if our politicians are awake they will resort to diplomacy....she was talking anti-indian in her last speech but they should ignore that and appreciate her. tell pakistan we would like to help them. Its time we appreciate democracy...
RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by siddharth rahalkar on Dec 27, 2007 10:33 PM Permalink
On a serious note it seems its a slap on George Bush Jr. His party will suffer as all the forign affairs handled by him have gone bad. Its bad for his party. India, thanks to CPM, didnt sign 123. Then just 12 days before elections in pak, bhutto is killed. Its a slap for US diplomats. If we offer to help pakistan restore democracy we will have a diplomatic advancement in the world politics.
RE:RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by Bihar Badshah on Dec 27, 2007 10:54 PM Permalink
India-Israel-US-Russia and West should form a task force stationed in Afghanistan and Kashmir and once we know that Pakistan has got out of hand, step in and take over the Nuclear Bomb or diffuse it....World is not safe with Nuclear arsenal lying in a Rogue state..
RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by siddharth rahalkar on Dec 27, 2007 10:55 PM Permalink
If we talk from the position of authority to pak and show that our intention is to help them, it will help us negotiate border issues as US will put a pressure on them Right now US and Pak both are weak for different reasons. if we show our diplomacy now we will definitely become superpower and that too much ahead of our expectation. as we will rule diplomatically we will rarely need to show our defence capability
RE:RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by Brendan DeCruz on Dec 27, 2007 11:27 PM Permalink
dude, its not sympathy...its about a brave woman who ventured forth towards her death in the face of muslim extremism...she has 1000000 times more guts than all our dumb politicains...can anyone deny that.....agreed she was partly responsible for taliban and all.....but still i admire her guts.....
RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by Rocky Balboa on Dec 27, 2007 11:41 PM Permalink
not guts dude....just opportunistic politics... why did she take this step ONLY when nawaz shariff entered pak? why was she under this self imposed exile running away from homeland? and when she sensed that there might be a deal brokered to come into power may be with mush or with nawaz,she came back running! these politicans are one and the same....india ..pak or america.....doesnt matter... lets not see this as her guts
RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by siva kumar on Dec 27, 2007 10:32 PM Permalink
Benazir is an immatured politician who is not capable of ruling a complicated country such as pakistan. Pakistanis have not tasted democracy since their inception and they dont have any idea of democracy of freedom. The problem with pakistanis or all muslims are that they put religion above personal freedom and democracy, and ready forgo those features in the name of religion. That is why they have not rebelled against dictatorship like the people of a tiny country like Nepal. They never will.
RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by siddharth rahalkar on Dec 27, 2007 10:41 PM Permalink
anything that is weak or immature and in your opposition is good in politics. she is a great loss for us. even in her last speach she focussed on india and not on democracy restoration in pak.
RE:RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by siddharth rahalkar on Dec 27, 2007 10:48 PM Permalink
if you dont understand what i am talking about then its better you listen or talk to someone else. there is no compulsion to join here.
RE:RE:RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by Brendan DeCruz on Dec 27, 2007 11:25 PM Permalink
batman,,,, seems ur brains also blew up with the blast... I am not for helping pak.. but a destabilised pak cud be very dangerous to india....got that shithead...
RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by Shaleen Sharan on Dec 27, 2007 11:06 PM Permalink
I agree with Siddharth. It's time for us to be bothered about someone besides ourselves. Pakistan were also a part of us at one time.
RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by Brendan DeCruz on Dec 27, 2007 10:38 PM Permalink
SIVE DUDE, ABSOLUTELY CORRECT..... THIS VIOLENCE AND JIHADI CULTURE IS INGRAINED IN THE PAKIS.... I WONDER WHICH GOD SUPPORTS SUCH ACTIVITIES....
RE:RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by siddharth rahalkar on Dec 27, 2007 10:37 PM Permalink
We need peace in pakistan to keep our peace. As we have a weak govt border issues from pak and bangladesh are going to create threats. instability is going to ruin us as we are not naturally inclined towards aggression(exceptions like Indira or Vajpayee are not in power). SO its better manmohan acts now on his own rather than react to border issues later on.
RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by siddharth rahalkar on Dec 27, 2007 10:46 PM Permalink
batman, destabilise is a very big word. before that disturbance will come. we have lost so many soldiers on border because of our stupid policies. its not what you have , but what you do with what you have. last but not the least it will be a nuisance if they are not stable. and if they are not envious of our democracy or the growth then i will be surprised. to answer your question i am not out of mind.
RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by Brendan DeCruz on Dec 27, 2007 11:22 PM Permalink
i think ur a dick.... we all know the trouble pak creates for us...our intelligence services are so pathetic that a destabilised pak.. will mean hell for us... these terrorists will wreak greater havoc on india..... forget superpower, first think of safety...
RE:sympathy is not required diplomac y is !!
by Raj Kumar on Dec 27, 2007 11:12 PM Permalink
when there is a criminal act, the world should be there to control the stupit people.
Sad to see historic people killed in street. Bad governance.
in hinduism, it is said that no bad words for the departed soul, but she till the end was not different than other politicians in pakistan, listen to her last address on INDIA TV LIVE, she was talking anti india, what else can happen to the person who herself had contaversial kashmir policies, who was always pro-ISI and pro_taliban once upon a time. same thing may happen with musharraf, now better he too start searching better place for himself to rest!
RE:hmmmm
by akil motiwala on Dec 27, 2007 10:25 PM Permalink
you just summed up my feeling..well said..and very true.lets not forget that she was the PM..when terrorist activities in pakistan and punjab was supported by PAK..
RE:hmmmm
by akil motiwala on Dec 27, 2007 10:25 PM Permalink
you just summed up my feeling..well said..and very true.lets not forget that she was the PM..when terrorist activities in pakistan and punjab was supported by PAK..
RE:hmmmm
by sreedhar s on Dec 27, 2007 11:40 PM Permalink
Dr. Jeevan, I just have a point here.. May be that Benazir was afraid of ISI and other radical muslims. She might not have the strength to oppose the evil designs of pakistan army. So, all those factors forced her to be anti-Inida. Remember one thing... pakistan army will never allow to end the disputes between India and Pak.
RE:hmmmm
by Dr. Jeevan PATIL. on Dec 27, 2007 11:49 PM Permalink
thanks for your view but I would have got convinced if she was not saying anti india in today's rally and in her last speech where in already she was determined to fight extrimists in pakistan and afghanistan. if she wanted to fight them out then why to mention to idiot pakistani muslims the birth story of bangladesh??? her intentions were clearly anti india, even when i agreee on ur views, one cannot ignore she was anti india till her last breath!!
Pakistan NEEDS to give back Waziristan region back to Afghanistan as they should have after Durand line 100 year treaty expired in 1990s (like Hong Kong went back to china). This will eliminate the excuse mushraf uses to why pak military cannot go there (autonomous region) and NATO cannot come into (Pakistan territory). Pakistan grabbed this land after treaty expired and called it a autonomous region . It needs to give it back as it should have in the first place. Then NATO can go in and clean the place out, local pashtuns will like that too.
RE:Benazir Dead
by Satish Jadhav on Dec 27, 2007 10:52 PM Permalink
People like Wasim Haider are blot on India. You only show respectability. Our condolonses are not with Pakis/Bhutto's family but with those innocents who were killed/raped/exiled in J and K during Benazir's regime.
RE:Benazir Dead
by Kaushik Das on Dec 27, 2007 10:12 PM Permalink
This is a good point - however, there is a subtle difference. Bhutto was known to be a liberal and being western educated, promoted democracy. . In her reign, pakistan was more stable. However, in those days, the unmitigated resolve of pakistan was to destroy India and benazir, apparently, was helpless in that regard. Therefore, it is a fact that she was a party to the islamist forces that were born and bred in pakistan. For that issue, her death need not be mourned and in fact, she seems to have justly met the fate of so many Indians, civilian and soldierly, killed by terrorists she supported. . But other than that one facet, she was considered a better influence on the otherwise violent pakistan - this way, she contributed to India indirectly by stabilising pakistan and improving perceptible relations. In this, there is nothing wrong with mourning her death (especially congressis mourning the death of rajiv gandhi's friend).
RE:Benazir Dead
by siva kumar on Dec 27, 2007 09:58 PM Permalink
Absolutely right... Pakistan was created on negative feelings. They considered Indians as their enemies without valid reasons. They bred violence and hatred against India. Their only motive was destruction of India. All leaders including Benazir created and bred terrorists to create trouble in India. When those terrorists perpetrated violence and killings in India all their leaders watched silently with satisfaction and happiness. Benazir lagged in no way in promoting terrorism against India. If their motive of destroying India was justified, Allah or any God would have helped them in their mission. Bhutto, the father who promised to wage a thousand year war was hanged like a dog. Zia ul Haq who hanged Bhutto got killed by his colleagues. Today Benazir the daughter is killed in open. Musharraf who planned Kargil war is living with the fear of getting killed at any moment. They all defied Dharma and meeting the fate decided by Karma. There is nothing to mourn or feel sorry for their end and condition of Pakistan.
THE GENERAL PERCEPTION IN INDIA IS THAT MUSHARRAF IS ANTI- INDIA AND THAT HE IS THE ENEMY. MOST OF THEM HAVE GOT IT WRONG. MUSHARRAF IS REQUIRED FOR BETTERMENT OF INDIA.
MUSHARRAF IS FROM AGRA AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THE STATE ARE FROM INDIA. THEY WANT PEACE WITH INDIA. THEY CANNOT COULD NOT SAY IT OPENLY AGAINST THE MAJORITY WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN.
THE TERRORSIT WERE CREATED BY US TO COUNTER THE RUSSIAN.BUT HISTORY SAYS THAT ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN POWER(LIKE OOSAMA BY US)TO SHOOT IS UNWILLING TO GIVE AWAY THE POWER. AFTER THE RUSSIAN WERE OUT OOSAMA AND CO DID NOT GIVE AWAY THIER POWER AND US NOW ARE WITNESS TO THEIR POWER (9/11).THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE LTTE NOT GIVING AWAY ITS POWER.
WAZIRISTAN IS A TRIBAL AREA AND THE TRIBALS WERE RULLING THE SAME WITH KALASHNIKOV RIFLES.THE POLICE DID NOT TREAD IN THERE SINCE DEMOCRACY OF 1947. THE US WANTED TO CLEAN THIS AREA AND FORCED MUSHARRAF TO SEND IN THE ARMY THERE WHICH HAS BACKFIRED ON MUSHARAF'S POPULARITY. NXT...THE LAL MASJID EPISODE TOTALLY POLARISED THE PUNJABIS AND THE PATHANS AGAINST MUSHARRAF.
RE:Understand the situation of pakistan
by Vasanth Srinivas on Dec 27, 2007 09:50 PM Permalink
"MUSHARRAF IS REQUIRED FOR BETTERMENT OF INDIA" - A betterment like Kargil...? Dont fool yourself and try to fool yourself.
RE:Understand the situation of pakistan
by Gazanfar Z Azmi on Dec 27, 2007 10:01 PM Permalink
I stand by my statement and is a first hand findings. In Pakistan ,amongst the RICH and the Nouveau rich and the famous, they love Musharraf for what he has done for a living and how he has given them freedom to live.
It is the Extremist and terrorist there in pakistan who hate Musharraf. It is the Punjabis's and the pathans who own the terror taps who hate Musharraf and are doing all the things required to remove him.
RE:RE:Understand the situation of pakistan
by Gazanfar Z Azmi on Dec 27, 2007 10:03 PM Permalink
* adding to above"the Indian media is also hyper and does not forsee what is happening in Pakistan.They are catering to what the general Indian people would love to here."
RE:Understand the situation of pakistan
by Bihar Badshah on Dec 27, 2007 10:35 PM Permalink
Azmi Saheb, Musharraf may have been doing good for poor Pakis etc, why should I (Indian) be too much excited about it, or why will you be so concerned about it, his blood is still soaked with our Kargil Jawans khoon...and he was very very strong just 1 year back, so what fear are you talking about....First of all tell us about ur vision, do you believe in Pan Islamization or you believe coutry comes first then religion..No point in hiding ur real feeling..because then the debate will be more meanigful..Regards
RE:Understand the situation of pakistan
by Gazanfar Z Azmi on Dec 27, 2007 11:03 PM Permalink
Dear Bihar Badshah,The biggets problem with many Hindus like you is their dual personality. If you are a born Hindu then you are a nationalist however big a criminal you are like Chhota Rajan and if youa re a Muslims howver nationalist you are,you have to prove you are a nationalist
I feel very sorry for the country of Pakistan as she was their face to the outside world and I hope peace prevails there as violence in Pakistan will only be an insult to her soul and legacy
