Article

2005-11-12 Afghanistan-Pak-India

Recognising Israel to follow birth of Paleo state, sez Musharraf

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Zenster 2005-11-12 04:30|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Recognising Israel to follow birth of ~~Palestinian state, says Musharraf~~

Mods, please change this thread's title to:

Recognising Israel to follow birth of ~~Godzilla's Love Child by Elvis~~ Palestinian state, says Musharraf

(And then delete this post, if possible. Thank you.)

Posted by Zenster 2005-11-12 04:51|| 2005-11-12 04:51|| Front Page Top

#2 This is just pak disappointment that their overtures to Israel would not result in a stream of weapons for themselves or denial of same to India.

Posted by john 2005-11-12 06:57|| 2005-11-12 06:57|| Front Page Top

#3 Zenster: I left the title alone (gotta keep it to one line).

Please ensure that you put your comments in HILITE, not italics. That way readers can see immediately what comments are yours, and what is the original source. Thx. AoS

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2005-11-12 11:12|| 2005-11-12 11:12|| Front Page Top

#4 So, the question is: would the Pakistani myth (Indian subcontinent's Mussies are a nation, and are capable of self-determination) disappear before the Palestinian myth (which we all know and cherish), or not?

Posted by gromgoru 2005-11-12 13:10|| 2005-11-12 13:10|| Front Page Top

#5 Give it a rest, gromgoru.

Pakistan is not the Palestinians and India is not Israel. When the Zionists returned after centuries to restart a Jewish state, they did not encounter organized Arab states ... they encountered the thin remnants of an old Muslim empire that had long since withered away or grown so feeble (Ottomans) as no longer to rule effectively - and which fell to the Brits well before Israel was established as a modern state. Moreover, a Zionist state would still not have been formed without the Balfour Declaration, of which many repented quickly but not before Israel was a fact on the ground.

The Moghuls, on the other hand, ruled the Indian subcontinent effectively for several centuries after they conquered most of it and they were still in power in many areas when the Brits moved in. Moreover, there was an agreement signed that would indeed have put most of Kashmir under Pakistan and not India .... the Indians had second thoughts and reneged on that deal (for better or for worse - I'm not judging the wisdom, just noting the history).

Your dig about Pakistan not really being a country would more usefully be applied to Afghanistan prior to the recent elections. We are in the process of changing that as well.

Posted by lotp 2005-11-12 13:20|| 2005-11-12 13:20|| Front Page Top

#6 Your dig about Pakistan not really being a country

It's not. It's a pack of religious fanatics with delusions of grandeur.

Fer crissake, its name means "Land of the Pure".

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-11-12 14:01|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-11-12 14:01|| Front Page Top

#7 So????

If having delusions of grandeur were a bar against being a country, the UN would have a lot fewer members and our State Department would be a lot smaller.

Not saying that wouldn't have its benefits, but it isn't a likely scenario ... and in any case our military would have to increase proportionally - or more.

Pakistan is a country. It's not a 1st world, industrialized, wealthy, Western democracy. But it's a country.

Posted by lotp 2005-11-12 14:55|| 2005-11-12 14:55|| Front Page Top

#8 Please ensure that you put your comments in HILITE, not italics. That way readers can see immediately what comments are yours, and what is the original source. Thx. AoS

Steve White, if you examine my posting history, you'll see that I have scrupulously followed the posting guidelines here. For some reason, the Mac computers at my job and my decrepit back-up computer at home do not implement the hilite function, even when I enter the HTML code manually.

All this should change once I repair my main home computer. I thank you for editing the above article. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind other posters to please, please condense the text of articles submitted. Many are still being posted with text bodies consisting almost entirely of single sentence paragraphs.

Posted by Zenster 2005-11-12 16:18|| 2005-11-12 16:18|| Front Page Top

#9 Zen, I also post from a Mac. I've created a series of text tears in a folder that give me all the codes I normally use (strike text, hilite, my comments, etc) and drop into into the box as necessary.

Here is the text for hilite:

text goes here

I just drag this into the box where I want it and type in-between the brackets as shown.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2005-11-12 16:24|| 2005-11-12 16:24|| Front Page Top

#10 Arrgh, that hilited that text. Here is the text in a way you can use it:

[SPAN CLASS=HILITE>text goes here[/SPAN>

Change the square bracket to an angle bracket and you're all set to hilite.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2005-11-12 16:25|| 2005-11-12 16:25|| Front Page Top

#11 Steve, thank you for your assistance. I'll give it another shot here and see what happens. It's nice to know that others use my own trick of creating an "alpha file" of ready-to-wear HTML tags. I'm goint to try using your code tag.

Here goes nuttin'[/SPAN>

Posted by Zenster 2005-11-12 16:46|| 2005-11-12 16:46|| Front Page Top

#12 Shuckey darn, it worked. Thank you, Steve. Is the command case sensitive? That may have been my problem.

Posted by Zenster 2005-11-12 16:50|| 2005-11-12 16:50|| Front Page Top

#13 No Zen, the tag 'span' and the attrbute 'hilite' should be case-insensitive.

span in lower and hilite in lower case

span in upper and HILITE in upper case

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-11-12 17:01|| 2005-11-12 17:01|| Front Page Top

#14 To quote the immortal Alice, "Curiouser and curiouser." Thanks, all. I'll have to rely upon my habitual and painstaking bolding of screen names and the like to preserve my reputation for reasonably competent coding.

Posted by Zenster 2005-11-12 17:23|| 2005-11-12 17:23|| Front Page Top

#15 Moreover, there was an agreement signed that would indeed have put most of Kashmir under Pakistan and not India .... the Indians had second thoughts and reneged on that deal (for better or for worse - I'm not judging the wisdom, just noting the history).

Incorrect.

The Act of Independence passed by the UK parliament gave the rulers of all princely states the option to join either India or Pakistan provided their territories were contiguous with either state. No independence was allowed.

There was no agreement between Jinnah and Nehru on Kashmir. Jinnah tried to persuade the maharaja of Jammu-Kashmir to join Pakistan but he vacillated. Only after Pakistan sent irregulars to capture J+K did the Maharaja accede to India.
The accession document was co-signed by Lord Louis Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India.

Posted by john 2005-11-12 17:24|| 2005-11-12 17:24|| Front Page Top

#16 And Pakistan isn't much of a country. It is founded on a principle that muslims cannot live in peace in a country in which they are not a majority.

In any event, Pakistan as envisaged by Jinnah died in 1971 when the Pak army committed genocide against the Bengalis (most of whom were muslims).

Link to photos and article- warning - graphic

Posted by john 2005-11-12 17:30|| 2005-11-12 17:30|| Front Page Top

00:00 Matt K.
23:55 Captain America
23:50 Bryan
23:39 Bryan
23:30 Sundown
23:22 Pappy
23:18 Pappy
23:18 Elmenter Snineque1852
23:14 Pappy
23:12 Elmenter Snineque1852
22:54 Zenster
22:40 phil_b
22:37 Spereng Gloluck8002
22:33 Spereng Gloluck8002
22:33 Sgt. Mom
22:32 .com
22:29 Brett
22:28 DMFD
22:20 phil_b
22:19 Eric Jablow
22:16 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
22:13 Frank G
22:06 2b
22:03 SR-71