Gen.(retd) Shahid Aziz - the new 'darling' of the media

[Xeric]

i think i already covered all the points that All Green has so beautifully emphasized.

Generals (or for that matter anyone one the executive seat) are not 'yes-men'. Even if they are as such they are doing it wrong.

i quoted the example from history (Fredrick) to make this point home, but unfortunately it didnt get through!

Had the COAS asked a captain a question but then had disagreed to the Captain's suggestion, yes the COAS can bloody well can do that, but when he is talking to his 'pillars', he cant sway much!

i wonder how absurd your analysis could get when you said that Musharraf didnt ask ANYTHING from his generals and just did what he though was right. Buddy if that was the case it would imply that ALL of the 9 CCs were against the COAS, then what do you think, who was providing the COAS the strength (the military backing as you put it) that a COAS would have?? The Brigade Commanders may be....!!!

As i suggested earlier that you need to harness your 'extrapolating quality' as it might get you in trouble.

As for your doubt that you have regarding the SSG hereos, i think you didnt read what i posted in that thread! Or may be if you had, you didnt have the heart to counter it?!

And lastly, a person who admire people like NS, well that says it all!

 

[qsaark]

Please--you are an educated and an intelligent man---please don't compare Nawaz not bowing in front of americans regarding nuc tests---has nothing in common between the two issues---you can go tell it to some illeterate idiot in the village, but not here please.

”Illiterate idiot in the village not here”, hum, so the villagers are illiterate idiots, this much respect you have for 70% population of Pakistan, very interesting! Was that not you who once called Rasool Allah (PBUH) a bhagora? You made his exodus (hijrat) his ‘escape’? So I know I am talking to whom and what to be expect when there is no answer to the question I raise.

Most of our nuc program was due to the blessings offered by the u s of a---they had looked the other way as we developed our program.

The blessing was not US’s, the blessing was Afghan war and excellent diplomacy of General Zia and people like Sahibzada Yaqoob Khan. It was never in the interest of America that Pakistan becomes a nuclear power. So indeed, there was much of a pressure, from all kinds of incentives to all kinds of threats on NS not to go for a nuclear test. You don’t have to twist the facts; even Clinton and several other Americans officials have written about those days and admitted that NS did not bow down.

Please stop this crap of democratically elected or not democratically elected---pakistanis brag about democratically elected and snub non democratically elected---

And you stop this pro-dictatorship crap. I am surprised what the hell you are doing in the US? Should you not be found in places like Burma, or North Korea?

Let me ask all of you---if your two years old son was seriouly ill---and there were no legally available antibiotics available---the only thing that you could lay your hand on was smuggeld---suppose smuggling was the worst possible crime in the country that you lived in---I am pretty sure, all of you would find a way for the shot for your child.

Totally irrelevant analogy; who says there was no legally available alternatives? The most legal alternative was to call for a vote of no-confidence; The President could have advised the PM to dissolve the National Assembly; but whom I am telling this, a pro-dictatorship person who simply can’t think outside a dictatorial setup.

Just because the president is not demcratically elected does not mean that the nation must automatically go enroute of civil disobedience. Regardless of legal or illegal---pakistan had the oppurtunity of making something out of nothing---that is of utmost importance. There is a time and place for everything.

Why not? Some one occupies your home and you are expecting your family member to keep quite over it? With your analogy, and oppressor must never be defended right? And your pro-American, pro-dictatorship posts are all witness to your mindset.

Secondly, the current president of pakistan r Zardari is illegal. Amin Fahimn was the chairperson of the pppp---he had the righful position to make the decision.

This you tell to the leadership of the PPP not me. I have nothing to do with the internal politics of the PPP.

You bring Bhutto into this fray---the man responcible for the 71 scenario---to be the premier he split pakistan into two parts---the first civilian admin of martial law---and your hero Nawaz---would get on his knees in front of I K Gujral---please help me---my army is doing this---they are not in my control---oh I forgot---Bhutto---killer of the baluchis in 73---that Bhutto you are talking about.

You are again twisting an turning the facts; Mr. Mastan, you are not talking to a uneducated person, I know history and very well too. Who was the President of Pakistan? Yahya or Bhutto? Who had to invite the majority leader (Mr. Mujib in this case) to form the Government? Yahya or Bhutto? If Yahya had invited Mr. Mujib to form the government as per legal requirement, who could have stopped him? Bhutto? If Yahya could unleash a Tikka Khan on Bengalis, could he have not find another Tikka Khan to keep Bhutto and his party in control?

As far as killing of one ethnicity goes, Yahya has lot more blood of innocent Bengalis on his hand than Bhutto has of Balochs.

You didn't see Clinton's interview in 1999 on Larry King---I doubt it---Clinton stated that Nawaz sat in front of him---very apologetic and head bowed down---and shook his head in agreement at every issue that Clinton brought up.

Who made him act like that? His CinC who went on a utter misadventure without taking him or even most of the CCs, the Chiefs of the Air Force and Navy. Got it? NS had nothing done that he would have to act apologetically, it was his rogue Generals who put him in that weak position.

Q---when Musharraf came up with the martial law---one of the able CM of pakistan came to my brother's house and asked him to let his female family members stay with him---because he was afraid that the military was coming to kill him---you can make a wild guess as to who the CM was---.

I can’t guess as I do not know in which place your brother lives. At any rate, I don’t understand what you wanted to make from mentioning this.

Q, I understand your nationalistic zeal and fervor---but there is more to the scenery than what meets the eye.

You understand nothing about me or my zeal else your response would have been based on logic not personal likeness and dis-likeness.

 

[qsaark]

Unfortunately it is not only Xeric that thinks like that, most of the sensible people here also do so.

Now i dont know; either we ALL are mad or may be only YOU have a problem!

Unfortunately, there appear to be 22,172 member of this forum and so far only 4-5 appear to think like you do. If you call these five the ‘sensible people’ what about 22,167? They are all insensible people? So five vs one is not that bad a ration, it is quote possible that on this particular issue, five are mad and the one is not. So nice try, but next time, try to do a little better math.

i think i already covered all the points that All Green has so beautifully emphasized.

All Green is a respectable member, but it does not mean that everything he says is correct.

Generals (or for that matter anyone one the executive seat) are not 'yes-men'. Even if they are as such they are doing it wrong.

Yes, you have already said that; and I also mentioned that if saying ‘yes Sir’ is the job of the CCs, than they are mere orderlies with a ‘General’ before their name.

i quoted the example from history (Fredrick) to make this point home, but unfortunately it didnt get through!

Next time come up with a better and more relevant example; I assure you, I’ll consider it favorably.

Had the COAS asked a captain a question but then had disagreed to the Captain's suggestion, yes the COAS can bloody well can do that, but when he is talking to his 'pillars', he cant sway much!

As per General Aziz, the COAS did not ask, he only informed them. The decision of giving Shamasi to the Americans was already made by him before the CC Conference.

i wonder how absurd your analysis could get when you said that Musharraf didnt ask ANYTHING from his generals and just did what he though was right. Buddy if that was the case it would imply that ALL of the 9 CCs were against the COAS, then what do you think, who was providing the COAS the strength (the military backing as you put it) that a COAS would have?? The Brigade Commanders may be....!!!

My analysis is based on what I learn from your Generals, in the computer world we call it ‘garbage in; garbage out’, the analysis could be absurd if the information provided by the sources (in this case a General) was absurd by itself. So blame the source of information, not the analyst (the same applies to the media anchors).

As i suggested earlier that you need to harness your 'extrapolating quality' as it might get you in trouble.

Threat????

As for your doubt that you have regarding the SSG hereos, i think you didnt read what i posted in that thread! Or may be if you had, you didnt have the heart to counter it?!

I have no doubt; I am positive about my analysis. If those men were some kind of Pakistani John Rambos (as many want to believe it like that), they could have not been captured alive by TTP terrorists in the first place and if yes, perhaps in badly wounded condition. Have you seen that interview, there is not even a scratch on them. If they did not offer any resistance while they were being captured, what kind of resistance a sane mind would expect from them when they were held in a TTP compound and possibly surrounded by dozens if not hundred of TTP terrorists? So please, spare me from the imaginary stories about the hypothetical bravado. Yes, if you have any proof of their hypothetical and much glorified resistance and killing of 10 TTP terrorists, present it here.

Above was brought up in the context of "Investigative Journalism" and "A publicity stunt". If this hypothetical killing is not a “publicity stunt” (since no proof exists for the authenticity of the story) than what it is? "Investigative Journalism"? If you guys were all right with media than for this “publicity stunt”, why crying for it now? Because media is hard on a military dictator? When the same media talks about NS and Zardari, than why the question of "Investigative Journalism" vs “publicity stunt” does not arise? Because politicians are lesser creatures?

And lastly, a person who admire people like NS, well that says it all!

And lastly, a person who admires people like Musharraf and believes in and prefers home brewed stories over hard facts, well, that says it all!

 

[Kasrkin]

”Illiterate idiot in the village not here”, hum, so the villagers are illiterate idiots, this much respect you have for 70% population of Pakistan, very interesting! Was that not you who once called Rasool Allah (PBUH) a bhagora? You made his exodus (hijrat) his ‘escape’? So I know I am talking to whom and what to be expect when there is no answer to the question I raise.

You know that is not what he said. Don't make dramas. If I say 'some savage in a jungle' that doesn't mean all people all over the world in jungles are savages. Though to be fair though, a large portion of Pakistan's population is illiterate, obviously most of them would be in rural areas. Also, as you very well know, you're not allowed to label the person you are debating with anything. Address his arguments instead of irrelevant personal attacks.

 

[qsaark]

You know that is not what he said. Don't make dramas. If I say 'some savage in a jungle' that doesn't mean all people all over the world in jungles are savages. Though to be fair though, a large portion of Pakistan's population is illiterate, obviously most of them would be in rural areas. Also, as you very well know, you're not allowed to label the person you are debating with anything. Address his arguments instead of irrelevant personal attacks.

Thanks for the reminder; personal attacks must be avoided all time.

 

[MastanKhan]

I don’t want to guess, and don’t tell me stories; your credibility does not make your personal accounts believable.

You understand nothing about me or my zeal else your response would have been based on logic not personal likeness and dis-likeness.[/QUOTE]



Hi,

You are an interesting person Q---sometimes you are full of praises---and at other times---what is this Dr J and Mr H thing.

The reason the members are respectable is that they bring out honest and truthful analysis and information to the best of their ability.

But it is okay---today is your day to broom everyone. Good luck with that.

 

[qsaark]

Mastan Saheb, Man, I am sorry. I should have not said what I said. I apologize.

 

[neyaab]

pak army is tha best in world

 

[waraich66]

Vote 0 Pakistan parliament to examine 37 Musharraf-era ordinances
By Ians October 19th, 2009
ISLAMABAD - Pakistan’s National Assembly is to meet Nov 2 to examine 37 ordinances promulgated by former president Pervez Musharraf, including the one granting immunity to politicians, military officers and bureaucrats charged with corruption, media reports said Monday.


Key among these is the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) Musharraf promulgated in October 2007 to enable the return from exile of former prime minister Benzair Bhutto and her husband Asif Ali Zardari, who is now the president of Pakistan. Both were in exile facing corruption charges.

The Supreme Court in its July 31 judgement had ruled as unconstitutional the emergency Musharraf had declared Nov 3, 2007 and fixed Nov 30 as the deadline for the approval or rejection of the 37 ordinances by parliament.

“The government tabled the ordinances at the end of the National Assembly and Senate sessions on Oct 16 apparently to gain time to drum up maximum support for their passage,” Dawn said Monday.

Quoting parliament sources, report said the ordinances could become law if they are approved by a simple majority of National Assembly and subsequently endorsed by the Senate.

Adeel Gilani, the Pakistan chief of global anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International (TI), has said anti-corruption efforts in the country had taken a 180 degree turn since Musharraf issued the NRO.

TI, in its 2009 Global Corruption Report, said the lack of anti-graft laws makes Pakistan one of the most corrupt nations in the world and is coming in the way of foreign investments in the country.

“How can one expect from any donor to come forward to assist Pakistan from its current financial crisis, when there exists no law against corruption?” the report, released Sep 23, said.

Ironically, Musharraf promulgated the NRO 56 days after ratifying the UN Convention against Corruption.

 

[Xeric]

Unfortunately, there appear to be 22,172 member of this forum and so far only 4-5 appear to think like you do. If you call these five the ‘sensible people’ what about 22,167? They are all insensible people? So five vs one is not that bad a ration, it is quote possible that on this particular issue, five are mad and the one is not. So nice try, but next time, try to do a little better math.

Extrapolation at it's best!!!

That's what i was trying telling ya people!

All Green is a respectable member, but it does not mean that everything he says is correct.

Take it up with him!

Yes, you have already said that; and I also mentioned that if saying ‘yes Sir’ is the job of the CCs, than they are mere orderlies with a ‘General’ before their name.

Well that's what you consider, as you are in a poor habit of GENERALIZING just everything. For you one man bad mean all of them bad. If you can blame the entire Army (for that matter the entire military) for one or may be two men's deeds i cant expect much from you!!

i wonder why dont yoy blame the entire PPP for Zardari's misdeeds? Or for that matter BB's 'misfortunes?'

Oh i know why, you think ALL Pakistan is bad, so it doesnt matter to you! It's only you who can be correct, that's it!

Coming back to the point, Fatman started the thread with one man' Gen Aziz! Now if you think that his lone 'shortcomings' are representative of the entire Army then you are wrong! But what could i say, we all know you are bound to extrapolate to suit your arguments!

Next time come up with a better and more relevant example; I assure you, I’ll consider it favorably.

Well those who have something up there understood the example quite well, may be it was hard for you to comprehend it, no worries, your poor knowledge about the military-thinking is to be blamed for it, not you, so chill!

As per General Aziz, the COAS did not ask, he only informed them. The decision of giving Shamasi to the Americans was already made by him before the CC Conference.

Try to read/listen by keeping the fairytale in the context! It would always help, believe me.

My analysis is based on what I learn from your Generals, in the computer world we call it ‘garbage in; garbage out’, the analysis could be absurd if the information provided by the sources (in this case a General) was absurd by itself. So blame the source of information, not the analyst (the same applies to the media anchors).

If you had learned from our (guud) Generals, you must have been in peace today, as you didnt, we all can see the consequences!

Threat????

It was not meant to be, but, well if you want to take it that way, yes it was!

BTW, who fool would be directing and receiving threats on the cyberworld?!

I have no doubt; I am positive about my analysis. If those men were some kind of Pakistani John Rambos (as many want to believe it like that), they could have not been captured alive by TTP terrorists in the first place and if yes, perhaps in badly wounded condition. Have you seen that interview, there is not even a scratch on them. If they did not offer any resistance while they were being captured, what kind of resistance a sane mind would expect from them when they were held in a TTP compound and possibly surrounded by dozens if not hundred of TTP terrorists? So please, spare me from the imaginary stories about the hypothetical bravado. Yes, if you have any proof of their hypothetical and much glorified resistance and killing of 10 TTP terrorists, present it here.

You find me a single source that says they didnt do what we are praising them for, i;ll bow, till then try keeping your BS to yourself!

What do you base your knowledge upon? How did you know Bhutto was less a 'criminal' when compared to Yahya? How do you know about the hardships through which we got independent? i think from reading Books, First hand info, Media, Newspapers, Personal Accounts etc etc??

Well that's what the all the above mentioned 'sources' say today about those Men! Let you, who is sitting in his couch thousands of miles away, be the last man telling us otherwise!!! What you say is known as BSing and propaganda, and i hope you know that, if not try consulting a doctor!

Above was brought up in the context of "Investigative Journalism" and "A publicity stunt". If this hypothetical killing is not a “publicity stunt” (since no proof exists for the authenticity of the story) than what it is? "Investigative Journalism"? If you guys were all right with media than for this “publicity stunt”, why crying for it now? Because media is hard on a military dictator? When the same media talks about NS and Zardari, than why the question of "Investigative Journalism" vs “publicity stunt” does not arise? Because politicians are lesser creatures?

You know you are guud at blackmailing the argument, but sir, it wont work here!

First you bring in a story from another thread and then you start apologizing it!!

And lastly, a person who admires people like Musharraf and believes in and prefers home brewed stories over hard facts, well, that says it all!

That says it all, again!!

 

[fatman17]

If that is all true, than you are only exposing the prevalence of moral poverty among the Pakistani Generals. And that is not for the first time, wars of 1965 and 1971 are all witness to this fact. Not every General is like Lt. General Sahabzada Yaqoob Khan.

one of the most intelligent officers i ever met!

 

[zarak khan]

People need to have courage to listen to the truth… specially when it comes from a morally and ethically correct source like Gen Shahid Aziz. If the source is respected amongst respectable individuals.... his words carry wieght! Have courage... look around yourself!.. and accept the truth.

Pity the nation that is full of beliefs and empty of religion.

Pity the nation that despises a passion in its dream,
yet submits in its awakening.

Pity the nation that raises not its voice save when it
walks in a funeral, boasts not except among its ruins,
and will rebel not save when its neck is laid between
the sword and the block.

- Khalil Gibran

 

[mughaljee]

At the time , when the truth need help by voice, that time he was quite,
now he is "Bala bala bala bala

 

[zarak khan]

How would you know if he was quiet????
If I recall the interview correctly and his other interviews too... he very clearly expressed his views in the audience of the ex President....!
Why he didn't appear in the media is because he rightly said, "It is against the law".
Yes, he could have resigned.... would that have solved anything???

Open your eyes bro.... and as I said... watch all his interviews on awaz.tv etc.... listen to what he is saying.
I don't think he cares for the media either.... he made it very clear too.... so him trying to become a security analyst is absurd.
I think he is just letting the people know the truth and how democracy (so called) is taken for a ride by those who rule!

 

[Xeric]

Yes, he could have resigned.... would that have solved anything???

FYKI, yes it could have solved many 'thing', a Lt gen retiring because of disagreements with the COAS, hell yeah, it would have turned the tides (provided there were tides).