Zardari says Pak ‘created militancy for short term tactical gains’

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

but i doubt if anybody agreed to do it . i doubt american president ever made a public comment that they did initiate terrorist for a stratagic advantage on russians.

This will only give a bad name already defamed name of pakistan in world community.

No one is accepting support for terrorism - what he is accepting is what is already known and recognized nin Pakistani and global circles - that Pakistan supported the Taliban in Afghanistan to address its national security concerns.

Hillary Clinton made a similar acknowledgment.

"We can point fingers at the Pakistanis, but the problems we face now, to some extent, we have to take responsibility for having contributed to....I mean, let's remember here, the people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago"

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not every country does it (i.e. aiding terrorist activities, which is different from creating "strategic assets".)
USA did it and you did it. And look how it has come back to haunt, like the ghost of Frankenstein, both the USA and Pakistan. The consequences have been more pronounced and more punishing for Pakistan than for the USA.

India did it as well - in supporting the insurgents in East Pakistan, the LTTE in Sri Lanka, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and the BLA in Baluchistan (though their current support for the BLA is under dispute).

Hopefully India will have the refreshing honesty to also admit her mistakes in those areas as a gesture of sincerity, like Pakistan and the US have done.

 

[1980rk]

It isn't a contradictory statement, it could be hard to digest, but My point is, i can't say anything against president of pakistan. but When it comes to a personality i.e. zardari then....

Fracker, for a argument if he is a layman his statement doesn't matter to anyone nor its going to be in news. Since he is your President, whatever reaction to the statement he made is directs only to Mr. President.

 

[amarnath]

Well one thing for sure, the people most hated by us are the most beloved of INDIANS

hahaha, obviously

 

[Neo]

admission of past follies is half the battle won.

So the ball is in your court now to come clean..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

threads merged

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

well mr. Fundamentalist terrorists you consider useful for your short term gains you call them freedom fighters and those who harm you you call them terrorists. Thats not the way reality works.

For India, reality works by backing out of commitments made in the UNSC to allow the people of J&K to exercise their right of self determination to determine their future status as part of Pakistan or India, and unilaterally and forcefully annexing the territory to India.

India has already sat a 'standard for reality' by occupation of a people through force and violation of her commitment in the UN - why complain about 'reality' related to a similar 'unauthorized' use of militants to struggle for freedom?

And the international community and the UN recognizes the right of a people under occupation to struggle against that occupation, so the existence and legitimacy of freedom fighters is reality, and one acknowledged by the global community.

 

[notsuperstitious]

'And the international community and the UN recognizes the right of a people under occupation to struggle against that occupation, so the existence and legitimacy of freedom fighters is reality, and one acknowledged by the global community.'

Eveyone recognises the right of people ANYWHERE to fight against their government, even by force, simply because govt uses force too. Just because one wants to do that, one does not get branded a terrorist in the UN. There are other reasons for it and are well known. Terrorism is not the same as fighting an insurgency. All Pakistani assets invariably took to terrorism and are hence branded such internationally.

Another thing that sets Pakistan's 'experiment' apart is the use of its own citizens as cannon fodder.

 

[ANDUBYLL]

India did it as well - in supporting the insurgents in East Pakistan, the LTTE in Sri Lanka, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and the BLA in Baluchistan (though their current support for the BLA is under dispute).

Hopefully India will have the refreshing honesty to also admit her mistakes in those areas as a gesture of sincerity, like Pakistan and the US have done.

India is not a fool (well not as yet). The candid admission by Zardari that Pakistan is a supporter of terrorism (thats what the literal meaning is) will come and bite him one day.

Many nations including many liberal nations support one sort of freedom or terrorism (for the counterparty) as a national strategic policy. India does too. However no one is dumb enough to admit it.

Zardari might have shot himself in the foot on this one.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Eveyone recognises the right of people ANYWHERE to fight against their government, even by force,

That is something I am not aware of - fighting against a government using peaceful means such as protests, legal action etc. is accepted - raising a militant force and carrying out bombings or attacking government institutions and civilians to 'protest' is not.

The situation changes when a people are occupied.

 

[sohailbarki]

If he is not credible and worthy then why is he the president of Pakistan? That too he and his party are democraticly elected by the people of Pakistan.

people didnt voted zardari
people voted benazir bhutto and zulfiqar bhutto
it was his lucky day after the assassination benazir

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India is not a fool (well not as yet). The candid admission by Zardari that Pakistan is a supporter of terrorism (thats what the literal meaning is) will come and bite him one day.

Many nations including many liberal nations support one sort of freedom or terrorism (for the counterparty) as a national strategic policy. India does too. However no one is dumb enough to admit it.

Zardari might have shot himself in the foot on this one.

Perhaps Zardari made a mistake - I don't think he did. He did not accept support for terrorism, he accepted that we supported militants and 'extremists' to nurture our strategic interests, and that some of them have now turned into terrorists inflicting harm on Pakistan itself.

As I said before, the US has made a similar admission, and even before that, Bill Clinton apologized for the genocide in Guatemala at the hands of the US supported military.

At the end of the day, his statement is not going to be in a court of law as 'evidence', so other than being useful from an academic POV in discussions, it means little.

Now it does mean a lot in terms of creating a perception about Pakistan going forward - as can be seen from the praise showered upon him by many Indians on this forum, he is creating a perception that the current Pakistani leadership is serious about tackling the militant threat and shifting its strategic approach.

That has significant impact in terms of public opinion, and how confident and supportive other nations would be of Pakistan.

So at the moment I do not see a downside to this statement.

 

[L'Indien]

The problem seems to be that YOU want to categorize them as good or bad. We see them as assets and liabilitites.

Which responsible state considers terrorists as "assets"? Even the USA funded the Afghan mujahideen to fight Soviet forces and not to kill innocent civilians.

Do not have the sense that your government does not do the same exact thing. It will just show how little you know.

Perhaps RAW is involved in some kind of political sabotage in Pakistan (maybe not), as so many spy agencies in the world do. But using terrorists to kill civilians...NO WAY.....
Besides why dont you share the proof against RAW with the world like we have done against you and just shut us up??

 

[L'Indien]

India did it as well - in supporting the insurgents in East Pakistan

Yeah...to fight against Western Pakistani Forces not to bomb civilians. It was your civil war....a part of your country revolted. India did what suited it most, politically, strategically, militarily and economically. Mukti bahini was trained by India to fight your army, it was not a terrorist organisation meant to kill civilians like your Lashkar and co.

, the LTTE in Sri Lanka,

Four letters IPKF

the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan,

Yeah to fight against Taliban. Unlike Pakistan which not only supported Taliban but recognised the Taliban govt!!

and the BLA in Baluchistan (though their current support for the BLA is under dispute).

You said it mate!

Hopefully India will have the refreshing honesty to also admit her mistakes in those areas as a gesture of sincerity, like Pakistan and the US have done.

Gesture of sincerity?...maybe or maybe in case of Pakistan its a result of being pushed into a corner by the unrelenting global pressure and domestic crisis. Whatever, its a bold and welcome statement and must be used by the democratic govt. of Pakistan to rethink and reshape its policies.

 

[ajpirzada]

those groups were rightly created. we had to fight USSR and there was no way we could have openly declared an all out war on the then superpower. our mistake was that we didnt destroy the infrastructure after achieving our objectives.