 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 7, 2009 at 21:33:47
Now Is The Time To Define Terrorism by Muhammad Khurshid Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
1
1
It is for the first time that the chief of ISI, Pakistan's intelligence agency has accepted the truth that terrorism is the enemy of Pakistan not India. There was a time when the OpEdNews was hinting at this fact that Pakistan has been facing the threat of terrorism. At that time no heed was given to all the pleas of saner people. But now the rulers have been accepting the fact. They have taken a long time in accepting this fact. They have misquided the whole world. Due to their wrong policies millions of people have been killed. They always acted like criminals. But they are still controlling the country. They are still ruling. President Bush has lost the election, but still the same establishment will be ruling the world. Now is the time that the rulers must define terrorism. According to my defination the rulers are the terrorists. Thousands of innocent people mostly women and children have been killed in the fighting in Bajaur Agency, but still the same people have been ruling the areas.
THE ISI chief, Lt-Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha, was willing to travel to New Delhi after Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani accepted a request by his Indian counterpart following the attacks in Mumbai on Nov 26, the general himself told the Der Spiegel in an interview carried by the German magazine in its latest issue.
But the general, without revealing the reasons for not doing so, remarked: "Many people here are simply not ready."
The head of the Inter-Services Intelligence brushed aside talk of a war between Pakistan and India. "There will not be a war," he said confidently. "We are distancing ourselves from conflict with India, both now and in general."
He said Pakistan had braced itself for a "military reaction" after the Mumbai tragedy. "At first we thought there would be a military reaction. The Indians, after the attacks, were deeply offended and furious, but they are also clever," Lt-Gen Pasha said.
The general, in an attempt to allay misgivings in the West about Pakistan, emphasised: "We may be crazy in Pakistan, but not completely out of our minds. We know full well that terror is our enemy, not India."
Gen Pasha told the magazine many questions were swirling in his mind about the Mumbai aftermath. So far, he said, the Indians had failed to prove that Pakistani groups sponsored by the ISI were behind the attacks.
"They have given us nothing, no numbers, no connections, no names. This is regrettable." According to the interviewer, the ISI chief switched back and forth between English and his "surprisingly accent-free German."
He lived in Germany for a few years in the 1980s, taking part in officer training programmes.
In reply to a question about the longevity of the present government, Lt-Gen Pasha said the transition to civilian rule must succeed.
"It is completely clear to the army chief and me that this government must succeed. Otherwise we will have a lot of problems in this country," he said in a solemn tone.
"The result would be problems in the West and the East, political destabilisation and trouble with America," he warned. "Anyone who does not support this democratic government today simply does not understand the current situation."
And then, giving an innocuous yet significant information, he adds: "I report regularly to the president and take orders from him."
Gen Pasha told the magazine he wanted to re-establish the ISI's credibility.
The interviewer was keen to know how much control does Gen Pasha have over the organisation.
The ISI head replied in a firm tone: "Many may think in a different direction, and everyone is allowed to think differently, but no one can dare disobey a command or even do something that was not ordered." 
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 6 comments |
|
I agree that now is an excellent time. For anyone to define
terrorism for themselves and also to think about a definition that could work for everyone if it was to be put into and used in a global set of laws relating to it. How would YOU define terrorism yourself Muhammad? (PS: I'd written a longer reply to your article but I accidently deleted it - I mention this in case my question seems rude for being so blunt. ) by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:16:29 AM  (0+)
|
|
The term "Terrorism" should be defined
The term “Terrorism” should be defined and used for the people or any political or religions organizations and Governments who are killing people indiscrementally without any reasons. The US Government and western countries are using the term for political opponents only. So the word “Terrorist” are used by the organizations and Government to call each other names. For example Turkey are calling the PKK as terrorist organizations and Western countries are supporting Turkey but not supporting the PKK because they are not friend of the west. The terrorisms are the symptoms not a cause. If international communities are trying to solve problems around the world using justice then we are not going to see any terrorist organization around the world. by Jaff Sassani (19 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 138 comments) on Thursday, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:41:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Defining Terrorism
"The terrorist is the one with the small bomb" by CasaZaza (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 202 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:05:59 AM (0+)
|
|
How we get lost
in our own words, when in fact terrorism can be defined as, "when the actions of one do harm to another". Good wars, bad wars, collateral damage, right, wrong,-------all words to justify. How about we agree no justification for any of it. by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:36:22 PM (0+)
|
|
I know it when I feel it
If I have committed no violence on anyone and someone does violence to me then that person is a terrorist because I feel terror. But suppose I vote for, give money to support, or are a member of a group where a member of the group commits violence against someone who has committed no violence am I then a terrorist? If my government commits terrorist acts am I then a terrorist just because I am a citizen of that country. I note that dropping bombs will most likely kill innocent people no matter how much the person responsible would like to only kill the offender and laments the killing of innocents; so then is the person, military group, government, or nation that dropped the bomb that killed an innocent a terrorist? Does intention or motive need to be considered when defining a terrorist? Certainly, all the people living in Gaza feel the terror from Israeli repraisal. The people in Israel who live in the area where Hamas drops their rockets feel terror from Gasa. Putting blame on some one and calling them a terrorist serves no purpose other than to justify taking action against those terrorists and to claim moral superiority. Hamas has as official policy to destroy Israel; but Israel has no policy to destroy Hamas (or do they?). So is Hamas a terrorist organization while Isreal is not; or does killing innocents, no matter what, make one a terrorist? by Philip Pease (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 209 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:19:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Terrorism
Terrorism is a "Political Word", it is Orwellian Newspeak, as to it's very nature. As they say, one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter". and it will always be, which side of the fence you are on that makes that distinction. In the real world a modern jet fighter is much more "terrifying" in it's abilities than any "terrorist" lobbing bottle rockets--but that fact will never be acknowledged by the powerful states with high tech weaponry. by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:35:20 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
