A confused Pakistani

[Raja.Pakistani]

So for you have not given any logical reply to to his any points raised. and you started abusing him. This is the debating style of most kathmullas or sanghees, in this forum. At least you should have gone to nearest library and seen the news paper archive of last 5 years or at least 5 months before lal masjid incedent before putting the rediculous claim that Pakistan did not have any problems before lal masjid incident. Now have pity on yourself and start giving some true or logical statements.

LOl are not you doing the same thing here ?

Pakistan had problems before lal masjid or war on terror but suicide attacks, bomb blasts were rare before Wot . There were no attacks on army and PAF head quarters as well. Swat was also doing fine and Army never felt the need of military operation on waziristan. TTP did not existed either.

The annual death toll from terrorist attacks has risen from 164 in 2003 to 3318 in 2009, with a total of 35,000 Pakistanis killed as of 2010. According to the government of Pakistan, the direct and indirect economic costs of terrorism from 2000-2010 total $68 billion. President Asif Ali Zardari, along with former President ex-Pakistan Army head Pervez Musharraf, have admitted that terrorist outfits were "deliberately created and nurtured" by past governments "as a policy to achieve some short-term tactical objectives". The trend began with Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's controversial "Islamization" policies of the 1980s, under which conflicts were started against non-Muslim countries. Zia's tenure as president saw Pakistan's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War, which led to a greater influx of ideologically driven Afghan Arabs to the tribal areas and increased availability of guns such as the AK-47 and drugs from the Golden Crescent. The state and its Inter-Services Intelligence, in alliance with the CIA, encouraged the "mujahideen" to fight a proxy war against the Soviet Union. Most of the mujahideen were never disarmed after the war and some of these groups were later activated at the behest of the state in the form of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and others like the Taliban who were all encouraged to achieve Pakistan's agenda in the Kashmir conflict[4] and Afghanistan[5] respectively. The same groups are now taking on the state itself, making the biggest threat to it and the citizens of Pakistan through the politically motivated killing of civilians and police officials, by what Pakistan calls misguided holy warriors (mujahideen) and the rest of the world calls terrorists

Terrorism in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^^^ where is the fault of common Pakistani people in what i posted above?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Mr vedic, keep you bloody hindutwa feelings away from this thread

islam has given you taj mehal and islam gave you civilization, be respectful to islam

There are more coherent ways to protest against criticism based on religious differences alone. Making a statement like "Islam gave you civilisation" does not do much for the credibility of the protest.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You are right there but honestly how many Indians are willing to take negative remarks or any criticism when it is directed towards your incredible India? You all become defensive when someone talk about evils in Indian society. It is very easy to criticise or bash people belong to other countries to demoralize a nation. No country is perfect and people should never lose hope , confidence in their country if they want to see it better. Self-pity would no help to make it better

There are problems with your post.

First, this thread is about Pakistan. Raising the issue of Indians not being willing to accept criticism of India is not much good in defending Pakistan. Indians getting defensive about evils in Indian society is not of much relevance in explaining problems in Pakistan, although in a different thread, one on India, Indian society and the ugly aspects there, it might mean a lot.

Second, while it is true that it is very easy to criticise or bash people (who) belong to other countries, to demoralise that nation, you are ruling out criticism of any nation by those who are not citizens of that nation. In fact, you are not even saying that, simple and clear though that may be as a rule, but apparently, and here I could be mistaken, you are open to the idea of discussions among citizens of a nation and those who are not citizens but are descendants of former citizens. That is an illogical statement. If it is OK for you to ddefend Pakistan, and reject other points of view as being not those of citizens of Pakistan, someone might ask if you yourself are a Pakistani citizen. If not, your right to defend Pakistan is as valid as the right of others to criticise without being citizens. This is based on an assumption, of course.

I agree, and presumably everyone else also agrees, with your statement that no country is perfect, and people should never lose hope and confidence in their country if they want to see it better. Is it necessary to deny criticism of a country, or to refuse to discuss criticism in order to refuse to lose hope and confidence in a country?

This is not about India, or Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka, or Nepal, or China, or Burkina Faso. This is an open forum, where open topics, restricted topics and banned topics are all defined, and members are merely required to observe those definitions. Deflecting criticism by attacking the critic or the basis of the discussion does not really add up to a valid statement within that discussion. Nor does it refute the criticism made in any useful way.

 

[Joe Shearer]

LOl are not you doing the same thing here ?

Pakistan had problems before lal masjid or war on terror but suicide attacks, bomb blasts were rare before Wot . There were no attacks on army and PAF head quarters as well. Swat was also doing fine and Army never felt the need of military operation on waziristan. TTP did not existed either.

The annual death toll from terrorist attacks has risen from 164 in 2003 to 3318 in 2009, with a total of 35,000 Pakistanis killed as of 2010. According to the government of Pakistan, the direct and indirect economic costs of terrorism from 2000-2010 total $68 billion. President Asif Ali Zardari, along with former President ex-Pakistan Army head Pervez Musharraf, have admitted that terrorist outfits were "deliberately created and nurtured" by past governments "as a policy to achieve some short-term tactical objectives". The trend began with Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's controversial "Islamization" policies of the 1980s, under which conflicts were started against non-Muslim countries. Zia's tenure as president saw Pakistan's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War, which led to a greater influx of ideologically driven Afghan Arabs to the tribal areas and increased availability of guns such as the AK-47 and drugs from the Golden Crescent. The state and its Inter-Services Intelligence, in alliance with the CIA, encouraged the "mujahideen" to fight a proxy war against the Soviet Union. Most of the mujahideen were never disarmed after the war and some of these groups were later activated at the behest of the state in the form of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and others like the Taliban who were all encouraged to achieve Pakistan's agenda in the Kashmir conflict[4] and Afghanistan[5] respectively. The same groups are now taking on the state itself, making the biggest threat to it and the citizens of Pakistan through the politically motivated killing of civilians and police officials, by what Pakistan calls misguided holy warriors (mujahideen) and the rest of the world calls terrorists

Terrorism in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^^^ where is the fault of common Pakistani people in what i posted above?

disingenuous.

We are all aware of the support that mujahideen, known by the rest of the world as terrorists, get ffrom the common people. Those who actively support terrorism by supporting its finances are involved in the matter, surely.

All these are in the context of people wishing the daily slaughter of innocent, uninvolved men, wwomen and children - and sometimes, even sheep! - and pointing out the fallacies of defenders of the country does not seem to be underhand or effectively at odds with the purpose of the thread.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

First, this thread is about Pakistan. Raising the issue of Indians not being willing to accept criticism of India is not much good in defending Pakistan.

No, i was saying that people should practice what they preach to others. If you are thanking Pakistani or anyone who is trying hard to find faults and social ills in Pakistani society then you should also thanks them when they try to talk about social evils in your country/religion. I see double standard here on this forum.

Second, while it is true that it is very easy to criticise or bash people (who) belong to other countries, to demoralise that nation, you are ruling out criticism of any nation by those who are not citizens of that nation. In fact, you are not even saying that, simple and clear though that may be as a rule, but apparently, and here I could be mistaken, you are open to the idea of discussions among citizens of a nation and those who are not citizens but are descendants of former citizens. That is an illogical statement. If it is OK for you to ddefend Pakistan, and reject other points of view as being not those of citizens of Pakistan, someone might ask if you yourself are a Pakistani citizen. If not, your right to defend Pakistan is as valid as the right of others to criticise without being citizens. This is based on an assumption, of course.

NO, i am willing to take constructive criticism from anyone irrespective of his nationality. Constructive criticism is a wake up call for a nation to let them know that there is something wrong which need to correct. constructive criticism also provide concrete advice on how to improve the situation of people which are being criticised. You can see here that i am having disagreement with people of my own country but to say that Pakistani are confuse, extremist or violent is not criticism but its negative Judgement and gross generalization

 

[Joe Shearer]

No, i was saying that people should practice what they preach to others. If you are thanking Pakistani or anyone who is trying hard to find faults and social ills in Pakistani society then you should also thanks them when they try to talk about social evils in your country/religion. I see double standard here on this forum.

Your point is valid in a larger sense; for instance, if this had been a thread on how to conduct oneself when one's own nationality is involved, when one's own nation is under criticism. It still does not seem valid here, on this thread: an Indian thanking a Pakistani who criticises how things are in Pakistan should not attract a counter saying that thanks should be awarded to criticisms of India and to critics of India. They may or they may not thank such critics; surely that depends on the validity of the criticism.

Surely it is not your point that Indians thank critical Pakistanis simply in order to build up pressure on Pakistanis. If it were so simple, any war between India and Pakistan would be over before it started!

NO, i am willing to take constructive criticism from anyone irrespective of his nationality. Constructive criticism is a wake up call for a nation to let them know that there is something wrong which need to correct. constructive criticism also provide concrete advice on how to improve the situation of people which are being criticised. You can see here that i am having disagreement with people of my own country but to say that Pakistani are confuse, extremist or violent is not criticism but its negative Judgement and gross generalization

Fair enough. Although what may seem to be intolerable criticism may be quite reasonable and moderate. It does depend a lot on on the participants.