Fresh Servey Indicates 80% Against War on Terror
Recent survey establishes the fact that very high majority have rejected american war on terror in Pakistan.
Nawaz is losing points due to his criminal silence on these issues.
This is also an indicator that PML-N has nothing in common with the party that lobbied for a separate homeland as Pakistan for subcontinental Muslims (Two nation theory).
PML-N when one considers its past is a party that can function only when there is on duty army general at its helm (and ISI as a back stage supporter). Otherwise it remains mute (deaf and dumb) on national affairs.
Though bit cautious of not going off topic, but like to share my view on commonality between PML and AIML.
AIML role in areas currently Pakistan was kind of same as PML role. Switch loyalties of existing players to win.
I read about Unionist Party & AIML contest on elections.
If AIML had fielded their own candidates and won based on ideology then it would have been different scene all together. But after shocking defeat in 1939/40 elections they changed tactics by pulling other party members as their candidates.
And they are always doing the same, even till today! We do not have flag bearers (almost no one surviving) who begun their struggle from congress but when they were able to see through the fog they became ML.
The filthy residue left over by the Unionists is still very much active in the form of various political parties of Pakistan that are tied into an endless but vicious struggle of gaining votes from Bradri/Qabeela/Sect/Mazdoor (including horse trading) with hollow slogans and flase promises just to be elected. Once elected another drama (Noora Kushti) begins of debates/legpulling among theses elected/rejected parties till the end of a term and than it starts all over again.
'80% against the war on terror', who ever they may be!
True because a 'crusade' with a name twist was imposed on us, and sadly still on going because, either our leadership is unable to understand the real defination of 'terror' 'terrorism' and a 'terrorist' and those who invented and propagated these terms and role players both, or they are blinded by dollars to an extent that they are unable to recall what 'qoumi ghairat' is.
Media was used to spread this terror of 'terrorism' and now again media is playing a role creating awareness among people the world over to realize the real meaning of 'war on terror'. This percentage may rise above 80%!
When one recalls what Hilary Clinton said: 'We created Taliban', than much of the puzzle pieces fall into place.
Spot on, they alway move in the direction of wind, always sit on the branch full of fruit.
Yes, masses are against the imposed war on terror but now they are threatening to strike if pak army doesn't launch operation.
But good thing is that 'establishment' is resistance new advance on quetta. Let us see how that turns out to be.
awaisjanjua1 last edited by
Hilary Clinton said: 'We created Taliban
err. When did Clinton say that about the Taliban? Sources please.
Search for youself. The web is loaded with information as you may be aware.
netengr last edited by
This is not crusade, this the war between Alqaida /Arab Terrorist and USA
If this is crusade why this is not happening in Malaysia ,Indonesia , bangladesh and Muslims living in the west ?
Because in those countries the people did not allow Mullahs to comes to Power like in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is not just the war of US. It is the war of every sane human being (muslim or non-muslim) against people of the same caliber of abu-jahal and abu-lahab, i.e., Al-Qaeda and Taliban.
Here is youtube video where Hillary talks on owning the problem.
Your definition of people seems revolving around american policy. Heroes when you have interest tied with them, but terrorists when you want to clean them up.
Hilary has the courage to speak the truth to the world. Do we have the same courage to speak the truth about how we invited criminal elements from the muslim world to fight America's war in Afghanistan during Zia regime. Can we also admit that we wanted to gain strategic depth by enabling ISI backed Taliban to capture Kabul. Can we say this now that there are elements in the civil and military establishment who still sympathize with these Taliban butchers. I don't think we can. In that case I find it hypocritical to present such videos where hiliary "admits" US's mistakes.
How we invited? Naive brother we don't have a policy of our own, we follow foreign policy either through carrot or stick.
You seem to misunderstand local dynamics.
No sir. These people were butchers when they were fighting USSR and they are butchers when they are fighting our army in Pakistan and Nato forces in Afghanistan. We haven't changed and our stance is 30 years old.
The sad thing is that you called us Russian agents in the 70s and are callins us US agents now.
Can you please define who are those 'we' who haven't changed stance of last 30 years? Definitely not people of Pakistan.
Don't put words in my mouth, didn't call agent neither in 70s nor today.
It was US's foreign policy that we fought their war in the name of Jihad. Who was forcing our molvi hazraat to call people for Jihad in Afghanistan? Nobody was forcing them at any gun points. History is well documented sir. You need to read it before putting blame on others.
WE = Majority of Pushtoons and their represenatives in NWFP/Pukhtoonkhwa, Awami Nation Party.
My friend, the point was that we tow the line that is given to us through appointed dictator. So don't blame people because they don't make policies -first point-
So what do you say about the majority who won election in 2002 and their stance?
Wasn't 2002 election reflection of majority sentiments? That election was about afghanistan. Tell me if ANP won any election on opposition to afghan policy? This is never their election manifesto, only political stance.