Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Pakistan will Disappear Soon from World Map - No More Terrorist State Pakistan
Hope this will help to make this world more peacefull as most of terrorist training camps will be destroyed.....
Pakistan is axis of evil, civilized world must unite and eliminate this extremist ideology and terrorist land ASAP
VIDEO
Since the creation of Pakistan, its end game is to cause as much destruction within Bharat by activating direct insurgency in Kashmir, extending support to terrorists in the Northeast and supplying arms and explosives to sow seeds of internal dissent. Their mindset being what is, driven by a fundamentalist religious ideology, which is basically undemocratic and totally devoid of any concern for the common man's need in the country.
The Pakistani government has systematically and brazenly sponsored murder and terrorism in Bharat for more than a decade without any retaliation. Various Pakistan's Prime Minister has clearly said from time to time that such aggressions will happen again and again. This is a classical case of diminishing responsibility.
From Bharat's point of view, it would be justifiable if Bharat persists for total victory in Kashmir, which in its aftermath would induce political developments that would not allow Pakistan to exist in the form that it exists now.
DIVIDE PAKISTAN TO ELIMINATE TERRORISM - ONLY WAY
Pakistan has been sponsoring terrorism in Bharat for the past 57 years. Casualties in these terrorist activities have been in several thousands. Bharat still talks about peace and tolerance and friendship with Pakistan. Patience of Hindus of Bharat with Pakistan seems to be infinite. This has given them the incentive to continue with more terrorism, bombings etc. So far, Bharat has never tried to prosecute Pakistan for its terrorism. Pakistan will never end its policy of terrorism and destabilisation as long as we have a policy of timidity and tolerance. Pakistan ridicules us because we reward their hostility with friendship and even with money, bus trips and cricket matches. So far Pakistan has never paid a price for its mischief against Bharat. Hence, sponsorship of terrorism will continue. What has been missing in Bharat's dealings with Pakistan, it is accountability and punishment. Pakistan is a criminal country and needs to be punished severely.
Pakistan spends more than 60 percent of its annual budget on its corrupt bureaucrats and on military and debt services. Such expenses can never invigorate its economy. Depending on the United States and Islamic countries for economic assistance and handouts is not a clear solution for any country, may be even Pakistan, which is forever mired in terrorist activities and minority suppression of non-Muslim Hindus and in Sind and Baluchistan.
Pakistan realises that as long as Bharat remains economically strong, Bharat could not be militarily defeated and destroyed. It has therefore embarked on building terrorist cells all over Bharat and escalating proxy war. Bharat has already spent about 95,000 crore rupees fighting the proxy war, not including the cost of war in Kargil. Now Bharat has to fight on several fronts -- on the Line of Control against the Pakistan-backed intruders, on the diplomatic front and also internally to foil secessionist designs of the Inter Services intelligence, beside the economic front where if steps not taken effectively might prove disastrous.
A brief review of demographic facts will convince anyone that Hindus are indeed facing a survival threat. It is worth reminding that at the time of partition in 1947, the Muslims constituted about 25 percent of the population of united Bharat.
In 1947, at the time of independence from the British, Pakistan had between 30 to 40 percent Hindus; today the Pakistan population has less than one percent Hindus. Hindu population in the Islamic Bangladesh has reduced from 38 percent in 1947 to about eight percent now. But the Muslim population in "secular Bharat" has swelled from eight percent to eighteen percent. This is mainly due to high growth rates amongst Muslims and migration from the neighbouring Islamic Bangladesh and high birth rate in Muslim families. While in the "secular Bharat", every one, including Muslims has enjoyed equal rights, in Islamic Pakistan, Hindus, Sikhs and Christians do not have voting or any other rights.
Both in the Islamic Pakistan and the Islamic Bangladesh, Hindus are placed under discriminatory and threatening conditions. This led to ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs from the land they lived and thrived for thousands of years. In Bharatiya Kashmir, Hindus have been cleansed out by Pakistan supported Islamic terrorists as Pakistan wants Kashmir part of its country. It is not just Kashmir; Pakistan is after, the whole Bharat along with the destruction of Bharat and extermination of non-Muslims and Hindus in particular.
Muslims must not be allowed to execute demographic genocide of Hindus through population growth. Bharat should internationalise the issue of ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir and call for accountability for these deeds. This is a very legitimate issue. In addition, the high growth rates of Muslims and the associated long-term consequences affecting non-Muslims survival should be spelled out. Raising these issues at the international level should generate sympathy, understanding and possibly support for corrective actions taken to remove this threat from Pakistan.
The right of a population to survive is the most fundamental human right of all rights. Bharatiya Muslims now have two Islamic countries, Pakistan and Bangle Desh exclusively for themselves. Hindus have been driven out of these two exclusive countries and have only Bharat for themselves.
Unless Bharat takes a rigid stand against Pakistan or abolishes the nuisance of the existence of Pakistan, there will be no end of this mischief. Pakistan is an Islamic terrorist state like other Islamic states. Why Bharat have to be friendly with Pakistan all the time or why Pakistani cricket team is allowed to play in Bharat where Muslims of Bharat raise the slogan "Pakistan Zindabad". Unconfirmed reports said that when cricket match between Bharat and Pakistan, then at that time none of the 1000 or odd "Pakistani cricket fans" who came to Bharat to "witness the match" never returned. Were they spies?
Inability of the Bharatiya political leadership in the past to grasp the essential elements of the entire picture is evident from the fact that Pakistan continues activities detrimental to Bharatiya nation state even today.
By smuggling of mercenaries and arms via the coastal areas of Gujarat, hostile terrain?s of Gujarat, Kashmir, porous borders of Rajasthan, and by extending narco-terrorism into Punjab, Pakistan keep continue to tie down Bharatiya military and police and the administration. To a determined enemy, endless possibilities abound since it has gauged that as Bharatiyas, we do not have the will to pose a direct challenge to Pakistan's integrity. The enemy Pakistan holds to ransom Bharat because the pre-eminent power in the subcontinent refuses to project any counter threat.
The faulty Bharatiya doctrine envisages defending the territorial integrity of Bharat by deploying the military resources merely to push back the Pakistan invasion to borders. The enemy Pakistan is allowed to live to strike on another day. Prithvi Raj Chauhan defeated Mohammed Gauri seventeen times and every time Prithivi Raj let the invader go, with the ultimate result Mohammed Gauri won on his eighteen attempt. When Prithvi Raj lost the battle, he lost his empire and was killed and Hindus became slave of Muslims for thousand of years. The doctrine of letting the enemy go unhurt and unpunished is an extension of the centuries old fortress mentality which resulted in invasions from our western borders.
Our history argues against letting the enemy go unpunished because the defensive defence mode erroneously allows the enemy to retain the element of surprise. With large borders located in hostile terrain, this politico-military doctrine expects the impossible to guard physically every square inch of the territory. Another negative dimension is the internal consumption of enormous military power due to external interference.
Weapons and forces by themselves do not constitute a source of security or a threat but the ideas and attitude governing their use and usability do. Therefore in order to safeguard national interests, the political leadership must shift to the strategic doctrine of offensive defence. This will ensure defence of national interests along with territorial integrity. It is an assertive, not aggressive philosophy which, if used wisely, can deal effectively with forces inimical to Bharat.
In the offensive defensive mode, a correct appreciation of the situation and counter action to neutralise the developing threat are mandatory. What is military meant for? Military is meant for destroying enemies and for creating peace and prosperity in the country. It is time that Bharatiya military be used to destroy Pakistan and other enemies of Bharat.
The bitter truth about the partition of Bharat out of fundamentalist hatred, the agonies of the Bharat bound migrants of that time and misadventure in Kashmir in 1947 - 48, reveal the first signs of Pakistani design to disturb the tranquillity of Bharat. Various actual and proxy wars with Pakistan and terrorist activities has compelled Bharat to shell out billions of dollars to defend us. Under the offensive-defensive doctrine, the bottom line assessment is that a stable Pakistan is not in our national interest. A counter strategy to degrade Pakistan's capability to pose a threat in future needs to be worked upon. Bharat should also deal with Pakistan with cold-blooded ruthlessness.
Without a national identity, Pakistan is an incomplete and, therefore, an insecure state. Our counter strategy must be a pragmatic study of the prevalent conditions in Pakistan. Seeds of instability were sown by the Punjabi Muslims who dominate all structures of power. Claims laid to equality in power sharing by the Sindhis, Pathans and Baluchis were ignored and are subjects of wide spread dissent. The Mohajirs who leveraged the partition of Bharat were treated as second class citizens. The economic scenario is bleak with an adverse balance of payments position. Pakistan is a nest of Islamic fundamentalist bodies, which exports terrorism to Bharat, and to the western world. To counter Pakistan, an assertive diplomacy based on gaining friends and allies through mutually beneficial activity in the realm of geo-politics should be the cornerstone of our foreign policy.
In a role reversal, Bharat should dictate the agenda, and turn the heat on Pakistan. It is in our national interest to keep Pakistan off-balance till it sues for peace or destroyed. Coherent accretion of military power with lethal offensive capability, which if unleashed can create terror in the mind of enemy, is a paramount requirement. The awe of military power is a deterrent, which prevents outbreak of a war. It is time for Bharat to abandon its ostrich-like position and shift to an assertive posture.
A knowledge Pakistani expert has agreed that Mangla dam is the primary strategic target in Pakistan. He states that its destruction will significantly hurt agriculture in Pakistan, as Pakistan is primarily an agriculture-based economy. By the destruction of Mangla dam, Pakistan would lose about 50 percent of its electricity production. Mangla and Chitoor dams generate 100 percent of Pakistani electricity and act as Pakistani lifeline. In fact, many feel that it will lead to significant weakening and a possible collapse of Pakistan, which would be very good news for Bharat. In other words, the Mangla dam's destruction that is with in Bharatiya artillery range which would break Pakistani back. Once the dam is gone, the infiltrations will leave in hurry.
The dam destruction will also adversely affect large Pakistani troops in PoK. This is far more devastating than multiple nuclear attacks. A severe penalty such as destroying the Mangla dam should increase the Pakistan's economic woes and make it think twice in harming Bharat.
After silently suffering Pakistani terrorism and aggression for decades, Bharat must now justifiably take military action for its long-term security or even destroy Pakistan. Unless Pakistan is taught a permanent lesson for its blatant aggression, it will continue to foster and spread terrorism year after year.
[img]http://toplush.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Miss-Pakistan-Contestant-wfash-com-11.jpg[/img]
Pakistani's are excellent in doing propaganda, in addition to being champions of deceit, treachery and terrorism. Bharat made a big blunder by not celebrating the 1971 Bharat's victory over Pakistan annually to infuse a sense of patriotism among the people. Bharat also lost a golden opportunity by not taking advantage of Pakistan's surrender in Bangladesh for its full media value for the fear of Losing Muslims support. This has been Pakistan's biggest secret of its success over Bharat, as Bharat does not take stiff decisions against Muslims. Victory over Pakistan or in any war would unify an inherently diverse and pluralistic Bharat nation.
If a democratic set-up doesn't provide an appropriate platform to eradicate Islamic terrorism then some other appropriate steps must be taken, the nuisance of the existence of Pakistan must be abolished. Pakistan must be destroyed thoroughly for the peace of humanity.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
The limits of tolerance
Thursday, 26 Aug, 2010
The ongoing furore over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque shows no sign of abating after weeks of noisy controversy. In a sense, it has become a litmus test of America’s cherished freedom of worship, as well as its tolerance of other people and other faiths.
But to put things in perspective, I would like to invite readers to imagine that a group of Christians asked for approval to build a church close to the site of an iconic building in Pakistan some of their fellow-believers had destroyed, killing thousands. How would we have responded?
Actually, this scenario is so implausible as to be practically meaningless. The sad reality is that non-Muslims in Pakistan live on sufferance, and it would be unthinkable for them to even dream of expanding their places of worship, let alone constructing new ones. A few years ago, I recall writing about the trials and tribulations of Christians trying to build a church in Islamabad despite having received official permission. They were bullied by a local mullah, and found no support from the city administration. Since then, things have got worse for the minorities.
The ongoing dispute in New York is another reminder of how civilised societies treat those citizens who do not subscribe to the majority faith. Much to his credit, New York’s Mayor Bloomberg (a Jew, by the way) approved the project, despite opposition from right-wing groups. It is President Barack Obama who has been a disappointment to liberals with his equivocation over the issue: after appearing to endorse it at an iftar event for Muslim ambassadors, he backtracked swiftly in the face of shrill and expected criticism from the right.
In a controversial article that appeared recently in the Ottawa Citizen (Mischief in Manhattan; 7 August), Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, two Muslims who live in Canada, argued that proceeding with the project is tantamount to mischief-making, an act prohibited in Islam. The authors have been attacked for their stance on the Internet, with readers accusing them of taking a reactionary line.
The truth is that the issue has become highly divisive, with over 60 per cent of Americans opposing the project. Before readers think this reflects poorly on secular attitudes in the country, please recall that there are some 30 mosques in New York. What is really giving offence is the location of the proposed Muslim community centre as it is a couple of blocks from where the Twin Towers stood before 9/11.
For weeks now, this controversy has been in the news with talking heads on TV from across the political spectrum reviling or defending the project, initially dubbed the Cordoba Initiative. Critics have attacked the name of the centre for serving as a reminder of Muslim conquests in Europe. In response, the developer has said the name has been changed to Park51.
In such an emotionally charged debate, it’s hard to be rational. Logically, the location should be immaterial: after all, there is already a mosque in the area, not far from Ground Zero. So why should another make any difference? The truth is that the 9/11 attacks continue to resonate deeply in America, so what’s the point in insisting on a project that is like a red flag to a bull?
The project is expected to cost around $100 million, and many think the bulk of the money will come from Saudi Arabia, even though the source of the funds has not been made public yet. If this is indeed so, Raza and Fatah consider this would be a slap in the face of Americans as “nine of the jihadis in the Twin Towers calamity were Saudis”. More to the point for me is that the Saudis have been funding mosques and madressahs around the world, in addition to paying for chairs for Islamic studies at major universities. Many of these have been used to project the country’s official Wahabi version of Islam that has fuelled the rising tide of extremism and jihadi fervour. Against this backdrop, the question to ask is whether we need yet one more such mosque
Raza and Fatah ask why the $100 million can’t be put to use to help people in Darfur and Pakistan instead? This is especially relevant in the context of the floods that are devastating much of Pakistan today. My own question is about reciprocity: if the Saudis can aggressively spread their ideology abroad, why can’t other beliefs build their places of worship in Saudi Arabia?
Currently, it is illegal to build a church, synagogue or temple in the country. Even importing copies of the Bible or the Torah is forbidden. Granted, Saudi Arabia is not an example of tolerance and freedom of worship. In fact, it is one of the most benighted societies on the planet where the royal family rules with an iron hand in partnership with the clergy. Nevertheless, every time the government or individual members of the ruling House of Saud wish to fund a religious centre abroad, they should be asked to open up their country to other faiths.
Liberal Americans will respond – to their everlasting credit – that their constitutional guarantee of freedom of worship should not be hostage to mediaeval attitudes in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. Ironically, given the choice between living in a religiously ordered state or in a secular country like America, Muslims have voted with their feet in the hundreds of thousands. Most of them are happier in their adopted home, and are free to worship as they please.
This is America’s major strength, and it would be a pity if the events of 9/11 were to erode it. Despite the strong religious strand in American society, it welcomes all faiths. All the more reason, then, for everybody in this melting pot to be respectful of others.
If I am having a meal with a devout Hindu friend at a restaurant, I would not dream of ordering a steak because I am aware that for him or her, cows are sacred. While we all have certain rights, we often do not choose to exercise them so as not to cause offence. This is what living in a heterogeneous society like America entails, so if Muslims opt to live there out of their own free will, it seems to me that they would be wise not to test the limits of tolerance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)