What's new

christine fair is the biggest piece of trash i've seen

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haha thats awesome! Kudos to this lady. I always enjoyed these ones by her too:



I've read here ''tales'' before and she has a tendency to lie a lot. Her hatred for Pakistan is doesn't seem rational, it's kind of personal and not academic. Well...that how she came across to me. However, she's on point on some issues. I won't raise it as I'll get banned. They only talk of democracy when the wind is blowing their way, just like the Hindustanis.
 
@thrilainmanila can you debunk her points based on some facts instead of bad mouthing her? also - You are very much entitled to your views about her. she does seem disproportionately opposing of Pakistan. there are always people like that. but instead of berating her, it would be good to find loopholes in her narrative.
she talks about pakistan reciving 30 billion dollars in aid from america, but she fails to fucking comprehend pakistan originally didn't want to be part of the mission and she convieniently misses the point that terrorism in pakistan cost the country over 70 billions dollars in dammage.
she lacks neutrality, and there is massive bias in some of her points she states shes a fan of ajit doval, the man is on record of openly states that india is involved in destabilizing pakistan
she states that drone strikes have been effective in curbing terrorist attacks and when evidence is presented to state the opposite she rubbishes it and says that the data wasn't collected properly see 6:25, she just keeps arguing and shouting over people.
shes debunks the effectiveness of current anti-terroism operations when neutral reports state that terroism in pakistan is decreasing
 
she talks about pakistan reciving 30 billion dollars in aid from america, but she fails to fucking comprehend pakistan originally didn't want to be part of the mission and she convieniently misses the point that terrorism in pakistan cost the country over 70 billions dollars in dammage.
she lacks neutrality, and there is massive bias in some of her points she states shes a fan of ajit doval, the man is on record of openly statin
she states that drone strikes have been effective in curbing terrorist attacks and when evidence is presented to state the opposite she rubbishes it and says that the data wasn't collected properly see 6:25, she just keeps arguing and shouting over people.
shes debunks the effectiveness of current anti-terroism operations when neutral reports state that terroism in pakistan is decreasing

quite a long list you have.

If we can start with 1).she talks about pakistan reciving 30 billion dollars in aid from america, but she fails to fucking comprehend pakistan originally didn't want to be part of the mission and she convieniently misses the point that terrorism in pakistan cost the country over 70 billions dollars in dammage.

If Pakistan did not want to be a part of the mission, it should have stood up to that and stayed away. but it did join.
The 70 billion damage - can you please give a source to that number?
 
quite a long list you have.

If we can start with 1).she talks about pakistan reciving 30 billion dollars in aid from america, but she fails to fucking comprehend pakistan originally didn't want to be part of the mission and she convieniently misses the point that terrorism in pakistan cost the country over 70 billions dollars in dammage.

If Pakistan did not want to be a part of the mission, it should have stood up to that and stayed away. but it did join.
The 70 billion damage - can you please give a source to that number?
george bush threated to bomb pakistan to the stone age if they stayed neutral this is a well known fact
 
george bush threated to bomb pakistan to the stone age if they stayed neutral this is a well known fact
could be. You could still hold your stand.

There were ample reports that Pakistan's territory was being used for training as well as arming of terrorists. Had you not joined the war on terror, the US would have bombed the hideouts and training facilities either ways. You joining the WoT was a "way out". being a part of WoT would have legitimized your cry of being "the most affected nation by terrorism" and a chance to root it out.
 
Buddy how can a single person become so important , her point of view was actually proved by the Discovery of Osama bin Laden , Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and other top Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan , who were part of 9/11 plannings .... there are many attacks in US and UK in which Pakistani expats or citizens are directly or indirectly involved in it ... such example prove her credible in front of local Americans who are her actual audience ........

Sometime it really feels that she is damaging the image of good and sane common Pakistani people

she talks about pakistan reciving 30 billion dollars in aid from america, but she fails to fucking comprehend pakistan originally didn't want to be part of the mission and she convieniently misses the point that terrorism in pakistan cost the country over 70 billions dollars in dammage.
she lacks neutrality, and there is massive bias in some of her points she states shes a fan of ajit doval, the man is on record of openly states that india is involved in destabilizing pakistan
she states that drone strikes have been effective in curbing terrorist attacks and when evidence is presented to state the opposite she rubbishes it and says that the data wasn't collected properly see 6:25, she just keeps arguing and shouting over people.
shes debunks the effectiveness of current anti-terroism operations when neutral reports state that terroism in pakistan is decreasing

aint they nuclear power at that time ???? How can a nuclear power become so weak that US president can force them to join the war

george bush threated to bomb pakistan to the stone age if they stayed neutral this is a well known fact
 
george bush threated to bomb pakistan to the stone age if they stayed neutral this is a well known fact

Neutral? How was Pakistan neutral? They were actively propping up Talibani terrorists (and LET terrorists etc). So Pakistan was not neutral but was on the side of terrorists. Its a pity it required to be bribed to (pretend to) stop backing terrorists.
 
could be. You could still hold your stand.

There were ample reports that Pakistan's territory was being used for training as well as arming of terrorists. Had you not joined the war on terror, the US would have bombed the hideouts and training facilities either ways. You joining the WoT was a "way out". being a part of WoT would have legitimized your cry of being "the most affected nation by terrorism" and a chance to root it out.

She is the same person who once said:-

In an online discussion earlier this year -- convened by the much-respected journal Foreign Affairs -- Fair had said that Pakistan had legitimate concerns about India's involvement in Afghanistan and that perhaps Islamabad's [ Images ] paranoia that New Delhi was fanning unrest in Balochistan was not unfounded.

'I think it is unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan's apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India,' she had then said, and noted, "Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity. Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Kandahar along the (Pak-Afghan) border.'


https://defence.pk/threads/us-exper...-who-infuriated-india-offered-key-post.39599/

And now, she is personal fan of Indian national security adviser. Wow. She is bias as hell, blind can see that. American officials/think tanks and corporations like RAND have all their agenda, running after money and putting non sense.
 
RAND is bit offensive word in India :D :D
She is the same person who once said:-

In an online discussion earlier this year -- convened by the much-respected journal Foreign Affairs -- Fair had said that Pakistan had legitimate concerns about India's involvement in Afghanistan and that perhaps Islamabad's [ Images ] paranoia that New Delhi was fanning unrest in Balochistan was not unfounded.

'I think it is unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan's apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India,' she had then said, and noted, "Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity. Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Kandahar along the (Pak-Afghan) border.'


https://defence.pk/threads/us-exper...-who-infuriated-india-offered-key-post.39599/

And now, she is personal fan of Indian national security adviser. Wow. She is bias as hell, blind can see that. American officials/think tanks and corporations like RAND have all their agenda, running after money and putting non sense.
 
Buddy how can a single person become so important , her point of view was actually proved by the Discovery of Osama bin Laden , Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and other top Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan , who were part of 9/11 plannings .... there are many attacks in US and UK in which Pakistani expats or citizens are directly or indirectly involved in it ... such example prove her credible in front of local Americans who are her actual audience ........

Sometime it really feels that she is damaging the image of good and sane common Pakistani people



aint they nuclear power at that time ???? How can a nuclear power become so weak that US president can force them to join the war

Do you think Pakistan has the range to strike the US? Please use your head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom