Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hijackers at large....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Hijackers at large....

    If the hijackers are in deed pakistani natinals, and are currently in pakistan , what should the government do?
    Should we abide by the principals of international law , and apprehend them?
    What image does the current government , which is already on shaky grounds, portray, by not doing anyhting about it.
    Is this really what we want to be....a state that does what it did in Kargil( Its not a comment on kashmir issue, but the way we have handled it) and allows terrorists to breed on her land and provides asylem to those who break simple rules of moral conduct. Where does Islam tell us to cheat, as we did in Kargil( by signing contracts of friendship on one hand and breaking its spirit at the same time...This is back stabbing. Lets call a spade, a spade), and where does Islam teaches us to endanger innocent lives??? where does islam say that everything is right in war? where does islam say that the enemies conduct should determine our own? ( i am saying this because I can already hear ppl screaing about indian atrocities in kashmir).
    Its bad enough that clueless government is handling things so poorly , but its worst when , we as ppl , instead of pointing it out , spend all our energies rationalizing it.
    Please write your thoughts without involving india in teh discussion. I am not interested in india , or how Pakistan compares to her...We know right from wrong and want us to apply those principles on our conduct.

    #2
    I am only interested in UNO security council's resolution on Kashmir. Period!

    Fata Morgana

    Comment


      #3
      Fata,
      Kashmir is not the point of this post.

      Comment


        #4
        Only Kashmir! Nothing else! Take it or leave it.

        Fata Morgana

        Comment


          #5
          Nova you are assuming that the hijackers are in Pakistan. Till it is proven that they are and by some credible authorities, i.e. other than the Indian government and their media, your question is hypothetical.

          you also wrote "where does islam say that everything is right in war? where does islam say that the enemies conduct should determine our own? ( i am saying this because I can already hear ppl screaing about indian atrocities in kashmir)."

          Where does Islam says that just sit by idly and get raped and murdered by one of the most brutal trigger happy force in the world.

          Comment


            #6
            Indians are demanding the hijackers

            Americans are demanding to sign CTBT

            British are demanding time-frame for democracy

            IMF is demanding GST etc

            World Bank is demanding lots of unprecedented reforms in Pak

            Kofi Anan is demanding democracy in Pak while his UNO is not democratic

            Russia is accusing Pak fighting in Chechnya

            Jeez, world is asking too much from Pakistan. They think we are crazy. LOL

            Where our piece of the pie on the earth is?

            Fata Morgana

            Comment


              #7
              ehsan,
              There are rules about everything... its not Islamic to sign accord and at the same time stab in the back...remember the huddaibbya accord between prophet and meccans( after which prophet refused to grant asylam to meccans who would convert, as this was part of teh deal)....Islam or any other religion does not allow involvement of innocent ppl....We have to judge ourselves by our own standards, ,,If prophet had dealt with the non believers in the same fashion , there waouldnt have been any difference between the two.
              P.S my intention was not to get ppl to defend pakistan , its for us to recognize our mistakes, so that we can improve. If oyu dont see any mistake in Pkai conduct , you can never improve pakistan from its current situation.
              Fata,
              The child who is the naughtiest gets to hear the most "dont do tahts" .
              if we were doing things appropriately , no one would need to say all those things..
              There is a saying in urdu...zubaan e khal'q koo Naqarra e khuda samjhoo.....i.e If one person calls you a donkey , pay thee no mind , , , if two ppl call you a donkey , get thyself a saddle....

              Comment


                #8
                Nove, you should not waste your time and energy in useless activities. Read below the General Musharraf's interview:

                India must trust me, says Gen. Musharraf


                By Malini Parthasarathy

                ISLAMABAD, JAN. 16. General Pervez Musharraf, Chief Executive of Pakistan's military-led Government, has said that India's attitude of questioning the legitimacy of his regime and its consequent reticence to engage him diplomatically, is not in the interest of progress in bilateral relations. Pakistan's new military ruler, in an exclusive interview to The Hindu, the first ever given to an Indian newspaper since he took power last October, pointed out that other countries were now ``coming around'' and had understood the compulsions of Pakistan's internal situation. ``Therefore, I would request now that Indians, in the interest of peace, if they carry on thinking that this Government is not legitimate when the whole of Pakistan are with us, 130 million people are with us...I don't know what to say..we won't progress anywhere.. the reality of the situation must be understood.'' While affirming that he was for peace in the region, he also specifically said that India should take him ``at face value'' and that ``they have to trust me and that whatever I am saying, I mean, and they have to come along.''

                General Musharraf, who spoke to this newspaper for about 55 minutes last Saturday morning at his office in Islamabad, made clear that contrary to the perceptions of him as a hardliner and nay-sayer on peace initiatives, he was in favour of bilateral talks, provided the core issue of Kashmir was specifically addressed. ``We have been trying all kinds of bus diplomacy and cricket diplomacy and everything. Why has all of it failed? It has failed because the core issue was not being addressed...because there is only one dispute, the Kashmir dispute...others are just aberrations, minor differences of opinion which can be resolved.'' He said that India must accept that Kashmir was a dispute. ``Let them accept that we need to resolve it. And we should start talking.'' He also refuted the impression created by earlier remarks that he had said that there was a change in policy and that Kashmir would have to be discussed first before all other issues. Maintaining that he was not against a simultaneous discussion of all issues, if Kashmir was given priority in emphasis, he said he was against the ``apologetic'' tone of the references to the Kashmir dispute in the Lahore agreement. ``I am not saying that we need to immediately resolve Kashmir. I am saying that we need to start a dialogue on Kashmir, we need to accept Kashmir as a problem and start a dialogue and simultaneously let us discuss everything else. I am open to discussion on every other thing. What is the problem?''

                Insisting that he had no problem with the existing frameworks for bilateral discussion such as the Shimla agreement and the Lahore accord, he maintained that bilateralism had failed because the main issue, the Kashmir dispute had been ``sidelined''. He made clear that he was ``not really against bilateralism or talking with India on a bilateral basis... that is a good way of addressing if the two side... the two belligerents are realistic... it shows maturity that both sides resolve their disputes themselves...'' But since 1972, had the two countries addressed the main dispute? ``Okay, today, I am saying, let's start bilaterally. Let's address all issues, Kashmir and other issues... I'm forthcoming. I will agree on talks, let's face facts and let's adhere to the Shimla accord... the only thing I am saying is, let's not please sideline Kashmir because that is the only dispute.''

                Pakistan's Chief Executive strongly rejected suggestions that Pakistan was providing support and cover for acts of terrorism such as the recent hijacking of the Indian Airlines flight from Kathmandu. Asked why his Government could not offer constructive cooperation when presented with leads that the five hijackers, identified by the Indian Government as Pakistani nationals, were in Pakistan, General Musharraf said: ``They are not in Pakistan, I categorically deny this statement... and if they are in Pakistan, we will surely proceed against them according to the law... we do not support hijacking at all... we are against all forms of terrorism and hijacking is one form of terrorism... we abhor it and we will not let the terrorists come to Pakistan.'' When it was pointed out that one hijacker had been identified as Ibrahim, brother of the released Harkat-ul-Mujahideen militant, Masood Azhar, and was therefore a Pakistani national, General Musharraf said that he did not know whether that was the case. ``So say the Indians, but as I have said, we haven't spoken to them (the hijackers), we haven't met them, we haven't seen them. Now whoever is the hijacker, whatever the relationship with any one, we are against it... we will not allow it and he'll be put on trial if he comes to Pakistan.''

                Asked whether he had received suggestions from the United States and other powers to ban and clamp down on the various terrorist groups involved in the Kashmir insurgency, General Musharraf said that he had received no such suggestions. However, he did discuss the issue of terrorism with the group of U.S. Senators who had been visiting Pakistan that weekend. ``We are absolutely and totally against terrorism of any form, export of terrorism or using religion for the purpose of terrorism... if any group is involved in terrorism, I accept that this will not be allowed from the soil of Pakistan.''

                Significantly, General Musharraf made clear that he was hurt by the tenor of Indian diplomacy, particularly the campaign to get Pakistan declared a terrorist state. In a reference to the External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh's trip to London, he said: ``This diplomacy that is being carried on...your Foreign Minister is in the United Kingdom, maybe to undercut this Government or to malign this Government, to try to get it declared a terrorist state... if they want to continue like this... tension will continue... and I may also add that I am not one of those that when you keep receiving all this flak from across the border, I keep sitting and turn my other cheek.''

                Asked whether in the context of Kargil and the continuing tensions, including the fact of the nuclear status of both countries, temporary confidence-building measures could not be put in place, General Musharraf said that these would look ``like a farce''. As a former Director-General of Military Operations, he could say that these were ``really cosmetic'' and hardly served any purpose. ``Confidence-building measures without addressing the root cause is just like plucking a leaf from a tree. You go to the root or otherwise it is not going to serve a purpose.''

                General Musharraf expressed dismay over media reports portraying him as creating hurdles when the Prime Minister, Mr. A. B. Vajpayee, had come to Wagah last year and said categorically that he had discussed the modalities of the entire affair earlier with the former Prime Minister, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, and it had been decided that while Mr. Sharif would receive Mr. Vajpayee at Wagah, he along with the other service chiefs were the first to receive Mr. Vajpayee when he got off his helicopter in Lahore and had later met him again at the Governor's House in Lahore. The Chief Executive also strongly refuted the perception that he was the main architect of the Kargil episode. The former Prime Minister was also involved in it, he said. ``Everyone was on board, I still stand by it, whatever was happening in Kargil, everyone knew what was happening.''

                Asked whether the direct takeover of power by the Army in Pakistan would make a resolution of India-Pakistan differences easier than when political administrations were at the helm, General Musharraf's reply was ``Yes, absolutely.'' He went on to draw a parallel with the BJP's rule in Delhi. ``Even on the Indian side, when the intelligentsia talks of who could address the Kashmir problem, one always thought it would be the BJP, although the BJP are the hardliners... one always thought here that maybe Congress would not be able to address the Kashmir issue, the BJP can.''

                Is the U.S. President, Mr. Bill Clinton, visiting Pakistan when he comes to South Asia? Denying that there was any such stated or implied linkage between the presidential visit and a timetable for a return to democracy, General Musharraf, however, said it would have to be made clear as to what the U.S. President was coming here for. ``If the President is coming for bringing a rapprochement between India and Pakistan or bringing peace to the region... if he is coming to contribute towards the lessening of tensions... then I really don't see how this objective can be achieved without going to both India and Pakistan. But if he is just coming for some economic cooperation... then that is a different issue altogether.''

                We'll bring democracy

                On the crucial issue of when and how Pakistan would return to a democratic system of Government, General Musharraf questioned the premise of ``return'' to democracy as there had not been any democracy existing in Pakistan before October. ``There was no democracy here. We will bring democracy and this will take some time. The time-frame cannot be given, it's not possible because before returning to civil rule, there are certain prerequisites.'' These, he identified as stabilising the economy and improving governance. He also affirmed that the idea of a referendum, envisaged earlier, had now been given up as it would be ``a total distraction'' from the main issues facing the Government. Asked whether this meant the Army would have a permanent role in the Pakistani political system, General Musharraf said that unlike in India, the military was involved in nation-building, and to say that the military did not have a role, when it always had, would be ``hypocrisy''. Would he implement a sentence of death penalty if the former Prime Minister, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, was awarded one after conviction? The General's reply was: ``I can't answer that. Let the courts decide first. And then when I am faced with the issue, I will deliberate on it... but I am not a very vindictive man...''

                Fata Morgana

                Comment


                  #9
                  >>If the hijackers are in deed pakistani natinals, and are currently in pakistan , what should the government do?<<
                  Hang íem as the law says.

                  What image does the current government , which is already on shaky grounds, portray, by not doing anyhting about it.
                  Why is this hijack so important for us, we didnít plan that. This hijack is not important for the Gov. of Pak; it has no effect on a common Pakistani life. Plus if India doesnít feel for thousands of Muslims being killed in Kash and in Asia, for to mention the whole world, well Pak should do the same.

                  >>Is this really what we want to be....a state that does what it did in Kargil( Its not a comment on kashmir issue, but the way we have handled it) and allows terrorists to breed on her land and provides asylem to those who break simple rules of moral conduct. <<
                  NO, this is not what we want to be, or want to do, thatís why weíre not that and didnít do that.

                  >>Where does Islam tell us to cheat, as we did in Kargil( by signing contracts of friendship on one hand and breaking its spirit at the same time...This is back stabbing. Lets call a spade, a spade), and where does Islam teaches us to endanger innocent lives??? <<

                  No where. Rest of your questions about Islam are interesting too, however why are you asking about what Islam has to say about them? As far as Iíve understood the situation, none with a brain has said that the hijack had any Islamic back up.

                  I think we both can agree upon that everyone is innocent till proven otherwise, so why have so many Indians not only here but generally said that those Kashmiris should be killed, without a trail? What religion, now that weíre bringing it up, allows that?


                  >>Its bad enough that clueless government is handling things so poorly , but its worst when , we as ppl , instead of pointing it out , spend all our energies rationalizing it.<<

                  I think most of us didnít try to rationalize it, till we finally accepted that no matter what we say, none will accept our sympathy, and will keep pointing fingers at us. I believe in pointing out the mistakes, and learning from them, however not at any cost, if our guess can do more harm to our nation, then I personally would like to keep my moth shut, canít say about others. During the hijack drama, not one Indian even accepted that there might be a chance for Indiaís involvement, and look at Pakistanis Ė so many of us thought that we had a hand in it, and some still does.

                  >>Please write your thoughts without involving india in teh discussion. I am not interested in india , or how Pakistan compares to her...We know right from wrong and want us to apply those principles on our conduct.<<

                  Itís kind of difficult to say anything about hijack without mentioning India, but if youíre are asking whether or not we as a nation should condemn such activities, then if you had followed Pak new on TV, youíd see common Pakistani male and female doing so. Despite the fact that Kashimiries are in situation much worse then the hijack, and no Indian has expressed at least not here, there sympathies for them or other Muslims.

                  Ehhh sorry for my tone in this post, I just believe that ítali dono hathoN se bajti haií and India ko ab hath aage ker lena chahiye.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Heres my question
                    Where did India get the passport photos of the hijackers?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      They new about hijackers even before the actual negotiation started. Remember when Plane was in Lahore, an Indian official claimed that all the hijackers are Pakistani. They also claimed that they have solid prove that PIA transfered these hijackers form one of their flight to Nepal. Now they claiming that all the Hijackers were send by those 4 guys they arrested in India. I guess they have too many solid proof in their drawer but are affraid to show it to everbody.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Nova you did not answer my question, instead skirted around the issue? Please read my previous post and answer the question about the Kashmiris.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Nova says:

                          Is this really what we want to be....a state that does what it did in Kargil( Its not a comment on kashmir issue, but the way we have handled it) and allows terrorists to breed on her land and provides asylem to those who break simple rules of moral conduct. Where does Islam tell us to cheat, as we did in Kargil( by signing contracts of friendship on one hand and breaking its spirit at the same time...This is back stabbing. Lets call a spade, a spade), and where does Islam teaches us to endanger innocent lives??? where does islam say that everything is right in war? where does islam say that the enemies conduct should determine our own? ( i am saying this because I can already hear ppl screaing about indian atrocities in kashmir).
                          Firstly what is a terrorist and can you give me any examples of a successful nation today that does not indulge in terrorism?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Switzerland
                            P.S. examples of unsuccessful countries that practice terrorism are too numerous to mention, leading ones being pakistan and Afghanistan.

                            [This message has been edited by ZZ (edited January 17, 2000).]

                            Comment


                              #15
                              It depends how one interprets terrorism to its own advantage.

                              Bill Gates is a terrorist if you ask his competitors Netscape, Linux or other computermakers.

                              Ask jewsish people of nazi Germany, Switzerland is what now is due the terror it exercized on jewish gold/deposits who perished in holocaust.

                              US asking Pak to sign CTBT is a form of terror!

                              UNO Security Council's veto powers are terrorists against smaller & vetoless countries.

                              The list can go on and on and on...

                              It is not that you kill or terrorize people/things, its the WAY how you do it.

                              Fata Morgana

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X