Comments on: Is Gaddafi’s U.N. speech winning him a fan base in Kashmir?

By: Avatar

Avatar — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:04:53 +0000

Keith,
the impact on other muslims is not going to be a factor; 2 nations were formed (now 3) keeping muslim ‘safety’ as the primary reason in the dichotomy in 1947. The partition was based on religion at least as for as east and west Pakistan were concerned at that time (India chose to remain secular), so the rationality of ‘what about us’ loses credibility.

By: Rohit

Rohit — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:43:38 +0000

Posts of Sheik Mushtaq do raise one more question in my mind. Kashmir has got nothing to do with people or development of libya. Are wheels of mecca playing some sort of role? Will they whip up another frenzy for another small Islamic Pakistan?

By: rajeev

rajeev — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:35:24 +0000

@Why do things of world like AQ (Al Quaeda), AQ (Abdul Quadeer), OQ (Ottavio Quattrochi), and posts of Sheikh MushtaQ end with a Q? Why? Kyoon?
- Posted by Rohit
-You are funny (in a good way)

By: rajeev

rajeev — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:26:40 +0000

@I see liberation of Kashmir much earlier than that. Kashmiries are extremely motivated to achieve their Independence from India very soon.
- Posted by John

-I see you are not interested in liberating Kashmiris in POK; interesting! They also deserve liberation or are they already liberated? Pakistan forces Kashmiris in POK to say “Kashmir banega Pakistan”[Kashmir will join Pakistan] if they want govt job or be part of the govt. Seems like these Kashmiris also need a bit of your sympathy.

Hipocrisy at its best!

By: rajeev

rajeev — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:24:11 +0000

Dear Sheikh Mushtaq/Moderator:

My 2 posts are sitting in your basket for a long time and have not been uploaded. My I know the reason?

I will appreciate if you let them go through.

By: Rohit

Rohit — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:49:03 +0000

Why do things of world like AQ (Al Quaeda), AQ (Abdul Quadeer), OQ (Ottavio Quattrochi), and posts of Sheikh MushtaQ end with a Q? Why? Kyoon?

By: Keith

Keith — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:18:12 +0000

I have always been curious about the concern of Pakistanis for Kashmir. If you care about muslims in India, then why just the Kashmiris? Why aren’t they concerned about the state of all muslims in India? And why aren’t the concerned about the impact on these muslims if the only muslim majority state departs the Indian union?

By: GW

GW — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:24:16 +0000

“If they really cared about Kashmiri independence they’d start by setting a precedent with their portion. Or is Kashmiri independence really about taking land from India?
- Posted by Keith ”

–>Thank you Keith, this is purely a land grab, nothing else, that is what I have been saying all along. Paks care damn about Kashmiris, human rights and all that nonsense, look at how they treat Afghans and Balochis. They consider both of them lower than cockroaches. Pak Army will set up shop in Kashmir, if the border is loosened.

Kashmir is India’s, lock stock and barrel, it is not up for talks or negotiation. If they want it, let them come and get it, let’s see if they walk away in one piece, like they did in 1971. Paks, don’t seem to understand that invading Kashmir, will lead to their annihilation.

By: riyaz

riyaz — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 07:17:17 +0000

I dont understand why Kashmiris are so over the moon over Libyan leader’s comment. Does it matter beyond, of course, little publicity. What clout does Libya wield in the world. If OIC’s rants on the state dont matter, where do you place Gaddafi

By: rizu

rizu — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 07:12:33 +0000

Gaddafi’s association with Kashmir is not recent. In fact, a few years back the leader had written an article on Kashmir which also talked about the grant of independence to Kashmir. He has also had very friendly relations with Islamabad. That Gaddafi cricket stadium in Lahore is named after him is a testament to this relationship