What's new

::Newsweek Cover: The Most Dangerous Nation in the World Isn't Iraq. It's Pakistan::

How much truth you can intelligently guess in it ?


  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

yarmook

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
325
Reaction score
0
Newsweek Cover: The Most Dangerous Nation in the World Isn't Iraq. It's Pakistan.


The October 29 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, October 22), "The Most Dangerous Nation in the World Isn't Iraq. It's Pakistan" looks at how Pakistan has become a safe haven for Taliban and Al Qaeda jihadists and what this means for the war on terror. Plus: a comparison between the 1972 film, "Deliverance," the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. And, a look at how antibacterial products have led to the outbreak of strong staph infections. (PRNewsFoto/NEWSWEEK)

NEW YORK, NY UNITED STATES


Pakistan Poses Bigger Threat Than Afghanistan and Iraq in War on Terror
Taliban Could Not Ask for Better Nation to Hide in; Leaders 'Come and Go as
They Please'

NEW YORK, Oct. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror
attacks, the United States successfully deposed the fundamentalist Taliban
leadership in Afghanistan. But in the years since then, there have been an
increasing number of signs of a resurgence, and their influence has crossed
the border into neighboring Pakistan, which many now fear has become a safe
haven for terrorists.
(Photo: Newscom Search )
Today no other country on earth is arguably more dangerous than
Pakistan, according to Newsweek's South Asia Bureau Chief Ron Moreau and
Senior Editor Michael Hirsh, who delve into the Taliban's spreading
influence in Pakistan and what it means to the war on terror. The October
29 cover story, "The Most Dangerous Nation In the World Isn't Iraq. It's
Pakistan." (on newsstands Monday, October 22), states that unlike countries
such as Afghanistan and Iraq, Pakistan has everything Osama bin Laden could
ask for: political instability, a trusted network of radical Islamists, an
abundance of angry anti-Western recruits, secluded training areas, access
to state-of-the-art electronic technology, regular air service to the West
and security services that don't always do what they're supposed to do.
Then there's the country's large and growing nuclear program.
The conventional story about Pakistan has been that it is an unstable
nuclear power, with distant tribal areas in terrorist hands. What is new,
and more frightening, is the extent to which Taliban and Qaeda elements
have now turned much of the country, including some cities, into a base
that gives jihadists more room to maneuver, both in Pakistan and beyond.
Taliban fighters now pretty much come and go as they please inside
Pakistan, Newsweek reports. Their sick and injured get patched up in
private hospitals there. "Until I return to fight, I'll feel safe and
relaxed here," Abdul Majadd, a Taliban commander who was badly wounded this
summer during a fire fight against British troops in Afghanistan, told
Newsweek after he was evacuated to Karachi for emergency care. Guns and
supplies are readily available, and in the winter, when fighting
traditionally dies down in Afghanistan, thousands retire to the country's
thriving madrassas to study the Qur'an. Some of the brainier operatives
attend courses in computer technology, video production and even English.
Far from keeping a low profile, the visiting fighters attend services at
local mosques, where after prayers they speak to the congregation,
soliciting donations to support the war against the West. "Pakistan is like
your shoulder that supports your RPG," Taliban commander Mullah Momin Ahmed
told newsweek, barely a month before a U.S. airstrike killed him last
September in Afghanistan's eastern Ghazni province. "Without it you
couldn't fight. Thank God Pakistan is not against us."
The contrast to 2002 is striking. Back then, in the first flush of
President Pervez Musharraf's crackdown on extremists, a newsweek reporter
met Agha Jan, a former senior Taliban Defense Ministry official, in an
orchard outside the city of Quetta. A nervous Jan recounted how he had to
change homes every two nights for fear of capture, and he fled when some
local villagers approached. Jan now has a house outside Quetta, where he
lives when he's not fighting with Taliban forces across the border in his
native Zabul province. Reporters in Peshawar, a strategic Pakistani border
city some 50 miles east of the historic Khyber Pass and the Afghan border,
say it's not unusual these days to receive phone calls from visiting
Taliban commanders offering interviews, or asking where to find a cheap
hotel, a good restaurant or a new cell phone.
Armed militants have also effectively seized control in places like the
picturesque Swat Valley, where a jihadi leader named Mullah Fazlullah rides
a black horse and commands hundreds of men under the noses of a nearby
Pakistani Army division that seldom leaves its barracks. Peshawar is
perhaps the most important production and distribution center for Taliban
and other Islamist material. Jihadi CD and DVD shops abound. The Afghan
refugee camps around Peshawar, meanwhile, have become vast jihadist
sanctuaries, according to Moreau.
"The biggest chink in Musharraf's armor is his failure to move against
the Taliban, particularly in the cities," says Samina Ahmed, the South Asia
director of the International Crisis Group in Islamabad. "The brains, the
ones who plan the operations, are not necessarily in the boonies or in the
sticks, they're in cities like Quetta. Can he pick them up? Easily."
Bruce Riedel, the former senior director for South Asia on the National
Security Council, points out that Pakistan's large and growing nuclear
program is another cause for concern. "If you were to look around the world
for where Al Qaeda is going to find its bomb, it's right in their
backyard," he says. And despite the U.S. government's assertion that
Musharraf's government has tight control over its nuclear-weapons program,
radicals would not need to steal a whole bomb in order to create havoc.
Pervez Hoodbhoy, a noted nuclear physicist at Quaid-i-Azam University in
Islamabad, says outside experts don't really know much highly enriched
uranium Pakistan has produced in the past and how much remains in existing
stocks. "No one has a real idea about that," he says. "That means that
stuff could have gotten out. Little bits here or there. But we really don't
know."
The most recent example of how bold the extremists have gotten in
Pakistan occurred during what would have been former Prime Minister Benazir
Bhutto's joyous return to Pakistan on Thursday, Oct. 18, after an
eight-year exile. One or more suicide bombers set off twin explosions that
killed at least 134 bystanders and police, and injured 450 others as her
motorcade inched along a parade route guarded by roughly 20,000 Pakistani
security forces. Musharraf's government quickly fingered as a suspect
Baitullah Mehsud, a longtime Taliban supporter and director of some of the
most lethal training facilities for suicide bombers in the far-off
mountains of Waziristan.
(Read cover at Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com)


SOURCE Newsweek
:woot::woot::woot::woot:
 
Who cares .


Regards
Wilco
 
Who cares .
No one except the foreign tourists and investors/business in Pakistan. and ya, the loss of authority to point fingers at others.

Apart from these people, no one.

I do not know whether newsweek is such a reputable source or not, but if it is referenced by the major newspapers like sun, nyt, bbc and so on..., there will be a minimum 4 years before foreign tourist think of entering Pakistan.

Apart from country like china, where everything runs on govt fiat, getting private foreign investment will become pretty difficult. Exporters of Pakistan will start facing problems, because the persons in other country will not come to Pakistan to check the samples/ perform testing. Insurance companies normally reinsure themselves in the foreign markets. these insurance rates may increase, there by affecting the average persons insurance rates in the country. and so on...

This kind of propaganda or whatever you call it has to countered. These surveys or studies are garbage but being garbage is what sells them.

Thus Pakistan has to care before this study becomes a major thing.
 
I actually mailed them, i wished i could paste it here but it will be against the forum rules but i do believe next time writting such BS they may think twice.
 
:lol: Iciiiiiiii lolzzzzz
i had also mailed them and who cares if they next time publish BS or not as

Newsweek, Times even Economist have always been publishing things that are against Pakistan and Muslims even if Muslims are teh victimes these publications at the end add past events blaming Muslims

So let them continue with BS
after Bull Sh its :P make us laugh ;)
 
So let them continue with BS
after Bull Sh its :P make us laugh ;)

Indeed it does, but sometimes i just have it with this kind of nonsense.There was a time when they(western media) use to publish the same kind of BS against communism that they do now about islam and muslims.
 
:lol: Iciiiiiiii lolzzzzz
..............

Newsweek, Times even Economist have always been publishing things that are against Pakistan and Muslims .....

Newsweek, Washington compost and all leftie rags couldn't do a squat against President Bush's foreign policy, and in their desperation trying to chip away on President Bush's allies.

Pakistan has always been a thorn in the side of world's lefties. The only short period of exception was the lefti-socialist ZA Bhutto's time.

Having said that, the blame squarely goes not to Newsweek, but to the Pakistanis intellectuals who are more lefties than anyone in the Western world. Pakistani lefties are spitting venom against their own country and their own army day and night.

These fools do not realize that Pak army is the last barrier between them and the utter anarchy like Islamic Jannats like Mogadeshu and Afghanistan.

Newsweek is right in saying that Taliban get shelter in Pakistan. How can we deny that?

But the issue is simple, can these Taliban prove themselves a credible force in Afghanistan?

The answer is big flat no!

The only damage these tablibans can do is to Pakistan by creating lawlessness in the Sarhad sooba (NWFP) and in the process kill many civilians and law-enforcement officers.

This is the time to get serious and defeat the lefties and talibanics within Pakistan, and that we can learn without reading Newsweek.

Peace.
 
i think this is pure bull crap. one thing that struck me was that the article said that unlike in Irak and Afghanistan there are no american soldiers in pakistan. i think the american press really is frustrated why there arnt american troops inside pakistan. i think this is why they are printing these articles to justfy such an action
 
No one except the foreign tourists and investors/business in Pakistan. and ya, the loss of authority to point fingers at others.

Apart from these people, no one.

Theoretically I would agree on this with you, international media does affect the (soft) image of a country and when it comes to Pakistan most journo's lose track of reality. :lol:
We've seen worse than this and still record amount of FDI has poured into the country and businessmen's trust is all time high!!
Tourism is traditionally underdelevelopped and won't get worse since Pakistan still isn't a favored touruist place for westerners....so I couldn't care less what BS is posted in Newsweek, NYT or WP.
 
Theoretically I would agree on this with you, international media does affect the (soft) image of a country and when it comes to Pakistan most journo's lose track of reality. :lol:
We've seen worse than this and still record amount of FDI has poured into the country and businessmen's trust is all time high!!
Tourism is traditionally underdelevelopped and won't get worse since Pakistan still isn't a favored touruist place for westerners....so I couldn't care less what BS is posted in Newsweek, NYT or WP.

True. Instability prior to this did not affect FDI, in fact it reached an all time high under instability. Tourism is not very high, and it's better that way, since it's solid productivity giving rise to the expanding economy in Pakistan.
 
Theoretically I would agree on this with you, international media does affect the (soft) image of a country and when it comes to Pakistan most journo's lose track of reality. :lol:
We've seen worse than this and still record amount of FDI has poured into the country and businessmen's trust is all time high!!
Tourism is traditionally underdelevelopped and won't get worse since Pakistan still isn't a favored touruist place for westerners....so I couldn't care less what BS is posted in Newsweek, NYT or WP.

Link of high tech investment and the political condition of a country have a very complex relationship.

However the bottom line is that any country interested in high tech investments must be extremely friendly to the people of investing countries.

Here are some example from a diverse set of geographical, and political circumstances.

1. Israel:

Stats: 6 million population + $80 billion budget
Pros: hard working labor (blue and white collar), democratic system, Population friendly to people from USA and EU
cons: Constant state of warfare with its neighbors, restless minorities
Result: Successful in obtaining high tech investment from EU and USA.


2. Ireland:

Stats: 4 million population + $70 billion budget
Pros: hard working labor, democratic system, Population friendly to people from USA and EU
cons: Long running civil war (only recently peaceful)
Result: Successful in obtaining high tech investment from EU and USA.

3. China:

Stats: 1000 million population + $500 billion budget
Pros: hard working labor, Population friendly to people from USA and EU
cons: Commie dictatorship
Result: Successful in obtaining high tech investment from EU and USA.

4. India:

Stats: 1000 million population + $150 billion budget
Pros: Democratic system, hard working labor, Population friendly to people from USA and EU
cons: Long running disputes within and without.
Result: Successful in obtaining high tech investment from EU and USA.

If you compare the four examples, the main thing common is "Population friendly to people from USA and EU". You can have civil wars going, or a dictatorial rule, and still get long term high tech investments.

Now let's look at Pakistan:

Stats: 160 million population + $25 billion budget
Pros: Hard working labor,
cons: dictatorship, civil unrest, Population unfriendly to people from USA and EU.
Result: Not very successful in obtaining high tech investment from EU and USA.

Thus the bottom line is that if Pakistani streets are not friendly to Americans or European, we will not get high tech investment. Most of the FDI for Pakistan will remain limited to a few short term sectors that allow relatively quick pull out.

p.s. stats of budget and population are rounded to make the comparison simple.
 
^^ Dude, you've put the US is and EU invests in high tech investment in China. Didn't China suggest to Pakistan it should develop things on its own, having had the experience of the Grumman-F7 upgrade slip due to Tianemmen Square? Sanctions even? Does the EU even allow high tech stuff into Chinese military?

I would argue the US doesn't care much about population hostility, more so its own interests. Populations don't figure much in this, as long as friendly regimes are in charge. In terms of high tech investment, I would say that this is only a very small percentage of FDI, and so is not so important anyway, even if population sentiments dictated US's or EU's exports, which I don't think they do. Most FDI is low tech, such as the island resorts they're building and so on.
 
China is under weapons embargo therefore she could not aquire foreign technologies. China could only rely on herself for research.

The only country that we could purchase weapons from is Russia. China is trying to be more self reliant and rely less on the Russians.
 
China is under weapons embargo .....

The only country that we could purchase weapons from is Russia. China is trying to be more self reliant and rely less on the Russians.

Ms. Lee,

Military technology is a bit more complex combination of "civilian" tech. China may have embargo (from time to time), but the West will continue sharing with it, the basic civilian tech. Without that "sharing" West won't be able to fill its WallMarts and ToysRus. China can then turn around and use the factories making steel, high end plastics, engine tech, gearbox tech etc. and make more complex military machines.

Still there are direct US assistance in Chinese military tech. For example, Chinese had severe issues with the missile guidance systems (it is a complex combination of gyros, reaction wheels, and other "sensitive" electronics).

When Chinese promised cheaper satellite launches, Prez. Clinton allowed US companies to "teach" and "transfer" missile guidance systems to China. The result is that Chinese now have much improved rocket systems. In fact the just launched moon probe was guided by the same American taught systems.

Had Chinese not messed up in Tienanmen square, the same tech flow would have continued.

Still Chinese are smart and they are working very closely with the Western (US and EU) chemical, steel, and other manufacturers. Anyday Chinese can take this knowhow and use it for military purposes.

Sure Russians may sell some of their stuff to China, but the real tech growth will only come from the West. Ruskies are far far behind in almost every front of technology at the moment.


Similarly Japanese, S. Korean, and Taiwanese manufacturers work closely with the US and reap the benefits. The sale of IBM units to Lenovo was only possible when Taiwanese had proven to be capable partners of the USA.

N. Koreans on the other hand showed stupidity, and guess what they have the bomb, but no food.

Lessons learned for North Koreans: Work with the West and you won't go hungry!


......Didn't China suggest to Pakistan it should develop things on its own, ........

Dr RR,

See my response to Ms. Lee.

Just go back to the table above. Pakistan has only $25 billion to spend on everything from wheat import to tea to petroleum. We can't do a squat until we work closely and learn from the real tech leaders like USA, Japan, Germany, France, and S. Korea.

So be a humble student in the company of the best and the brightest and you will learn. Chinese, S. Koreans, and Indians are good examples of "humble students" of the West.

On the other hand be in the company of tribal Arab Muslims or Africans and you will lose whatever brain one has.

Peace!
 
antibiol,

i really don't think China gets much high tech stuff from the US. The space rocketry would have come from Russia I would have thought, if it came from the outside. Of course India's space program comes with the help of the Russians. I don't get the point about walmarts.

The fact of the matter is that China is doing a lot of research itself on high tech stuff. I'm not sure it needs the US so much now, or even Russia. But anyway, I wouldnt describe China's relationshipn with the US and EU as good when they're embargoing it, and have done for quite a while.
I don't really disagree about the learning thing. But I doubt they're going to hand over high tech stuff to humble Chinese, S Korean or Indian students. The really high tech stuff they'll need to develop themselves. An example, I think that the cruise missiles are pretty much indigenously developed in Pakistan.
 

Back
Top Bottom