What's new

Is this true. This is frightening.

SIPRA

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 31, 2019
10,804
2
18,703
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
That's an extremely childish thing to say. And, to top it all it is divorced from reality.

In the 1950s, the Algerian freedom fighters travelled on Pakistani passports to plead their case to the world.
Was Pakistan easy to control? it was much smaller and a new nation, but did what it wanted.

In the 1960's, when Pakistan established strong relations with China and was the first non communist country to start regular flights in and out of China. America threatened Pakistan to stop, but Pakistan did not.
Was Pakistan easy to control? in the end America turned to Pakistan to help start diplomatic relations with China.

In the 1970s, at its weakest point, America threaten Pakistan not to start a nuclear program, they said they will make an example out of Pakistan.
Yet within 10 years Pakistan developed an independent nuclear capability, one of the shortest time spans, using uranium enrichment, a process so difficult, they thought no one except advance nations could do it.
Was Pakistan easy to control?

In the 1980's, Pakistan did the same thing by developing missile program, building an independent missile capability.
It took on and defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan, they told Pakistan to back off, but the Soviets withdrew, and the Americans left.
Was Pakistan easy to control?

In the 1990's, Pakistan was sanctioned to the neck, and all aid stopped, all co-operation halted, to bring Pakistan to its knees, and yet, they came running to Pakistan when they needed help.
Was Pakistan easy to control?

Since the start of this century, Pakistan has been told to DO MORE, it was threatened, pressured with massive terrorism campaign, resulting in large number of deaths and over $150 billions in economic loses, yet it is Pakistan still standing, the rest have run away.
WAS PAKISTAN EASY TO CONTROL?

Please don't provide childish statements, I can give plenty of other examples, but know one thing, Pakistan only co-operates when it decides to do so, taking a step back here and there is not control, it is by choice. No one can control Pakistan. the sooner the world learns this simple fact, the better for everyone.

Excellent post. Pakistan has blatantly defied the US and West, where it became necessary.
 

crankthatskunk

SENIOR MEMBER
May 20, 2011
5,326
5
10,008
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
You cannot impose loyalty by any means. It is either inside of you or you are just a disloyal person.

If we go by history, we are generally speaking a disloyal bunch who don't even back our own cause.



Ideally this is the solution. I have said this a trillion times. As long as the Pakistani state remains dependent on US help for IMF loans there won't be much progress.

China has a major responsibility.

Why China has a major responsibility!!
Is it someone else's responsibility to clean up your mess!!

The famous saying of an American " Pakistanis would sell their mothers for dollars".
You should make those sell outs responsible , not another country.

Pakistani media generally is sell out. It should not be called a media, it is a hotch potch of crooks and idiots, assembled to get fist full of dollars by any means possible. They use blackmail and propaganda as their tools at any given opportunity.

I have said repeatedly, Pakistanis should make their politics their first priority, rather than defence. Unless every Pakistani takes active interest in what is happening in Pakistan and what damages are caused to Pakistan and its interests by many traitors in every walk of life, Pakistan cannot progress.

Therefore, don't put responsibility on anyone else, take your own responsibilities seriously if you want to progress as a nation, otherwise, dire consequences awaits you.
 
Jun 2, 2020
3,338
5
7,252
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Honestly, this looks like a fake document. Spelling errors, poor English expression etc.

Sir to be honest, the organizational is a trojan horse ( a well known CIA front) and its media funding and recruitment of journalists is no secret in Pakistan.
The names listed are just the tip of iceberg.

Let alone Hong Kong, Cuba, Venezuela even phillipine is not spared and their role is well documented.

There is enough circumstantial evidence to prove it is right. (besides these minor errors are done on purpose as a work around against legal prosecution and to maintain deniability if some thing leaks).



"Thus it was that in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy was set up to “support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts”. Notice the “nongovernmental” – part of the image, part of the myth. In actuality, virtually every penny of its funding comes from the federal government, as is clearly indicated in the financial statement in each issue of its annual report. NED likes to refer to itself as an NGO (Non-governmental organization) because this helps to maintain a certain credibility abroad that an official US government agency might not have. But NGO is the wrong category. NED is a GO.

“We should not have to do this kind of work covertly,” said Carl Gershman in 1986, while he was president of the Endowment. “It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60’s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.”


 

peagle

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,108
10
5,063
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
okay then.
I see your argument as:
1. A country with a national language is a national language is ahead in the process of "nation building" than a country without a national language.
2. Pakistan has a national language while India is only trying.
3. Therefore, Pakistan is ahead of India in nation building.

I disagree with premise 1, and the conclusion is hollow anyway.
1. A nation is built on a *sense* of shared history, identity and culture. language is one small part of it, arguably a diversity of language only contributes to the glory of the common culture. attempting to stamp out the diversity by forcing an unnecessary third language other the mother tongue and a pragmatic common language (global is better) is simply disastrous.

in response to your conclusion, my response was: a common sense analysis of the two nations will quickly reveal that the Pakistani nation is much more divided than India. a shared language doesn't seem to have helped, in fact it was the first spark of protest against Pakistan in Bangladesh.

so in conclusion, you can harp about common language all day, but at the end of day, India is more cohesive without a national language, than Pakistan is with a national language. unity in diversity might sound like a meme to you, but it's a very powerful meme. afterall, at the end of the day, nations are just imagined communities. powerful ideas that drive a nation don't come out of attempting to enforce a bland template of common language, common blah blah programs.


After so many trolling comments, I was hoping for an intelligent discussion, but I suppose some things are too much to hope for.
But, I suppose you've tried to make an effort, so I'll accept.

Before I reply, we need to understand that your objection, therefore your reply primarily is in regards to language, so this discussion will concluded on this topic, if it goes elsewhere, then you'll be classified as a troll.

Let us get one thing clear, no-one including you has the authority to create your own reality and create an argument based on your own reality. If I use your logic, then I can declare I'm God, therefore what I say is right and everything else is wrong, it would be idiotic.
So any claims made must have some link to reality, how the world exists and how things are defined around the world, there has to be some uniformity in what is a reasoned argument, a reasoned point, and what defines a nation, identity and such things.



There is a fantasy based claim of historical Indian nationhood. The language aspect was in regards to that claim. I never claimed language to be the only determining factor in what classifies a nation, again you’re trying to misrepresent what I said, that’s not right.
There are other factors, but language is a major and the most important determinant that defines a nation, this is an established fact, you cannot create a new reality to fit your world-view that is contrary to an established facts.

As you have already mentioned, history, identity and culture, I’ll answer, but will keep this short. India does not qualify for historical nationhood on any of those metrics, because Tamil history, identity and culture is as different from a Marathi, as it is from a Punjabi or Bengali or any other ethnic group of India. That’s because India has never existed as a country, it was always a region, much like Europe, the Middle East, and other regions. Those regions have a lot more commonalities then India, but they do not make silly claims of historical nationhood, because unlike Indians they do not live in a fantasy. We are here to discuss realities.

The fact is India does not have a national language, this is not by choice, but because no-one will accept Hindi as a national language.
But, India has been trying to push Hindi down the throat of it’s citizens since its creation in 1947, India has tried constantly, but failed.

There is a clear border between Bengali ethnic region to Behari, Marathi ethic groups and Malayali, and between Malayali ethnic groups and Tamils and so on. That’s because each has a distinct identity, history, culture and language, they are ethnic groups, totally different from each other. Indian isn’t an ethnicity marker, it is merely a historical a description to define who lived in the Indus region and beyond, it became a regional description to identity the British Indian colony, and since 1947 it is merely a marker for citizens of a nation-state called India, that came into existence in 1947.

A unified language has always been and still is vitally important for a national identity, and language carries with it so much, that is deeper then mere communication. The Soviet Union had Russian as the standard language, that is why people can still speak Russian in areas formally ruled by the Soviets. Russian is spoken because the Soviets tried to create a new identity, hence the use of the Russian language, but they obviously failed miserably, that failure had other reasons. But, language was central to that process of nation building.

The North African region is not historically Arabic, they were Berber’s, but they accepted and adopted Arabic identity and language as part of the process of creating a new identity. Identity is always a process, no one wakes up and decides that they are going to be Arab today or Bengali, or Tamil, it is a process of shared experiences and memories, that is expressed through language, that’s why language is the most important determinant. Hence every nation has tried to bring into use a single language, hence why India has tried, still trying, but failing. You cannot claim a historical nationhood when you are still in the process of nation building, that is an obvious fact.

What happened in Bangladesh was not singularly a language issue, it was one of the markers that defined a bigger problem. The primary being that it was over 1000 miles away, with a larger hostile neighbour in between. And, because there were cultural differences between the East and the West, the same differences that exist in India, even today.

The distance, and also because Pakistan was still setting up the structures of a state made it difficult to bridge that gap, language became a symbol of that problem, but it was not the problem. But that is another discussion.

Today Urdu is Pakistan’s national and official language, it is also the language of each province, each provinces has their regional mother tongue, but have also given Urdu equal status, that is called acceptance, there is no opposition to Urdu in Pakistan, but there is continuous opposition to Hindi in India, even today.
There are other markers that show the integrated nature of Pakistani society and state, but that’s for another discussion.


China is 90% Han ethnicity and they all speak Chinese, Han identity was developed over time, they did not wake up one day and decide we are Han Chinese, but through centuries of sort of unified rule and continuous belief in a shared identity, that’s why they are Han and speak Chinese, it was a historical process, that never took place in India, because India was never a single entity, never a single nation, there was no desire for it. It only had a set of loose broad regional similarities, nothing more.

The Egyptians did not speak Arabic, they spoke another language written in hieroglyphic form, but they also adopted the Arabic identity and language, because language is paramount identification of a shared identity.

The examples are endless, that’s the reality and a solid fact. I hope you succeed in your nation building process, but please do it without creating fantasies and lies.
 

nahtanbob

BANNED
Sep 24, 2018
9,251
-51
3,129
Country
United States
Location
United States
That's an extremely childish thing to say. And, to top it all it is divorced from reality.

In the 1950s, the Algerian freedom fighters travelled on Pakistani passports to plead their case to the world.
Was Pakistan easy to control? it was much smaller and a new nation, but did what it wanted.

In the 1960's, when Pakistan established strong relations with China and was the first non communist country to start regular flights in and out of China. America threatened Pakistan to stop, but Pakistan did not.
Was Pakistan easy to control? in the end America turned to Pakistan to help start diplomatic relations with China.

In the 1970s, at its weakest point, America threaten Pakistan not to start a nuclear program, they said they will make an example out of Pakistan.
Yet within 10 years Pakistan developed an independent nuclear capability, one of the shortest time spans, using uranium enrichment, a process so difficult, they thought no one except advance nations could do it.
Was Pakistan easy to control?

In the 1980's, Pakistan did the same thing by developing missile program, building an independent missile capability.
It took on and defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan, they told Pakistan to back off, but the Soviets withdrew, and the Americans left.
Was Pakistan easy to control?

In the 1990's, Pakistan was sanctioned to the neck, and all aid stopped, all co-operation halted, to bring Pakistan to its knees, and yet, they came running to Pakistan when they needed help.
Was Pakistan easy to control?

Since the start of this century, Pakistan has been told to DO MORE, it was threatened, pressured with massive terrorism campaign, resulting in large number of deaths and over $150 billions in economic loses, yet it is Pakistan still standing, the rest have run away.
WAS PAKISTAN EASY TO CONTROL?

Please don't provide childish statements, I can give plenty of other examples, but know one thing, Pakistan only co-operates when it decides to do so, taking a step back here and there is not control, it is by choice. No one can control Pakistan. the sooner the world learns this simple fact, the better for everyone.

Pakistan is boxed in on India (primary) and Afghanistan (secondary). You have little to bargain on China, USA and Saudi Arabia.

Tell us anything Pakistan has stood for
 

peagle

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,108
10
5,063
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Pakistan is boxed in on India (primary) and Afghanistan (secondary). You have little to bargain on China, USA and Saudi Arabia.

Tell us anything Pakistan has stood for

I do apologise if this sounds a bit blunt, but you made no sense, your statement is ridiculous.

Allow me to explain why,
First you state that Pakistan is boxed in. Boxed in how? in what sense? what does that even mean?

Then you say Pakistan has little to bargain.
Again, what are you talking about? Bargain what? For what purpose? What are you talking about?

Then what do you mean what has Pakistan stood for?
I'm sorry but your statements have no meaning, they do not make sense, zero, zilch, empty.

Please make a clear statement so that I can provide a clear reply, if I have something to say, I shall try to answer, if not, I will clearly say I do not have an opinion on the matter, or I do not have enough information.

To avoid endless chatter, I think it is extremely wise to be clear and precise, it makes things so much easier. Again I apologise if it's too direct, but it's better then beating around the bush.
 

Skywalker

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 3, 2006
3,874
-16
3,804
I do apologise if this sounds a bit blunt, but you made no sense, your statement is ridiculous.

Allow me to explain why,
First you state that Pakistan is boxed in. Boxed in how? in what sense? what does that even mean?

Then you say Pakistan has little to bargain.
Again, what are you talking about? Bargain what? For what purpose? What are you talking about?

Then what do you mean what has Pakistan stood for?
I'm sorry but your statements have no meaning, they do not make sense, zero, zilch, empty.

Please make a clear statement so that I can provide a clear reply, if I have something to say, I shall try to answer, if not, I will clearly say I do not have an opinion on the matter, or I do not have enough information.

To avoid endless chatter, I think it is extremely wise to be clear and precise, it makes things so much easier. Again I apologise if it's too direct, but it's better then beating around the bush.
Brother all this false flagger is saying that, Pakistan is weak politically and surround by two enemies, lost the leverage and have no say in the matters even it comes to south Asia, obviously hes still in the deep shock and just dont want to accept the truth that Pakistan have moved on and USA is not priority anymore.
 

nahtanbob

BANNED
Sep 24, 2018
9,251
-51
3,129
Country
United States
Location
United States
I do apologise if this sounds a bit blunt, but you made no sense, your statement is ridiculous.

Allow me to explain why,
First you state that Pakistan is boxed in. Boxed in how? in what sense? what does that even mean?

Then you say Pakistan has little to bargain.
Again, what are you talking about? Bargain what? For what purpose? What are you talking about?

Then what do you mean what has Pakistan stood for?
I'm sorry but your statements have no meaning, they do not make sense, zero, zilch, empty.

Please make a clear statement so that I can provide a clear reply, if I have something to say, I shall try to answer, if not, I will clearly say I do not have an opinion on the matter, or I do not have enough information.

To avoid endless chatter, I think it is extremely wise to be clear and precise, it makes things so much easier. Again I apologise if it's too direct, but it's better then beating around the bush.

All it takes is India to get Pakistan's attention on wide variety of issues
 

peagle

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,108
10
5,063
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
All it takes is India to get Pakistan's attention on wide variety of issues

Ok, now you're just being an idiot, please stop acting like an ugly TROLL and grow up.

I've asked you to clarify your stupid statement and you've come back with more stupidities, get serious you stupid fool.

Pakistan isn't available for your stupid fantasies, keep burring your backside, it matters "F" all.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom