Wow! Journalists on Government Payroll are Tweeting Against Serving Pak Army Generals

[mr.robot]

The thing is that the army can't win. It simply can't bcz the thinking and political mindset of the nation is severely divided towards the point of extremist thinking ( extremism is not terrorism not religious but takes shapes in many forms which include liberal, secular as well as political).

You have one group that wants the army to be completely obedient to the government and will praise the army when they take steps towards this development.

You have one group that doesn't want the army under the government and wants them to be the danda for the government.

You have the extreme liberal group that simply hate the armed forces. They have never liked them consider it an equivalent of a PhD and a right of intellectualism if they criticize the armed forces.

Then we have the political group that believes it has been wronged by the army and its supporters attack any action that is taken against them by the army no matter how justified.

Then we have the political group that has rounded their politics on curbing the army and showcase themselves as the victim of dictators.

Then we have the political group that believes that we are alone right and noble and if the army does not support us then the army is wrong as well.

Then we have the group that within their political affiliation attack the army for not grabbing the sitting and elected prime minister, ministers and president and throw them in jail without any verdict from the court of law of pakistan.

Then we have the martial law lovers who want the army to overthrow the sitting government and govern themselves or bring in new politicians. They don't care if this will harm pakistan or not.

Then there are the religious groups who don't trust the army bcz the army has attacked then previously due to their support for terror groups. They want yhr army to support them.

Then we have the terrorist supporters who sympathize with terrorists like lal masjids or a few who have ethnic closeness to the terrorists and thus supported their actions against the armed forces.

Then we have the opportunist who sorround their fame by attacking the army for their own incompetence.


You see each of these groups have supporters and each of them follow distinct leaders. The problem is that the thinking of each of these groups is so varied that any action the army takes towards any point of thought pisses off the rest. Even simply ignoring the politics and securing the border is not acceptable to many groups.

The problem is that we are so extremist and different in our thinking that we cannot comprehend what, where, why, when, how. We just can't do that.

We are a nation of sheep. We follow distinct, not wolves, but sheep who the rest of the sheep have given power on a pedestal. The sheep takes the rest of the sheep to follow and they follow.

When we pushed back ethniciam, when we combatted provincialism, when we fought against religious differences and threw back sectarianism, we brought forward political extremism. I am starting to think that we simply don't like being united. We can't have everybody agreeing and there must be disagreement and when disagreements happen then abuse shortly follows ( due to extremism and lack of respect of others opinion) and then the tags of traitors are distributed.

Maybe I am wrong and overthinking.

@Zaki @WAJsal @Arsalan what do you guys think?

How conveniently you left a group who largely cheers whatever the policy of current COAS is? Not only that but that group also tries to defend the policies of retired coas/generals even if the policies are poles apart from current one?

 

[saiyan0321]

How conveniently you left a group who largely cheers whatever the policy of current COAS is? Not only that but that group also tries to defend the policies of retired coas/generals even if the policies are poles apart from current one?

Read the post again and you will know why that group was left out and how that group has nothing to do with the fact that the army no matter what it does will always face criticism due to mass difference of thinking and expectations in our society.

If you do not understand after reading it again.

Then read it again.



And if you still do not understand then leave it and chill out.

 

[Finer]

If that is true, I have only one question to ask - why was every coup in Pakistan's history completely bloodless? Surely if the civilian leaders were so popular, and democracy was stabilized, any military coup attempt would face public backlash - but it never did.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged to death. Nawaz Sharif was almost hanged to death. 1971 happened. Coup has never gone bloodless in the history of Pakistan's politics.

In fact, people were celebrating on the streets when Musharraf took over. Nawaz Sharif's popularity was at an all-time low - even Western media reported it.
BBC Article from October 13, 1999:

Then the same people celebrated when Musharraf was forced to resign with the exit-plan deal with Zardari.

Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that Nawaz Sharif came into the power because people voted for him. Marshall Law came into the power because it imposed its authority against the wills of people meaning without inputs/votes from the people of the nation.

Actually Martial Law started when Mirza declared it in 1958. The Fatima Jinnah vs Ayub "election" was in 1965.

Except you are not going to talk about what happened to Fatima Jinnah and what Pakistani General Ayub Khan had done [unfriendly tactics] to achieve the result. He was clearly holding democracy into hostage constantly engaged character assassination against Fatima Jinnah - Sister of the Founder of Pakistan. I can only imagine what Pakistan army would have done if Muhammad Ali Jinnah was alive campaigning democracy against Ayub Khan, General of Pakistani army.

What? The 1965 war resulted in no permanent territorial change, Pakistan never lost any part of Kashmir to India. Azad Kashmir has been Azad since 1948 and IOK has been IOK since 1948.

Pakistan successfully defended Lahore in 1965. It was never "close to losing all of Pakistan during 1965".

I take it you are not familiar with the history of the 1965 war at all.

That is because Pakistan was lucky. Didn't you read the narrative of the war? Pakistan lost IOK due to stupid policy of Ayub Khan in 1962, almost lost the whole Pakistan because the army was positioned else where, and it took the lives of regular people to defend Pakistan against the invading army. When Pakistan army failed, people of Pakistan came to the rescue. In fact, there was detailed about miracle, to the extent that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) came to the dreams of those people and told them to defend Pakistan one day or within a day of parameter since Pakistan army was found unavailable to their strategy shifted somewhere else.

When Indian air force entered Pakistan, Indian air force couldn't tell because Indian air force was kept seeing cloud after cloud miraculously appearing out of nowhere with other figures and could not even tell whether Indian air force entered in Pakistan or not. It was divine miracle that got involved changed the course of the game despite the incompetent of Pakistan army.

If you read the interview of former pilot of Indian Air force, you will get the exact information during his involvement in the year of 1965.

You are right, Pakistan in the 60s was a rising star. Ayub Khan ruled during the 60s. Thank you for making my point.

Ayub Khan
ایوب خان
2nd President of Pakistan
In office
27 October 1958 – 25 March 1969

Pakistan was rising star because of the policy in 50. The economy plunged down, East Pakistan became Bangladesh, Pakistan lost IOK in 1962, and allegedly mass genocide happened against Bangladeshi people. That is all Ayub Khan. Thank to Ayub Khan, Pakistan went from rising star to forever failed nation. That is BIG.

For someone who claims to be "familiar with the history of Pakistan politics", you seem to be very ill-informed, especially considering that you could have gotten that information off a simple google search.


Really? Do you have any data to back that up?

Let's see:

Looking at Musharraf alone:

Marshall Law assumed the power when the economy was going strong. When they left, the economy was left in ruins. It cannot be coincident from Pakistan rising star to Pakistan's economy plunged down in 60-71, 80-90, and 2001-2013.

In 2005, Pakistan was bankrupt under the leadership of Musharraf. It took handsome aids and funding that survived Pakistan economy forward and escaped bankruptcy with great difficulty. General Musharraf had no clue what he was doing. So-called graph cannot hide the fact that Pakistan got away due to the aids and funding which is on the official record.

Whereas for democracy, PMLN is relying on loans to stabilize the economy by undoing the damage that is left by Musharraf and Musharraf's exit plan with Zardari thus allowing Zardari to come into the power right from the jail getting pardon and charged cleared, hence 2001-2013 taking both Musharraf and Zardari into the that plunged Pakistan economy down the drain in the history of Pakistan.

Even though, one thing did come positive from the ruling of Zardari that Zardari was able to gain trust from Balochistan after Musharraf had done irreparable damage to Balochistan. Because of Zardari, Balochistan was able to move forward, and by then, CPEC was able to take place with PMLN fast-tracking into few years as possible. Even though PMLN may claim the credit for CPEC in Balochistan, but Zardari did the most of the work by undoing the damage of Musharraf policy in Balochistan. If Musharraf hadn't been forced to resign, then there would be no CPEC and the civil war in Balochistan would still be going on.

Bear in mind that Marshall Law assumed the power at the time when the economy was stable, 2001. When Musharraf left Pakistan at the hand of Zardari due to his exit plan, the economy was found in drain. Same happened in 80s, and same thing happened in 60. Always hogging someone else credit and leave someone else to clean their mess.

 

[Tps43]

hang these moron journalists

 

[TankMan]

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged to death. Nawaz Sharif was almost hanged to death. 1971 happened. Coup has never gone bloodless in the history of Pakistan's politics.

Bloodless in the sense that the Army never faced resistance from the public. 1971 didn't happen during a coup, and it didn't happen because of a coup. Bhutto was hanged nearly 2 years after Zia took power.

Then the same people celebrated when Musharraf was forced to resign with the exit-plan deal with Zardari.

Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that Nawaz Sharif came into the power because people voted for him. Marshall Law came into the power because it imposed its authority against the wills of people meaning without inputs/votes from the people of the nation.

Votes are not the only way the public can show support or opposition to something.

We both know elections in Pakistan rarely reflect the will of the people. And, even if the elections were completely free and fair, our First Past the Post system means that you can win an election without ever having majority support.

Like I said, if everyone loved Nawaz Sharif so much, and if the coup was such a big imposition of authority against the people, how come nobody protested? Sure, the Army has guns - but so does Punjab Police, and so did the recent Turkish Coup-ers - people still protested.

That is because Pakistan was lucky. Didn't you read the narrative of the war? Pakistan lost IOK due to stupid policy of Ayub Khan in 1962

Which narrative have you read? Pakistan didn't lose IOK because Pakistan didn't control IOK. You can't lose something if you don't have it. 1962 - are you talking about Pakistan letting China take Aksai Chin and parts of Ladakh etc?

That was actually a very good policy, considering that it greatly improved Pakistan's relations with China, which is why we can have things like CPEC nowadays.

Pakistan was rising star because of the policy in 50. .

Really? Pakistan was rising star because of the 50s policies? Are you sure? Because Ayub changed those policies. And then Pakistan became a rising star.

and allegedly mass genocide happened against Bangladeshi people. That is all Ayub Khan.

Bangladesh didn't happen because of Ayub Khan. He failed to properly address East Pakistan's grievances, yes, but he resigned when he saw that the public was turning against him. You can't blame him for what happened after he resigned. Democratic Bhutto did much more damage to relations between East and West Pakistanis, and Yahya just put the final nail in the coffin with his misguided operation.

Thank to Ayub Khan, Pakistan went from rising star to forever failed nation. That is BIG.

"Forever failed"? So you can see the future as well? Don't be such a pessimist.

Marshall Law assumed the power when the economy was going strong.

No actually. Pakistan in 1999 was going through serious economic problems. Read that BBC article I linked to before.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/475195.stm

the popularity of the Sharif government was plunging amid an economic slump - foreign debt totalling $32bn - and a law and order crisis. Opposition figures allege that such was the prime minister's unpopularity that members of his own parliamentary party now began to conspire with the military..

Now don't tell me the BBC was controlled by Musharraf.

It cannot be coincident from Pakistan rising star to Pakistan's economy plunged down in 60-71, 80-90, and 2001-2013.

Pakistan's economy skyrocketed from 60-69, 80-90, and 2000-2008.

You are right, it can't be a coincidence, but you have it the other way around.

Again, remember this:

The country’s real GDP increased from $60 billion in 2000/01 to $170 billion in 2007/08 (fiscal year starts July 1st), with per capita income rising from under $500 to over $1,000. During the same period, the volume of international trade increased from about $20 billion to nearly $60 billion. For most of this period, real GDP grew at more than 7 percent a year with relative price stability.

In 2005, Pakistan was bankrupt under the leadership of Musharraf. It took handsome aids and funding that survived Pakistan economy forward and escaped bankruptcy with great difficulty.

No. In 2005, there was a massive Earthquake. I was there, I remember it. That's why Pakistan's economy suffered and a relatively larger amount of international aid came in. Not because of bankruptcy.

So-called graph cannot hide the fact that Pakistan got away due to the aids and funding which is on the official record.

Janaab, that is not a "so-called graph", it is an actual graph. If you think it is wrong, give some evidence as to why.

As for aid and funding, Pakistan's dependence on it is questionable. It is mostly American and Indian propagandists who proclaim that Pakistan can not survive without US aid, when in reality, it probably can, very comfortably.

Read this article for more details, it's quite well-researched: http://www.dawn.com/news/695692

"Pakistan is a $175 billion economy. Since 2002, the US has provided on average $825 million annually in economic assistance to Pakistan."

Bear in mind that Marshall Law assumed the power at the time when the economy was stable, 2001

Again, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Martial Law - i.e Musharraf - assumed power in 1999, not 2001, and the economy was not stable at all in 1999.

Do yourself a favour and read this study from the London School of Economics that I mentioned before. It deals with all this and actually includes data and facts to back up its assertions.
'Guarding the State or Protecting the Economy? Economic Factors of Pakistan's Military Coups'

Again, I'll reiterate that I'm not in favour of Military rule, we need to fix our Democracy and we need good civilian leadership, but blaming the Army is just scapegoating and doesn't solve the actual problem. We need strong institutions, a parliament that actually represents the population, and proper tax collection so that we can fund important things like healthcare and education. If a civilian government is effective and popular, the military will never want to or be able to overthrow it.

 

[Finer]

Bloodless in the sense that the Army never faced resistance from the public. 1971 didn't happen during a coup, and it didn't happen because of a coup. Bhutto was hanged nearly 2 years after Zia took power.

People from East Pakistan resisted Pakistani General. Those who resisted paid with the price of blood. Coup had never gone bloodless in the history of Pakistan politics. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged to death by Zia-ul-Haq - who then consumed the leadership against the wills of the nation. It is on the record, in fact backed by the interview of Zia-ul-Haq in his own words.

Votes are not the only way the public can show support or opposition to something.

The election is the way for the public to show support officially. It is way to put somebody on the map they actually want.

After the death of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), it was oral election took place which put Abu Bakr (R.A) on the map by the majority votes.

We both know elections in Pakistan rarely reflect the will of the people. And, even if the elections were completely free and fair, our First Past the Post system means that you can win an election without ever having majority support.

Speak for yourself. I don't entertain the controversial notion that cannot be backed.

With democracy, you will have to accept the votes of the majority even if you or minority don't like it. It is majority that have major say on the democracy, not the minority.

Like I said, if everyone loved Nawaz Sharif so much, and if the coup was such a big imposition of authority against the people, how come nobody protested? Sure, the Army has guns - but so does Punjab Police, and so did the recent Turkish Coup-ers - people still protested.

Nawaz Sharif came to the power three times already, and that alone suggests people still want Nawaz Sharif.

Coup is normally designed to ensure democracy doesn't get bigger than the main institution of Pakistan army. There is the reason why Pakistani army hasn't been taken to the accountability. The moment Pakistani army is brought to the accountability, the coup occurs.

Similarity, a coup almost occurred for the third time during the tenure of Nawaz Sharif within a year right after Nawaz Sharif decided to take Musharraf to the accountability which was derailed coupled with the factors of dharna to ensure the installation of power-sharing agreement with gain access to foreign policy with the cooperation of General Raheel in conditions to allow Nawaz Sharif to resume his tenure while in restricted powers to none.

Democracy will be accounted for accountability, but not Pakistani army, and precisely why i am against the idea of Marshall Law in the politics since they can get away just by doing anything unspeakable things and not be accounted.

Which narrative have you read? Pakistan didn't lose IOK because Pakistan didn't control IOK. You
can't lose something if you don't have it. 1962 - are you talking about Pakistan letting China take Aksai Chin and parts of Ladakh etc?

I take it you are not familiar with what happened in 1962. I suggest you research on it. Pakistan had opportunity to grab IOK thank to China-India war, but unfortunately, Ayub Khan was busy listening to the orders of Uncle Sam that retreated since Uncle Sam was concerned about India back then - taking heavy beating by China.

That was actually a very good policy, considering that it greatly improved Pakistan's relations with China, which is why we can have things like CPEC nowadays.

Really? Pakistan was rising star because of the 50s policies? Are you sure? Because Ayub changed those policies. And then Pakistan became a rising star.

Pakistan was rising star in 60 because of policy in 50 that provided the platform to get the ball rolling. Similarity, today's India economical policy had been progressive due to the policy in 90s that changed the course of the game. Thank to Mr Modi, their hard works are about to be undone.

Thank to Ayub Khan, Pakistan went from rising start to rock bottom.

Bangladesh didn't happen because of Ayub Khan. He failed to properly address East Pakistan's grievances, yes, but he resigned when he saw that the public was turning against him. You can't blame him for what happened after he resigned. Democratic Bhutto did much more damage to relations between East and West Pakistanis, and Yahya just put the final nail in the coffin with his misguided operation.

Bhutto was busy cleaning the irreparable mess. Thank to the policy of Ayub Khan, Bhutto was put in the difficult situation. East Pakistan to Bangladesh became inevitable. It was Ayub Khan that governed Pakistan throughout 60s with disaster policy of 62 losing the opportunity to cash out on IOK to almost lost Pakistan in 1965 and then lost East Pakistan to Bangladesh.

You cannot blame on demcoratic Bhutto who was thrown in the deep ends juggling between the mess left by General Ayub Khan.

"Forever failed"? So you can see the future as well? Don't be such a pessimist.

Really? It took more than 20 years for Pakistan to get back on the game, and now that is happening right under the leadership of Democratic elected government.

No actually. Pakistan in 1999 was going through serious economic problems. Read that BBC article I linked to before.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/475195.stm

Now don't tell me the BBC was controlled by Musharraf.

Pakistan's economy skyrocketed from 60-69, 80-90, and 2000-2008.

You are right, it can't be a coincidence, but you have it the other way around.

Again, remember this:

You ignored my whole post.

If the economy was in trouble, then how did the economy of Musharraf skyrocketed right after 2001? Then almost led to bankruptcy in 2004-2005 and then got bailed by handsome aids and funding to escape bankruptcy? Then left Pakistan with the economy in tatter with nothing invested on the resources to show for - that something to get the ball rolling for the economy.

So basically what is economy that Musharraf skyrocketed other than getting bailed out handsome raids and funding?

At least you can say with PMLN that loan money are directly invested on energy sectors, CPEC, transportation projects and many more.

As for aid and funding, Pakistan's dependence on it is questionable. It is mostly American and Indian propagandists who proclaim that Pakistan can not survive without US aid, when in reality, it probably can, very comfortably.

Pakistan can survive without US aid, but Generals with no background on economy cannot. It is no coincident why the economy had been left in tatter every times Generals commanded leadership and left for democracy to clean their mess.

Again, I'll reiterate that I'm not in favour of Military rule, we need to fix our Democracy and we need good civilian leadership, but blaming the Army is just scapegoating and doesn't solve the actual problem. We need strong institutions, a parliament that actually represents the population, and proper tax collection so that we can fund important things like healthcare and education. If a civilian government is effective and popular, the military will never want to or be able to overthrow it.

How can you fix democracy when you have Pakistani army who don't want to? Where do you think PMLN, MQM came from? It has to be Pakistani army's way. Pakistani army never gave democracy proper chance from the beginning. It had always been Pakistani army's call. If democracy refused to bow down to Pakistani army, then the coup occurred. If they didn't spare Fatima Ali Jinnah, what made you think they would have spared others? Pakistani army wants lackey in democracy, not competent. That is the only way democracy doesn't get bigger than Pakistani army as the main institution.

There is the reason why democracy ruled Pakistan very little compared to the endless decades of Pakistani army ruling Pakistan with nothing to show for except losing IOK in 1962, almost lost Pakistan in 1965, lost East Pakistan to Bangladesh along with the alleged mass genocide, hanged one prolific democratic elected government to death to install Marshall Law later and years of oppressing people in Balochistan.

 

[Skywalker]

RIP morality and Common sense which is not available in Pakistan. I am unable to find any propaganda but ISPR is a propaganda center where in world army run a public relation media center? Every press release should come by proper channel and ISPR should stop funding few media houses.

BTW, if you think they are on payroll then i think our army is also on govt's payroll . Oh i forget, our so called PAAK army has their own businesses in pakistan in every domain be it agri culture to avaiation.

Grow up kid and try to absorb reality.

What's your problem with the army...how about yourself enjoying benefits in Germany.

 

[wiseone2]

Who was pro India

you know where a honest person stands

 

[TruthHurtz]

Oh dear!

 

[TankMan]

People from East Pakistan resisted Pakistani General. Those who resisted paid with the price of blood. Coup had never gone bloodless in the history of Pakistan politics. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged to death by Zia-ul-Haq - who then consumed the leadership against the wills of the nation. It is on the record, in fact backed by the interview of Zia-ul-Haq in his own words

Bhai Jaan why don't you understand that Zia took over in 1977, and he did not cause the 1971 war.

Regardless of whether you accept ot or not, the reality is that "Democratic" politicians like Bhutto were just as responsible for the split as the Generals, if not more so.

It wasn't a General who said "idher hum udher tum, bhar mei jaao _ ke bachon". It was a politician.

Bhutto was busy cleaning the irreparable mess. Thank to the policy of Ayub Khan, Bhutto was put in the difficult situation.

Please do enlighten me as to how calling the Bengalis "suar ke bache" and telling them to 'go to "bhar" was Bhutto trying to clean the mess.

Even if Bhutto had good intentions, he only made it worse. He put the last nail in the coffin of East-West Pakistan relations.

The Generals you hate so much used the exact same justification for their military operation - they said they were trying to clean up the mess.

I take it you are not familiar with what happened in 1962. I suggest you research on it. Pakistan had opportunity to grab IOK thank to China-India war, but unfortunately, Ayub Khan was busy listening to the orders of Uncle Sam that retreated since Uncle Sam was concerned about India back then - taking heavy beating by China.

I take it you don't know about this little thing called 'the Cold War' that was foing on at the time. No big deal, it was just two nuclear superpowers on opposing sides of several proxy wars and a few direct confrontations.
India was pro-Soviet. Pakistan went the other way, which was the logical thing to do. The Soviets weren't going to abandon India to help Pakistan.

You have no idea about the context you are talking in - you are looking at history from the lens of today. China was not friendly to Pakistan in 1962 as they are today, the alliance started after 1962 as a result of the War. You are talking as if China told Ayub they were going to have a war with India. They didn't. Mobilizing an Army is not as easy as you think, and neither is balancing between the USSR and US.

It was at most a missed opportunity. Pakistan did not "lose IOK". Ayub made a wise decision by improving relations with China after 1962 rather than jumping into a potentially disastrous war unprepared. Would you have prefered Ayub sent troops into the crossfire between India and China? And what if they were massacred? What if the Chinese didnt provide support simply because they were content with taking Aksai-Chin? Then you would just blame Ayub regardless, because everyone is a master at geopolitical manoevering when they have the benefit of hindsight.

What do you think a democratically elected leader would have done in that situation? Case in point, Nawaz Sharif during Kargil. What did he do? He retreated. Even though the Army was making progress, he gave in to foreign pressure. Very rarely do leaders - democratic or otherwise - make the right decisions in such cases.

I suggest you do some research about basic concepts and context before repeating such flawed talking points.

If the economy was in trouble, then how did the economy of Musharraf skyrocketed right after 2001? T

Economy was in trouble before Musharraf. Skyrocketed when he took over. How? Put two and two together, the answer is four.

Keep in mind "skyrocket" is in relative terms. Musharraf wasn't some super economist or magician - he just did a better job when compared to his predecessor.

So basically what is economy that Musharraf skyrocketed other than getting bailed out handsome raids and funding?

At least you can say with PMLN that loan money are directly invested on energy sectors, CPEC, transportation projects and many more.

Clearly you have a short memory - Musharraf built the motorways.

He also laid the foundation for CPEC
http://www.dawn.com/news/27285

Dawn article from 2002:
"GWADAR, March 22: President Gen Pervez Musharraf said on Friday that the future port city of Gwadar would play a key role in the speedy economic development of the whole region."

As for what PMLN has to show, except for a excessively expensive metro bus, apply some of your scepticism to PMLN as well and examine some facts:
https://www.thenews.com.pk/archive/amp/405473-pml-n’s-financial-wizardry

Pakistan can survive without US aid, but Generals with no background on economy cannot. It is no coincident why the economy had been left in tatter every times Generals commanded leadership and left for democracy to clean their mess.

Did you actually read any of the links, statistics, etc I posted? If you keep repeating these debunked points like a parrot, I'm just going to keep posting the same links until you read them.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationalDevelopment/pdf/WP/WP92.pdf
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/14/hdr2013_en_complete.pdf
http://www.dawn.com/news/695692

It's better to have people with no background in economics acting in national interests than to have thieves who are professional economists doing everything for personal or business interests.

"Let's put the rich bankers in charge!" you say.

Go ask Greece how that's working out for them.

Speak for yourself. I don't entertain the controversial notion that cannot be backed.

With democracy, you will have to accept the votes of the majority even if you or minority don't like it. It is majority that have major say on the democracy, not the minority.

Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about. What can not be backed? The fact that FPTP often leads to minority rule?

Do you know what a First Past the Post voting system is?

First Past the Post means whoever has the most votes wins - REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE HAS A MAJORITY OR NOT. Example: 2015 UK General Election, the Tories got 36% of the vote but got 50% of the seats. 36% is a minority - 64% of the electorate voted against them.

Another example: 2013 Pakistan General Election - do you think PMLN won a majority of votes? They didn't. They won 32% of the vote. 68% voted against PMLN. Minority rule. I know, coalitions and independents etc factor in as well - but by that point the people's direct input is no longer involved.

And that isnt even counting the turnout, i.e how many people who could vote actually voted. And lets not forget the amount of money needed to run a campaign, and the immense influence of wealthy donors and the media over elections.

Anyway, those are just some examples of minority rule within Democracy. Democracy doesn't always mean what you think it does, even the Americans are having problems with their electoral college system giving Trump the presidency when he in fact lost the popular vote by a few million votes.

There is nothing "controversial" about this. Anyone who has half a clue as to how elections work knows and accepts this.

Better alternatives such as Proportional Representation and Single Transferrable vote exist which more or less solve these problems but have their own pros and cons

Look it up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/single-transferable-vote

The election is the way for the public to show support officially. It is way to put somebody on the map they actually want.

Really? Do you honestly think people can "put somebody on the map" without the media and spending a fortune on campaigning? Sounds good on paper, doesnt work in practice.

After the death of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), it was oral election took place which put Abu Bakr (R.A) on the map by the majority votes

This is a very interesting point you have raised. First of all you need to keep in mind that Hazrat Abu Bakr RA was already "on the map" as he was the Holy Prophet's closest companion and friend.

I agree with you that Hazrat Abu Bakr RA was supported by the majority of people. But there was no campaigning, no advertisements, no smearing other candidates, no personal attacks, no gerrymandering, no false promises- he was chosen based on his reputation as a good man with morals and wisdom.

You have just proven my point that you do not need Western-style Democracy for a Government to represent its people. This is exactly what I mean by improving Democracy to suit our needs and values.

We need to get money out of politics. We need to reduce the influence of capitalism on how the country is run - its no coincidence that our PM is a multimillionaire factory owner.

Once government becomes meritocratic and actually represents the people, a military coup will be out of the question. I have already shown you what happens if the people oppose a coup, e.g Turkey recently.

How can you fix democracy when you have Pakistani army who don't want to?

Where do you think the Army comes from? Army is made up of Pakistanis. If a politician started a movement to bring accountability to Pakistani "democracy", and the people of Pakistan supported him, the Army would support it. Or, ideally, they wouldn't get involved.

Does that sound familiar? It should, because that is exactly what happened recently, the Army didnt get involved in IK's populist anti-govt movement.

What do you think the Army's main interest is? It is made up of common Pakistanis, based entirely on and in Pakistan, and exists for the sole purpose of protecting Pakistan. Unlike 'democratic' politics, anyone can join the Army, and can rise through the ranks if they perform well. Of course it has flaws, weaknesses, some corruption. They're humans, after all. But it is the single institution in Pakistan that is based more on Merit than Money.

How long will you keep pretending that it is some sort of evil foreign institution?

But fine, lets have it your way. Lets say we disband the Pakistan Army completely. Dont worry about the nukes, we'll gift them to the PM's daughter on her birthday or something.

What brand of anarchy would you like with your sham democracy, Red, far-right, or pure?

People from East Pakistan resisted Pakistani General. Those who resisted paid with the price of blood

If you really believe that Mukhti Bahini represented the people of East Pakistan, or that some General killed 3 hundred bazzilion people and ate people alive, I can't help you except for telling you to read this post by @WAJsal
https://defence.pk/threads/rape-of-...rue-story-germaine-greer.426740/#post-8241538

and this article by Sarmila Bose
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/05/20115983958114219.html

and do some reasearch aside from reading Indian propaganda.

and years of oppressing people in Balochistan

And now you're straight up quoting Indian propaganda. I'm not going to bother responding to that, it has been debunked countless times. Balochistan is no more oppressed than Wales or Scotland or Vermont. They have some legitimate complaints against the government - everyone does, even Punjabis - but Baloch are some of the most Patriotic people in Pakistan. Indian proxies do not represent Baloch people.

Do you consider CPEC to be oppression?

Anyway, let me just reiterate that I do not want or support martial law - but it is wrong to blame the Army for everything that has gone wrong.

It is also wrong to believe that Democracy is flawless or that we must copy the Western system unquestioningly. Their system is very flawed and not suited to the situation in Pakistan.

Coups happen when people are unhappy with corrupt governments - a military coup can not overthrow a government if it is not corrupt and is supported by the people.

Therefore, we need serious reform in the civilian political system to break out of the -"democracy"-coup-"democracy"- coup cycle.

 

[Zibago]

you know where a honest person stands

Nope he stood against wishes of his people and he met his political demise

People from East Pakistan resisted Pakistani General. Those who resisted paid with the price of blood. Coup had never gone bloodless in the history of Pakistan politics. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged to death by Zia-ul-Haq - who then consumed the leadership against the wills of the nation. It is on the record, in fact backed by the interview of Zia-ul-Haq in his own words.




The election is the way for the public to show support officially. It is way to put somebody on the map they actually want.

After the death of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), it was oral election took place which put Abu Bakr (R.A) on the map by the majority votes.




Speak for yourself. I don't entertain the controversial notion that cannot be backed.

With democracy, you will have to accept the votes of the majority even if you or minority don't like it. It is majority that have major say on the democracy, not the minority.




Nawaz Sharif came to the power three times already, and that alone suggests people still want Nawaz Sharif.

Coup is normally designed to ensure democracy doesn't get bigger than the main institution of Pakistan army. There is the reason why Pakistani army hasn't been taken to the accountability. The moment Pakistani army is brought to the accountability, the coup occurs.

Similarity, a coup almost occurred for the third time during the tenure of Nawaz Sharif within a year right after Nawaz Sharif decided to take Musharraf to the accountability which was derailed coupled with the factors of dharna to ensure the installation of power-sharing agreement with gain access to foreign policy with the cooperation of General Raheel in conditions to allow Nawaz Sharif to resume his tenure while in restricted powers to none.

Democracy will be accounted for accountability, but not Pakistani army, and precisely why i am against the idea of Marshall Law in the politics since they can get away just by doing anything unspeakable things and not be accounted.



I take it you are not familiar with what happened in 1962. I suggest you research on it. Pakistan had opportunity to grab IOK thank to China-India war, but unfortunately, Ayub Khan was busy listening to the orders of Uncle Sam that retreated since Uncle Sam was concerned about India back then - taking heavy beating by China.




Pakistan was rising star in 60 because of policy in 50 that provided the platform to get the ball rolling. Similarity, today's India economical policy had been progressive due to the policy in 90s that changed the course of the game. Thank to Mr Modi, their hard works are about to be undone.

Thank to Ayub Khan, Pakistan went from rising start to rock bottom.




Bhutto was busy cleaning the irreparable mess. Thank to the policy of Ayub Khan, Bhutto was put in the difficult situation. East Pakistan to Bangladesh became inevitable. It was Ayub Khan that governed Pakistan throughout 60s with disaster policy of 62 losing the opportunity to cash out on IOK to almost lost Pakistan in 1965 and then lost East Pakistan to Bangladesh.

You cannot blame on demcoratic Bhutto who was thrown in the deep ends juggling between the mess left by General Ayub Khan.




Really? It took more than 20 years for Pakistan to get back on the game, and now that is happening right under the leadership of Democratic elected government.



You ignored my whole post.

If the economy was in trouble, then how did the economy of Musharraf skyrocketed right after 2001? Then almost led to bankruptcy in 2004-2005 and then got bailed by handsome aids and funding to escape bankruptcy? Then left Pakistan with the economy in tatter with nothing invested on the resources to show for - that something to get the ball rolling for the economy.

So basically what is economy that Musharraf skyrocketed other than getting bailed out handsome raids and funding?

At least you can say with PMLN that loan money are directly invested on energy sectors, CPEC, transportation projects and many more.



Pakistan can survive without US aid, but Generals with no background on economy cannot. It is no coincident why the economy had been left in tatter every times Generals commanded leadership and left for democracy to clean their mess.



How can you fix democracy when you have Pakistani army who don't want to? Where do you think PMLN, MQM came from? It has to be Pakistani army's way. Pakistani army never gave democracy proper chance from the beginning. It had always been Pakistani army's call. If democracy refused to bow down to Pakistani army, then the coup occurred. If they didn't spare Fatima Ali Jinnah, what made you think they would have spared others? Pakistani army wants lackey in democracy, not competent. That is the only way democracy doesn't get bigger than Pakistani army as the main institution.

There is the reason why democracy ruled Pakistan very little compared to the endless decades of Pakistani army ruling Pakistan with nothing to show for except losing IOK in 1962, almost lost Pakistan in 1965, lost East Pakistan to Bangladesh along with the alleged mass genocide, hanged one prolific democratic elected government to death to install Marshall Law later and years of oppressing people in Balochistan.

I am sure mass murdering Indian sponsored mukti dogs had nothing to do what happened in East Pakistan and Agartala was hoax

On issue of Nawaz being elected(in a rigged election) that doesnot make every decision he makes free from criticism or free him from all sort of accountability in democracy corrupt people have to go they cant use mantra of oh i am elected therefore am free from all sort of criticism and trial and i can bring in 14th ammendment to save my arse

In yout hate for army you are rooting for anti state BLA elements and corrupt politicians and dont give me argument of nothing happened in 20 years Nawaz was out during Mush years we had a decent gdp rate it crashed after the global financial crisis and soaring oil prices during his tenure wr statrted many mega projects that will be completed now so calling his tenure bad econimcally overall i a acky argument our economy was damaged by over reliance on oil not by bad policies

Trump was elected in US
Britian voted for brexit
Does it mean in those countries people of Trump and Donald movement are not criticised?
Opponents of.Brexit went to court o nullify brexit vote because they dont use hacky argument of everything voted as being right

On issue of Zia(some of my relatives went to jail during his regime) do you think all those who rooted for him are also guilty?

 

[Finer]

I am sure mass murdering Indian sponsored mukti dogs had nothing to do what happened in East Pakistan and Agartala was hoax

They succeeded because of bad policy of Ayub Khan which led to the inevitable creation of Bangladesh. Similarity, Musharraf almost made the same mistake in Balochistan. Thankfully, he was forced to resign through exit-plan strategy with his successor whose criminal charges were dropped - ended up building bridges between Balochistan and Pakistan army. Under Zardar ruler, from the corruption to terrorism reached the heights of sky, but prevented Balochistan from becoming another Bangladesh.

In yout hate for army you are rooting for anti state BLA elements and corrupt politicians and dont give me argument of nothing happened in 20 years Nawaz was out during Mush years we had a decent gdp rate it crashed after the global financial crisis and soaring oil prices during his tenure wr statrted many mega projects that will be completed now so calling his tenure bad econimcally overall i a acky argument our economy was damaged by over reliance on oil not by bad policies

Trump was elected in US
Britian voted for brexit
Does it mean in those countries people of Trump and Donald movement are not criticised?
Opponents of.Brexit went to court o nullify brexit vote because they dont use hacky argument of everything voted as being right

On issue of Zia(some of my relatives went to jail during his regime) do you think all those who rooted for him are also guilty?

I hate Army because i don't support Marshall Law? That is the problem with you guys. Imranistan also plays the same tune like if i question the policy of Imran Khan, suddenly i am noora. That is the biggest problem in Pakistan.

That being said, i have mentioned all the examples in my posts including the negative aspects of Marshall Law had over the economy of Pakistan, allegedly mass genocide in Bangladesh, and then oppression in Balochistan, the creation of blasphemy law and their policy of funding certain groups to undermine the democratic elected government. For example, MQM. All those examples suggest Marshall Law is not exactly ideal role model for Pakistan as people romanticize about it.

I am not going to repeat what i have said already.

The bottom line is i am pro-democracy, and this Pakistan is built upon the vision of Alama Iqbal where the democracy [platform of public] must supersede Marshall Law which occurs against the wills of the nation. Pakistan army answers to the public, not the other way around.

 

[Zibago]

They succeeded because of bad policy of Ayub Khan which led to the inevitable creation of Bangladesh. Similarity, Musharraf almost made the same mistake in Balochistan. Thankfully, he was forced to resign through exit-plan strategy with his successor whose criminal charges were dropped - ended up building bridges between Balochistan and Pakistan army. Under Zardar ruler, from the corruption to terrorism reached the heights of sky, but prevented Balochistan from becoming another Bangladesh.



I hate Army because i don't support Marshall Law? That is the problem with you guys. Imranistan also plays the same tune like if i question the policy of Imran Khan, suddenly i am noora. That is the biggest problem in Pakistan.

That being said, i have mentioned all the examples in my posts including the negative aspects of Marshall Law had over the economy of Pakistan, allegedly mass genocide in Bangladesh, and then oppression in Balochistan, the creation of blasphemy law and their policy of funding certain groups to undermine the democratic elected government. For example, MQM. All those examples suggest Marshall Law is not exactly ideal role model for Pakistan as people romanticize about it.

I am not going to repeat what i have said already.

The bottom line is i am pro-democracy, and this Pakistan is built upon the vision of Alama Iqbal where the democracy [platform of public] must supersede Marshall Law which occurs against the wills of the nation. Pakistan army answers to the public, not the other way around.

Mukti started killing way before operation actually began lets not twist facts here reason for resentments were Urdu,inequality and slow growth in East wing but India gave them arms and supported them
Balochistan boiled because of farrari camps in Afghanistan now that they are monitored situation is no longer tense
The policy n Balochistan hasntchanged at all still to this day BLA types are regularly taken out by army and bla crybabies use same tone

Nope i said you hate army because you glorified people like Nawaz just because they are anti army thats only reason a new breed of noon leagis support him

I dont root for dictatorship but lets not twist facts here our economy grew more in Army rule than in democratic times

Blasphemy law really?
That law has existed since colonial times

Why do you conviniently shy away from mentioning baboon league when you are talking about martial law babies?

It was to be made a real democracy not a rigged one where a corrupt individual can manipulate the system to make it to benefit his bussiness interests even when it comes to issues of national security

 

[wiseone2]

Nope he stood against wishes of his people and he met his political demise


I am sure mass murdering Indian sponsored mukti dogs had nothing to do what happened in East Pakistan and Agartala was hoax

blaming India for 1971 is cop-out

Name a single Mukti Bahini military commander who was not a paid employee of the Pakistani state. The state alienated Bengalis.

 

[Zibago]

blaming India for 1971 is cop-out

Your pm and generals accepted responsibility it wouldn't have risen to the level it did if India didnt arm it