“DAAL HI KAALI HAY”

1- My first question clearly stated that why govt didnot cut off basic necessities for full 5 MONTHS. And you started telling me that this approach takes atleast one full month.. I asked why govt didnot start the seige (in your terms) from the very first month?
Unfortunately, either not clearly reading the question, or ignoring willfully, you totally deviated from the actual question. So I am repeating it for your convenience. “LM AND JH ISSUE STARTED 5 MONTHS BACK. IF GOVT WANTED THEM TO COME OUT WHY IT DIDNOT CUT OFF THE ELECTRICITY, GAS AND WATER SUPPLY FOR FIVE MONTHS”

2- Again, due to a biased approach, you didnot even try to understand my question #2. I never asked govt intention or purpose to bring MAULANA Abdul Aziz on TV. I only asked if the Govt brings all criminals (by the way MAULANA Abdul Aziz is not yet proved a criminal in any court of law) on TV. You said govt wanted the nation to see and beware of these people. My dear, the whole nation votes for various political parties during election while Dictator Musharraf categorically calls their leaders like Benazir, Nawaz et al liars, robbers, traitors etc. He also used to call Altaf Hussain a traitor to the country. Aren’t these leaders deserve more to be watchful of by the nation? So I repeat my question: WHY GOVT BROUGHT MAULANA ABDUL AZIZ ON TV AFTER ONE DAY IN A HUMILIATING FASHION? DOES GOVT ALWAYS BRING PRESUMED CRIMINALS ON TV SO NATION CAN SEE AND BE CAREFUL AND AVOID FOLLOWING THEM IN FUTURE? GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE.

3- Your biased approach is most evident in the third answer. You said Mian Ji was a political leader - does this give him license to hijack planes and risk the life of COAS? (as according to Musharraf), you said Mian Ji had an influence in the country - so did MAULANA SHAHEED ABDUL RASHEED GHAZI had an influence on a large number of people, you said Saudi saved his skin - where is the sovereignty of the country then if any other country can save a criminal. Is this the writ of the govt that musharraf was trying to establish in case of lal masjid? My simple question was:
GOVT SAYS NO SAFE PASSAGE CAN BE GIVEN TO CRIMINALS THEN WHY SAFE PASSAGE WAS GIVEN TO NAWAZ SHARIF. INTERESTINGLY, GIVING SAFE PASSAGE TO GHAZI SHAHEED COULD SAVE A LOT OF LIVES BUT GOVT DIDN’T DO THIS, WHILE NO LIFE WAS AT RISK IN NOT GIVING NAWAZ SHARIF A SAFE PASSAGE BUT GOVT ALLOWED HIM TO FLEE WITH HIS FAMILY. WHY?

My friend, i request YOU to have an unbiased view and have a better understanding and knowledge of the the history of your country.
By the way, govt used phosphorus bombs in LM and JH that melted steel wardrobes and fans. What more force would you use than this?

I am only sticking to the point although I would like to comment on your other points like the issue of SHAHEED but not now - may be in some other thread.

Waiting for to the point and unbiased answers.

Answer to no 1. I guess the method of cutting off supplies and making sure that nothing goes in or comes out, is a viable method of forcing an adversary to surrender. It is what we all a Siege. It could have been possible, in times when the media was not developed and the states had all the time in the world available to them to resort to such antics. Not today. Laying a siege on the LM and JH in order to get results could have taken a month, or more even. The govt’s writ (as they want to believe) is severely damaged if a armd / hostile issue within the capital is prolonged for such a duration. If we take a look around the entire world, no hostage / barricaded armd conflicts are resolved by laying a siege anymore. The state, in my opinion has all the rights to do what they did. They gave ample time to everyone to surrender, and give up arms. And 10 days, if someone still decided to stay there, i am sure their designs were not friendly or they were not going to give up.

1. My friend believes that the govt humiliated Abdul Aziz to humiliate maulanas and clerics. Trust me, if theses are the Maulanas, i guess we are doomed. The man was a total melo-dramatic king. What the govt did was not wrong. How they did it, that was a total disaster. They had no requirement to bring him in a burqa. I guess the reason was to really make sure, that the people all around the country could see the real worth of Abdul Aziz ( i even dont consider such a man a Maulana, he is a disgrace to such an honourable name)

@kashif, my friend, he brought disrepute and disgrace to himself by the method he adopted to flee, alone, saving his skin and leaving all others to die behind. I srsly think that it is time to open our eyes and not just side with these CONS for the sake of hating the govt alone. Atleast we should call a spade a spade. The fact of the matter is, to bring him on TV was to make sure, that the message goes to every pakistani to please be watchful of such liars / hooligans. Yes the method adopted as stated earlier was totally humiliating and not at all called for. That aside, he really deserves every bit of humiliation and disgrace there could be.

1. First i beg to differ here with the use of Word Shaheed for this guy. I am sorry for his end, i really am. He probably did not deserve to die like this. But Shaheed, a person who dies in the name of Allah, in the name of Islam. If that be the case, what Islam was he preaching. What molested version of Islam is being projected by them. I can go on a whole lot, but i will revert back to the question at hand. Comparing both the situations is not a wise thing to do. The situation was totally at the time as far as Mian ji was concerned. He is a political leader, not a militant. He has a certain influence in the country. Plus intervention by Saudi Arabia probably saved his skin. There is no co-relation b/w the two situation. Saving hundreds of lives, well i personally believe that the govt did give a good shot. Ab agar koi khud itna pagal ho chuka ho kay marna chahta ho to mian kia karoon.

Think with a non-biased mind. I am not in favour of the govr, not at all, but what LM and JH did, i guess even if had been in the place of the govt, i probably would have done the very same, but would have saved more lives of the LEAs, by more use of mech forces rather than manpower.

1. Make US happy and prove his government as still useful tool for Bush policies. Lal Masjid issue started chain of retaliation which caused deployment of more forces to northern areas.

2. Disrepute and humiliate ulema and madaris.

2- Why Maulana Abdul Aziz was brought on PTV after full one day of his arrest in burqa - with even his face veiled - and then ordered to show his face? If the govt consider him a criminal who was arrested, does this govt bring all criminals on national TV in the dress they were arrested after one day of their arrest? Why was this humiliation done to Maulana Abdul Aziz that forced his brother to stick to his demand of no arrest since he had seen the anti-human rights humiliation of his brother.
WHY A PRESUMED CRIMINAL WAS BROUGHT ON NATIONAL TV IN A HUMILIATING WAY WHEN IT IS NOT A TRADITION NOR ALLOWED BY THE LAW?

3- If a safe passage should never be given to any presumed criminal even if it means to save some hundred lives (who were being hostaged as according to govt) then why this dictator - oops, sorry, Autocrat rule - started his rule by giving safe passage to a person who he blames to have highjacked a plane risking 300 people’s life including the life of Chief of Army Staff?
WHY SAFE PASSAGE WAS GIVEN TO ONE PERSON WHEN HE COULD BE TRIALED BUT NOT TO GHAZI SHAHEED WHICH COULD SAVE HUNDREDS OF LIVES

Pleaseeee !!! whoever tries to answer these three question, I request him/her to answer them in a straight forward fashion. Don’t please run into the history of pakistan and etc etc…

Many Thanks