I don't like Zia-ul-Haq... but this interview was amazing

[NOWorNEVER]

https://www.facebook.com/

 

[Crystal-Clear]

zea was way better then ppp&pmln

 

[undercover JIX]

Yes, there was a time Pakistan had respect and power.
koi kutta billa aivain uth kay nai bhoonk sakta tha.

 

[gangsta_rap]

People blame him for terrorism looool

if u will blame zia for extremism in pakistan, might as well blame zia for boko haram in nigeria too hahaha

 

[Dark-Destroyer]

No doubt Zia was well spoken individual

 

[Chakar The Great]

" I am not indulging in self praise but Pakistanis are intelligent people" ....( @02:49) so true.


PS: Having said that Zia did to Pakistan what Modi is doing to India.

 

[LeGenD]

People blame him for terrorism looool

if u will blame zia for extremism in pakistan, might as well blame zia for boko haram in nigeria too hahaha

These accusations have a basis.

Zia-ul-Haq was a strategist but he introduced gun culture and Jihadi Salafism to Pakistan. He also propelled Nawaz Sharif to power in order to negate PPPP.

 

[258963147harry]

https://www.facebook.com/

HE WAS A GANGSTER

 

[gangsta_rap]

Zia-ul-Haq was a strategist but he introduced gun culture and Jihadi Salafism to Pakistan.

This was already present. It became problematic as a result of the war on terror

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

While Zia may have been a tactician but Pakistan suffered greatly in late 70's and 80's due to Zia's alliance with US

I would say he was not designed to be a Leader of civilian population and economy

I am sure his military tenacity and mindset was wonderful

 

[PakLeader]

People blame Zia UlHaq for gun culture, jihadism etc...but it was he who stood up to the Soviet Union and his strategy that brought down communism. What alternative did he have, back down and let the Soviets just walk into Pakistan. We all know what Soviet aims were for invading Afghanistan. Pakistan would have been next. Anyone who disagrees with this is plain and simple a fool and wrong. People have said that he should have made a deal with the Soviets for not invading Pakistan in exchange for access to the Arabian sea, traitors these people are.

Did Pakistan suffer due to his Afghan policy, yes...no doubt but Pakistan today is free and a nuclear power because of him and Soviet communism is dead. The unfortunate thing for Pakistan was the untimely death of General Zia...he realized the problems Pakistan and its people faced. How they suffered because of the Afghan war and he had full plans and intentions to deal with it but in his words his priority was to ensure the country's survival first.

The question one should be asking is after Zias death what did all the different leaders and parties who blamed him for Pakistans problems do to fix those problems...nothing..rather they made those problems worse deliberately for their own selfish purposes. So let's not blame Zia for Pakistans problems and look at things in context based on ground realities and environment of the time.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Although not a politician but that guy definitely knew how to handle these double faced propaganda agents.

https://www.facebook.com/

 

[!eon]

Funny... To hide incompetency and corruption, he is blamed for bloodshed that came after 911 ..

People blame Zia UlHaq for gun culture

Gun culture was there in Pushtun tribes before Zia and will remain there after Zia. They like guns they keep them.
There was no gun culture in Punjab and Sindh before Zia and after Zia. Punjabis and Sindhis don't like guns, so they don't have that culture.

Only in Soviet-Afghan war, Soviet army was selling it's weapons against drugs to Afghans, which was being brought into Pakistan. It would still be coming if there was no Zia at all.

 

[T-Rex]

HE WAS A GANGSTER

Says somebody from the trumpistan!

 

[Sharpshooter12]

Funny... To hide incompetency and corruption, he is blamed for bloodshed that came after 911 ..

Fair enough. Let's wargame it in a imaginary future evantuality like 9/11. Let's say in next few months, a catastrophic terrorist attack happens in India where hundreds if not thousands of people are killed, including a few dozen Americans and Europeans. Imran Khan condemns it wholeheartedly. But then evidence starts to pileup that the act was a joint operation by Lashkar e Tayaba an Jaish e Mohammad, in fact cross that, India and US and their media believes that it was done by LET and JEM. And now they are demanding that we actually crack down on Hafiz saeed, Masood Azhar and their complete organizations, not the way we sometimes do but the way we handled TTP. UN passes a unanimous resolution supporting their stance, China does not dare veto it.

What options do you think IK will have. One he can stand up to rest of the world and declines to crackdown on Hafiz saeed and Masood Azhar. Two he can oblige the UN and act on the resolution resulting in a nation wide crackdown on LET and JEM members.

In the first case, best case scenario is that the world will impose crippling economic sanctions on us resulting in a complete economic meltdown. The worst case is that we are subjected to some awesome airstrikes that cripples our military and economy.

In the second case, if the government of PTI obliges the UN, LET and JEM members across the country start targeting the security forces. Now the problem with these organizations is that we have carefully cultivated them a strong following in this country, they themselves with their social welfare projects have created a goodwill among common people, so they will have sympathizers and what do we call them yeah facilitators.

So we'll be looking at another cycle of violence for a decade at-least.

Now in this imaginary situation, would you blame Imran Khan for taking the decision that resulted in such chaos in the country or would you be blaming the geniuses who created and propped these organizations in the first place. If you would blame Imran khan well then I have nothing to add, I respect your views.

But if your answer is the later, then that is the same reason why Zia is held responsible by many people for the bloodshed that followed 9/11.

Here is an excerpt from Andrew Small's book The China-Pakistan Axis: Asia's new Geopolitics, this will give you an idea how our military and its doctrine was different before the arrival of Zia

Anecdotes from the visit of a Pakistani military delegation to Beijing in 1966, as they attempt to replace the equipment that had been lost in the 1965 war, are illustrative:

Zhou Enlai, after enquiring why the Pakistanis only required fourteen days of ammunition from China—“How can a war be fought in that short time?” He went on to probe the generals:

“I would be interested to know if you have prepared the people of Pakistan to operate in the rear of the enemy…I am talking about a People’s Militia being based in every village and town. Since Pakistan lacks an industrial base to replenish supplies, this kind of defence is obviously well-suited to its needs.”

There was a stunned silence among the Generals. The concept of putting arms into the hands of the common man was totally alien to them; in fact, it was deemed a threat to law and order in Pakistan. The notion of a prolonged conflict involving the citizenry of Pakistan was not part of the defence strategy planned by these professional soldiers…When the generals met at my home for dinner that night they appeared to be upset, and one of them said: ‘War is a serious business and should be left to the professionals. Imagine a People’s Militia!…