Modi bullied Sharif over terrorism, showed him the way forward: Pak journalist

[GreenFalcon]

A terrorist only understands bullying...that's the way how you deal with terrorists

Humari bili hum pe meow

 

[Armstrong]

There are a few dozens well-known & well-followed Journalists in Pakistan & they pick on the comments of someone who've no one has heard of.

It never ceases to amaze me how they always end up zoning in on the comments of someone with no name whatsoever & present it as if such are the voices coming out of that particular sector in Pakistan - whichever sector it maybe !

 

[halupridol]

Agree.... Jalees Hazir was sitting with both the PMs when they met...

spoilsport.... why did u have to burst d bubble???
thori der toh drama chalney dete....

 

[Robinhood Pandey]

ofcourse thats what a terrorist do !

Get Bullied ?

thats the only way to make them understand.

lol yeah !!

 

[mirage2K]

Will keep that in mind as we deal with Modi.

Yeah keep that in mind when he will spank you people

 

[Koovie]

Yeah what will happen to them. Poor Pakistani generals can't do corruption in bofors guns contract or start a LCA Tejas project and drag it to decades to earn some dirty money. They need to kick out these "sensible civilians" and start a war Bharat to get a few BMW's. I fully agree with your completely ch*tya bharati logic.

Pardon?
How is the military responsible for the Bofors scam? It was a crime committed by politicians..... How is the military responsible for the delays and problems of the DRDO, the MoD, HAL or the sanctions against India which severely hurt the Tejas project?

Dont blindly defend your military in everything...
Sacking a democratically elected government, breaking allegiance to you countries principles and constitution is everything but right or patriotic.

 

[waz]

Yeah keep that in mind when he will spank you people

 

[Secur]

Sacking a democratically elected government, breaking allegiance to you countries principles and constitution is everything but right or patriotic.

One can debate all day long if it was right and patriotic , in the face of what the politicians had done and where the country was standing at that time . Lets not make sweeping statements , draw conclusions and present things to us about ourselves and try to make us believe that they are " divine truth " .

 

[janon]

One can debate all day long if it was right and patriotic , in the face of what the politicians had done and where the country was standing at that time . Lets not make sweeping statements , draw conclusions and present things to us about ourselves and try to make us believe that they are " divine truth " .

No, one can't, if one is intellectually honest. Usurping the power of the people just because you have guns (paid for by the people) is never patriotic. The last coup happened after the general lost an ill conceived war that he started without the support of the entire war machinery. Clearly, to save his own skin.

Anyway this is off topic.

 

[xyxmt]

This so true, I had an out of body experience and was floating in the same room...man Moodi was furious blood coming from his eyes and Nawaz Sharif was like "ji huzoor...bilkul aesa hi karain gye...ji uncle...ji chacha..hamain maaf ker do ainda mumbai main kutch nehe karain gye"

I actually called an prominent India News channel and told them the same thing and they are willing to pay me 5 million ruppee if I go on air and say the samething on air, will be a feel good for Moodi supporters, they said this will be bigger than 71 bigger than atomic explosion

 

[Secur]

No, one can't, if one is intellectually honest. Usurping the power of the people just because you have guns (paid for by the people) is never patriotic. The last coup happened after the general lost an ill conceived war that he started without the support of the entire war machinery. Clearly, to save his own skin.

Anyway this is off topic.

Yes , one can , forget the law for a minute because " what is otherwise unlawful is made lawful by necessity " . Its not for others to tell us whether the military takeovers were legitimate or not , at times they worked in the best interests of the country . The people of Pakistan had welcomed the coups back then and the consent of the governed is enough proof . Should tell you the condition of the country at those times .

 

[janon]

...
Would you want peace with China if they get to walk away with disputed territory? Secondly, we plan against your capabilities, not against your intentions. Capabilities are a tangible threat to us, and intentions can change any time. As such no Indian leader can tell Pakistan that they have nothing but the best of intentions when two thirds of the Indian military infrastructure, the real capability, is Pakistan specific.

If India wants the Army in Pakistan to support the peace process, then it needs to make significant changes in the capabilities that are arrayed against Pakistan. Once your side does this, the government will make long lasting peace and the Pakistani military will go along with it 110%.
...

While all this is true, so is the contrary to each of that from India's POV:

1) We too plan against the capabilities of anybody who is hostile to us, and not to their intentions which are transient. If most of our military capability is geared against Pakistan, the reason is that that is the only country we expect to get into hostilities with. It would be rather stupid of us to pay to build capabilities geared against France or Sri Lanka. And Pakistan's capabilities and deployments remain India centric as well.

2) Would you want peace with Iran if they wanted parts of your country, and have attempted to take it from you in the past? Pakistanis make no secret of the fact that they want to end India's sovereignity in Kashmir and that is simply not acceptable to us, so obviously we would want to prevent any attempt by Pak to make that happen.

3) If Pakistan wants the peace process to move forward, you will have to make significant changes to the capabilities arrayed against us. Demilitarize the border (mutually), agree to make the LOC a permanent IB, and accept the existence of Indian Kashmir and Pakistani Kashmir as unchangeabole realities. Once Pakistan as a society learns to accept and live with this, we can have peace 110%.

 

[blain2]

Agreed. All three of your points call for a change of mindset which has to happen across all levels, government, military and the public and across both sides of the border. My key point is that the Pakistan Army is not the spoiler in all of this. It's posture is in reaction to the threat it faces from across the border and in light of the issues outstanding between the countries. Perhaps both sides need to step back and give in a bit.

I have a difference of opinion with your #2 and you probably know what that is so I won't go into details.

 

[janon]

...
I have a difference of opinion with your #2 and you probably know what that is so I won't go into details.

I know, and that is my point - that the same difference of opinion that you have on that, every Indian will have on it with you. In other words, India and Pak are at odds on that issue, there is no escaping that fact. Nobody in India would be willing to give up Kashmir - you may call it disputed territory, but we just do not see it that way, and will not accept it that way - it is too ingrained in us as individuals to think of it as our state, and as a nation we have spent so much blood and treasure to keep it ours that giving it up is unthinkable.

And it is precisely because of this difference of opinion about #2 that I proposed #3, that both sides should recognize the reality of the other side's Kashmir, and make the LOC a permanent border, and call it a day. The only other option is to continue this expensive militarized border that is always in a state of imminent war, and keep spending money to maintain that perilous but inevitable status quo forever. Neither country is going to give up or accept the taking away of their Kashmir, let's be honest about that.

 

[blain2]

Musharraf suggested something along #3 with minor adjustments, thus the need for both sides to be willing to give and take a bit. It cannot be an absolutist stand on either side.