User talk:Midnighthawk

Pakistan Army political/commercial interests
Are you going to start discussing your edits on the talk page or not? If you want to tell the story of the army being corrupt, why don't you point out the many corruption scandals involving the PPP whose claims you have quoted? Why don't you mention the economic progress made under the Musharraf regime as compared to during the 1990s under "democracy"? --Hj108 (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This page deals with the army, not PPP. If you are interested in discussing corruption scandals involving the PPP they can be discussed on the PPP article on wikipedia. The "economic progress" made under Musharraf depended on the massive aid received by the latter from The US. Why was the "economic progress" not visable b4 2001-only just after massive aid started flowing in from the US. Also the army is more responsible for state of affair in Pakistan that politicians-the army having ruled the country for more than half its span of existance. Terrorism, gun culture, instability are all direct consequences of military rule. Was the army not incharge when the country lost its eastern province? - Midnighthawk


 * If the page does not deal with PPP, why are you quoting their claims of the army's corruption? Why don't you keep the tone neutral by adding that the PPP themselves are involved in many many corruption scandals? There was no US aid until 2001, what about the economic recovery after the 1999 coup? Are you suggesting it happened by magic? It is obvious to anybody who is thinking from a neutral point of view that it was the doing of those in power, i.e. the army/Musharraf. Aid from the US was not massive and still isn't massive, it is for "services rendered in the WOT". If the politicians ruled the country so well, why did the army keep coming in to power? If the "democratic" politicians are so great, why wasn't Pakistan doing well when they were in power? "Terrorism, gun culture, instability are all direct consequences of military rule" - unless you have independantly verified statistics to prove it, this is just your opinion and the opinion of corrupt PPP politicians. It does not belong in a Wikipedia article without the words "allegedly" and "according to PPP, who are have been embroiled in many corruption scandals...". It doesn't matter who was in charge in 1971, what happened was going to happen at some point anyway. You're supposed to discuss edits and keep to the "neutral point of view" policy, if you refuse to do so then I'll keep undoing your edits. --Hj108 (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the the claims made by PPP (and other political as well as acedemic/media sources) were so untrue, why did the army/ISPR not contest them and file a defamation suite against them at the appropriate forum/court of law (after all they are so good at holding press conferences and issuing media statements). What about the corruption scandals against army personell. The kickbacks and corruption in defence deals are well reported at various fora (and researchers so conveniently described by yourself as "notoriously anti army"). You never cared to disprove the figures presented by "Indian" and "notoriously anti army" sources. It is a fact that every general, and even lower ranks are awarded agricultural lands, so blatently described as "army land" and dirt cheap prices. What about the land mafia the army is running in the name of DHA's, AWT societies and Askari estates. While on the one hand we never tire of crying foul against feudalism, on the other we are creating a feudal out of every general (and some lower ranks as well). What recovery are you talking about from 1999-2001? Perhaps you may have personally experienced "economic recovery" as a result of the coup. Is it not a fact that Musharraf decamped precious items from the presidential treasury, claiming to have paid laughably low prices for those items. While politicians land in jails for corruption, the general was given guard of honor and given a safe exit to enjoy the booty he made while in power. If Pakistan was doing so well under army rule, why did we lose our eastern half under their rule. It DOES matter who was in charge in 1971 (and the decade preceding that date) And that reminds us of the record created by our brave army-one of the largest surrenders made in the history of mankind-now that was some brave act dont you think. and it was a politician (Bhutto) who lifted their moral and got them freed from Indian jails and protected their name by preventing the release of Hamood-ur-Rehman comission report. Needless to mention how the army reciprocated to him. Why did the aremy keep coming to power? The lust for more plots and agrarian lands- the desire for looty and plunder-afterall what else do you expect from those who are not ready to even pay a meagre Rs 5 toll tax/parking fee. "Neutral point of view" means pointing out both positives as well as negetives. Like it or not political and corporate roles of are crimes under the constitution of Pakistan. Army coups are infact high trteason and puts them in the same category as thieves/thugs/murderers. Now you can not maintain a neutral point of view of criminals/thugs/murderers- can you?

- Midnighthawk


 * I'm sick of reading your bullshit, the fact is that the army is no worse than the politicians when talking about corruption. If you won't write the article from a neutral point of view, I will keep editing your additions.--Hj108 (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Behave your self, will you. this is an academic discussion forum and requires decent language. This is not an army mess, a fish market or your CSD canteen. - Midnighthawk. Midnighthawk (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

May 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ahmad Shuja Pasha, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. S M S  Talk 20:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)