as his willingness to challenge the Raj.

At that point he was one of the most consistent opponents of separate electorates the AIML faced. He called the idea

the obnoxious virus introduced into the body politic of India with evil designs

.

Even when he joined the AIML in 1913 it was on the written condition that

loyalty to the Muslim League and the Muslim interest would in no way and at no time imply even the shadow of disloyalty to the larger national cause to which his life was dedicated.

In 1917 he had this to say to the AIML;

"It is said that we are going on at a tremendous speed, that we are in a minority and the government of this country might afterwards become a Hindu government ... . I particularly wish to address my Mahomedan friends on this point. Do you think, in the first instance, as to whether it is possible that the government of this country could become a Hindu government? Do you think that government could be conducted by ballot boxes? Do you think that because the Hindus are in the majority, therefore they could carry on a measure, in the Legislative Assembly, and there is an end of it? If seventy millions of Mussalmans do not approve of a measure, which is carried by a ballot box, do you think that it could be enforced and administered in this country? Do you think that the Hindu statesmen, with their intellect, with their past history, would ever think of - when they get self-government - enforcing a measure by a ballot box? ... . This is a bogey that is put before you by your enemies to frighten you, to scare you away from the cooperation with the Hindus, which is essential for the establishment of self-government.

"If this country is not to be governed by the Hindus, let me tell you in the same spirit, it was not to be governed by the Mahomedans either and certainly not by the English. It is to be governed by the people and the sons of this country, and I, standing here - I believe that I am voicing the feeling of the whole of India - say that what we demand is the immediate transfer of the substantial power of government of this country and that is the principal demand of our scheme of reform. Do not our opponents understand this? Are they so dull? Are they so foolish? Do they not understand this demand? Our demand is this: `You have monopoly in this country in the government of this country. You have monopoly in this country in the Army. You have monopoly in the commerce of this country. We are not going to submit to any of these three monopolies. You have enjoyed them for the last 150 years, but we are tired of it.'"

Unbelievable isn't it?

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 30 Jul 2012 19:01

Jinnah was happy to be in power. He wanted to be heard and given importance. Whether it was through INC, Muslim League, or Pakistan, he intended to be in power. This communal / secular are just garbs he wore that were required to be in power.

As long as Pakistan was not a surety, he stoked communal tension. Post 1947, he waxed eloquent about secularism since he had secured his position. The fluff is just to paint Pakistan on the basis of its founder.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Jul 2012 19:04

nakul wrote:. . . Post 1947, he waxed eloquent about secularism since he had secured his position.

No, nakul. He did not wax eloquent even after being safely ensconced in his Governor Generalship, except for that one speech of August 11, 1947 where he expressed some vague hopes that went completely contradictory to his earlier promises to all sorts of Islamists, including shady ones.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 30 Jul 2012 19:09

^^^

I didnt know that but I wanted to say that all this painting of Pakistan in Jinnah's colors is bunkum. If he was secular, it does not make Pakistan secular and if he was communal, it does not necessarily make Pakistan so. This practice of painting a country with its founder's colors is over hyped.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Jul 2012 19:12

Jinnah was a clever lawyer. That was all.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 30 Jul 2012 19:17

all this painting of Pakistan in Jinnah's colors is bunkum. If he was secular, it does not make Pakistan secular and if he was communal, it does not necessarily make Pakistan so. This practice of painting a country with its founder's colors is over hyped.

The Jinnah who fought for and created Pakistan 1937-47 did things the pre-1921 Jinnah consistently opposed and condemned. In political terms you might as well be talking about two different people.

I don't think talking about the old Jinnah in any way paints a Pakistan created through fear tactics(among Hindus and Muslims alike) and promises of theocracy as a secular entity.

nakul wrote:Jinnah was happy to be in power. He wanted to be heard and given importance. Whether it was through INC, Muslim League, or Pakistan, he intended to be in power. This communal / secular are just garbs he wore that were required to be in power.

As long as Pakistan was not a surety, he stoked communal tension.

Nakul, I think you're right about him seeing himself as a natural leader.

On the other hand I haven't seen a single instance of Jinnah saying or doing anything communal before 1921. He was consistently anti-communal in his political actions.

In the 1930s and 1940s he was consistently communal in his political action.

Something fundamentally changed his value system. I don't think it was Islam, because its clear he never practiced.

Similar things happened to other people as well, but going the other direction. Abdul Kalam Azad went from being communal to secular in his politics, but remained a practicing Muslim and Islamic scholar throughout.

For a contrast you can look at the Ali brothers who led the Muslim League and Khilafat Committee. They used communal and secular language interchangeably, depending on what suited them. The only thing consistent at any one time was their inconsistency.

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 30 Jul 2012 19:24

Ramadan greetings from TSPA to Afghans
More than 250 missiles fired from Pakistan in Kunar province

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 30 Jul 2012 19:26

Pakistan power cuts prompt violent protests

Ramadan usually offers a respite from power cuts in Pakistan, but this year people have taken to the streets to protest against having had no electricity for up to 20 hours a day in temperatures soaring into the 40Cs.

Angry mobs demonstrated in the northern cities of Peshawar and Jhelum at the weekend, while in another incident outside Lahore, protesters blocked one of the country’s main arteries for four hours until the police arrived.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 30 Jul 2012 19:28

Johann wrote:
all this painting of Pakistan in Jinnah's colors is bunkum. If he was secular, it does not make Pakistan secular and if he was communal, it does not necessarily make Pakistan so. This practice of painting a country with its founder's colors is over hyped.
The Jinnah who fought for and created Pakistan 1937-47 did things the pre-1921 Jinnah consistently opposed and condemned.

I don't think talking about the old Jinnah in any way paints a Pakistan created through fear tactics(among Hindus and Muslims alike) and promises of theocracy as a secular entity.

Pakistan as an entity did not exist in the popular minds in the pre-1921 era. INC was strong and leading the independence struggle. Jinnah was quite clever to associate himslef with people who had a sway in the political arena of the time.

Johann wrote:
nakul wrote:Jinnah was happy to be in power. He wanted to be heard and given importance. Whether it was through INC, Muslim League, or Pakistan, he intended to be in power. This communal / secular are just garbs he wore that were required to be in power.

As long as Pakistan was not a surety, he stoked communal tension.
Nakul, I think you're right about him seeing himself as a natural leader.

On the other hand I haven't seen a single instance of Jinnah saying or doing anything communal before 1921. He was consistently anti-communal in his political actions.

In the 1930s and 1940s he was consistently communal in his political action.

Something fundamentally changed his value system. I don't think it was Islam, because its clear he never practiced.

Similar things happened to other people as well, but going the other direction. Abdul Kalam Azad went from being communal to secular in his politics, but remained a practicing Muslim and Islamic scholar throughout.

For a contrast you can look at the Ali brothers who led the Muslim League and Khilafat Committee. They used communal and secular language interchangeably, depending on what suited them. The only thing consistent at any one time was their inconsistency.

That was a master stroke by Jinnah. He knew that he would never be a Nehru or a Gandhi. His best chance to lay claim to power was by creating a seperate electorate for Muslims. An electorate which would be his kingdom as he was the most likely leader of the Muslim people. This electorate spawned the idea of a separate nation for Muslims. Not surprisingly, Jinnah went overboard and fought tooth and nail for it. He was a clever man and knew how to capture power. Unfortunately, leadership was his weakness and he could not think beyond acquiring power.

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 30 Jul 2012 19:31

Police: Fire kills four Pakistan TV Ramadan guests

Pakistan: Four television guests were killed reciting prayers during a live Ramadan broadcast in Pakistan on Monday, when fire gutted a studio in the eastern city of Lahore, police said.

An electricity short circuit sparked an inferno at the Koh-e-Noor channel building at 3:46 am (2246 GMT Sunday) as the programme, Sehri Transmission, was being aired to mark the pre-dawn meal eaten by Muslims during the holy fasting month.

"At least four local guests, who were participating in a religious programme, were killed and nine others wounded in the fire," local police official Omar Farooq told AFP.

Transmission was cut when the fire began.

Around 45 people, including crew and channel staff, had been in the studio but most managed to escape through emergency exits, police said.

"Our initial investigation reveals an electricity short-circuit as the chief cause of the fire but we are still investigating," Farooq said.

TV channel official Kamran Sarfaraz and a local rescue official confirmed the incident. - AFP

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 30 Jul 2012 19:38

Last but not the least, let us not forget that Jinnah was also a ethnic cleanser. His call to "Direct Action" led to butchering of hindus in 1000's in Bengal and other places. These were the first "partition riots" and the blame for that must go to Jinnah and also for all the subsequent rioting related death and destruction.

Only couple of weeks back there was this article in DailyTimes that Jinnah not once raised his voiced against the butchering and ethnic cleansing of Hindus and sikhs in Pakistan. Based on that there can only be one conclusion, Jinnah approved and supported the ethnic cleaning of hindus and sikhs.

This guy was evil.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Jul 2012 19:50

nakul wrote:He knew that he would never be a Nehru or a Gandhi.

In fact, they were, especially Gandhi was, his problem. M.A.Jinnah Esq enrolled as a barrister in Bombay High Court in 1896. His political mentors in Bombay were Dadabhai Naoroji & Phirozeshah Mehta who were big names in INC. And, later, it was Gopalakrishna Gokhale whom he admired so much that he said later that he wanted to be 'Muslim Gokhale'. He defended him passionately in the sedition case later. The very first INC session he attended was in 1904 in Mumbai, a full 12 years before Gandhiji had even set foot in India as a popular figure. Incidentally, Gokhale was also Gandhiji's political mentor. Gandhiji's popularity because of his activities in South Africa, preceded him to India. As Gandhiji's stature grew, through his travels to the length & breadth of India and his interaction with common folks (contrasted with Jinnah's high-end elitism), Jinnah felt sidelined. That was where his problems started.

His best chance to lay claim to power was by creating a seperate electorate for Muslims.

To be fair, that project of isolating the Muslims had started way earlier and the credit should go to many people.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 30 Jul 2012 20:12

One of the things that is interesting about Jinnah is that like Mahatma Gandhi came from a solidly middle class Gujarati trading family.

Neither of them had patrician, land-owning background, and used the mastery of the practice of law to bootstrap themselves to a level where they could treat those kinds of people as equals.

Perhaps that is why the old Jinnah like Gandhi after him was such a champion of universal education and literacy, and both relentlessly criticized the Raj for neglecting literacy.

What a contrast then to the Jinnah who took over Pakistan in 1947 with no commitment to social justice.

This is what I meant by a change in value systems - it wasn't merely the communal vs. secular thing. It was really every progressive cause that Jinnah had pursued for over half his life.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 30 Jul 2012 20:13

SSridhar wrote:Jinnah was a clever lawyer. That was all.

Clever or crafty or shrewd? Either way, he did us a huge favor.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 30 Jul 2012 20:16

Brad Goodman wrote:Police: Fire kills four Pakistan TV Ramadan guests
Pakistan: Four television guests were killed reciting prayers during a live Ramadan broadcast in Pakistan on Monday, when fire gutted a studio in the eastern city of Lahore, police said.

So, apparently Allah doesn't Insha with the pakis any more.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 30 Jul 2012 20:23

Gandhi ji did not become a Mahatma because he was a lawyer. His ability to touch the minds of the people and bring them to his level endeared him to the masses. He gave up a lot in life to achieve his goals.

Jinnah was a different person. He believed his education and intelligence made him superior to the people. It was ok for him to eat pork and consume wine and propound Islamism to further his cause.

This was clear even to people contemporary to them. Hence, the perception of Gandhi & Jinnah was very different. As a result, Jinnah was very vulnerable when his views did not align with Gandhis. It did not matter as long as his & Gandhi's goals appeared to be similar. But in the 1940s, Jinnah was able to ditch Gandhi and go on his own once he could assure himself support of a section of Indian society. It led to the 1947 massacre.

arun · Post by **arun** » 30 Jul 2012 21:30

Muns wrote:Conversion of Hindu Boy to Islam Was Broadcast Live on Pakistani Media (Video)

http://www.chakranews.com/conversion-of ... media/3048

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/WOR-SA ... 82158.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4n4y4Xv9Ao

A case of the Law of Karma coming into play and one despicable act on a Ramadan / Ramazan live television special in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan inviting retribution on another Ramadan / Ramazan live television special ?

Brad Goodman wrote:Police: Fire kills four Pakistan TV Ramadan guests

Pakistan: Four television guests were killed reciting prayers during a live Ramadan broadcast in Pakistan on Monday, when fire gutted a studio in the eastern city of Lahore, police said.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jul 2012 21:56

Pakistan reaches out to India!

Passage to peace

It is reciprocal efforts like these from Pakistan that make me feel that it is worth it supplying electricity, rolling back AFSPA, increasing visas for Pakistanis and resuming full fledged cricketing ties. I know India is on the right track.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 30 Jul 2012 22:33

shiv wrote:Pakistan reaches out to India!

Passage to peace

It is reciprocal efforts like these from Pakistan that make me feel that it is worth it supplying electricity, rolling back AFSPA, increasing visas for Pakistanis and resuming full fledged cricketing ties. I know India is on the right track.

Lead on Shiv birather. We are all behind you. Long live pak-india friendship. Sharia for all.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Jul 2012 22:35

anupmisra wrote:
SSridhar wrote:Jinnah was a clever lawyer. That was all.
Clever or crafty or shrewd? Either way, he did us a huge favor.

Only Paqqi keep talking about the partition while Indians have moved on to the extent of thanking Jinnah for this huge favor. Had Jinnah not succeeded, India would have been a real Sink hole .47 was meant for making clear physical boundary lines between Dharma and Adharma, fruitful way of righteous, constructive life and destructive, sinful Tamasic life. Presently, os second stage, these distinctive lines are now being marked on the mind of Indians. In third stage, Indians will want the land back, recover the loss and try to remove the Paap of Paaq..

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 30 Jul 2012 22:37

Jinnah, before he was born was a staunch nationalist, secularist and universal humanist who strived for Indian ans communal unity. After he was born everything changed. Something must have happened to change the views of such a great man.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Jul 2012 22:40

anupmisra wrote:
shiv wrote: It is reciprocal efforts like these from Pakistan that make me feel that it is worth it supplying electricity, rolling back AFSPA, increasing visas for Pakistanis and resuming full fledged cricketing ties. I know India is on the right track.
Lead on Shiv birather. We are all behind you. Long live pak-india friendship. Sharia for all.

Nehru Did Air Yatra, Vajpayee did Bus Yatra, MMS will do the Tunnel Yatra to meet and greet the Paqqitelians.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 30 Jul 2012 22:49

Anujan wrote:Jinnah, before he was born was a staunch nationalist, secularist and universal humanist who strived for Indian ans communal unity. After he was born everything changed. Something must have happened to change the views of such a great man.

I can name a few like them in History. Adolf Hitler,Joseph Stalin come on top of the list.
Some of the worst things in human history have been done with best intentions in mind

saip · Post by **saip** » 30 Jul 2012 22:56

shiv wrote:Pakistan reaches out to India!

Passage to peace

It is reciprocal efforts like these from Pakistan that make me feel that it is worth it supplying electricity, rolling back AFSPA, increasing visas for Pakistanis and resuming full fledged cricketing ties. I know India is on the right track.

Lead on Shiv birather. We are all behind you. Long live pak-india friendship. Sharia for all.

No point in sending protests. They should have kept quiet, sent some pigs (not the real ones but the machines) loaded with TNT and blown up the tunnel taking down real pigs on Paki side.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 30 Jul 2012 23:12

Impressive tunnels have been built in US mexico border, complete with air conditioning, telephones and supports every 1 meter or so. Was wondering when Pakis will start doing the same.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 30 Jul 2012 23:17

these tunnels should have been mined and video surveillance enabled and blow it up wehn the pigs are in