What's new

Embrace India, not Pakistan, says US columnist

"what has this war on terror brought us since US entrance in afghanistan? 10 thousand civilian casualties of our brothers, sisters and mothers -"

Correlation is not the same thing as cause and effect. Pakistan's is suffering at the hands of two generations taught in Pakistan's Saudi-sponsored radical Islamist madrassas, schools which expanded in the 80s-90s as a deliberate Pakistani government policy. All these living weapons need is a target, and the closest one is Pakistan itself.
 
"what has this war on terror brought us since US entrance in afghanistan? 10 thousand civilian casualties of our brothers, sisters and mothers -"

Correlation is not the same thing as cause and effect. Pakistan's is suffering at the hands of two generations taught in Pakistan's Saudi-sponsored radical Islamist madrassas, schools which expanded in the 80s-90s as a deliberate Pakistani government policy. All these living weapons need is a target, and the closest one is Pakistan itself.

This is indeed very true. Keeping aside the denail mode and obsession with India, if pakistanis understand that the real cause of their problem is its self sponsored religious terrorism in the past, i think half of pakistans war on terror is already won. Blaming India, US is just an act of face saving and certainly misleading to the cause of winning this war.
 
You know i continue to laugh at those idiot Americans who think Pakistanis hate them for their so called freedom and because they are not Muslims.Get a ******* life.We don't hate Chinese and they're atheists.Pakistanis have very positive views about China so does it mean we want to be atheists..?It's much more complex then the usual right wing neocon agenda.
 
Tif pakistanis understand that the real cause of their problem is its self sponsored religious terrorism in the past, i think half of pakistans war on terror is already won.
I hope they do. Hitch's point would have been a better one fifteen years ago, when Pakistan was extending its hegemony into Afghanistan and graduating its first generation of radical Islamist devils. Then tilting towards India might have been useful in reversing Pakistani policy. Yet the U.S. felt it owed Pakistan the benefit of the doubt for Pakistan had proved itself a worthy ally during the Cold War, and IMO thought that by refraining from criticism it would aid the development of Pakistani democracy.

A very unfortunate assessment. Obviously domestic militants are a greater threat to democracy than foreign criticism.
 
Pakistan's is suffering at the hands of two generations taught in Pakistan's Saudi-sponsored radical Islamist madrassas, schools which expanded in the 80s-90s as a deliberate Pakistani government policy.

"official Pakistani gov poilicy in 80s and 90s," huh? I would like you to provide some proof for this.


oh and BTW, this Christopher Hitchens guy is the same drunkard limey turd who refered to the comedian Wanda Sykes as "that black dyke."

He is the one of the most vile and hateful creatures on this planet. one who even hates Mother Thresa!!! Can you believe it? This article is just another one of Anti-Islamic ramblings from this frustrated neocon imported from England.
 
"official Pakistani gov poilicy in 80s and 90s," huh? I would like you to provide some proof for this.


wikipedia says -

The Taliban received valuable training, supplies and arms from the Pakistani government, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI),[13] and many recruits from madrasahs for Afghan refugees in Pakistan, primarily ones established by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI).[14]
 
"official Pakistani gov poilicy in 80s and 90s," huh? I would like you to provide some proof for this.
I'll leave it to the Pakistanis here to detail Zia's policies.

oh and BTW, this Christopher Hitchens guy is the same drunkard limey turd who refered to the comedian Wanda Sykes as "that black dyke." He is the one of the most vile and hateful creatures on this planet.
One of the most distressing things I discovered when studying history is that sometimes people of the most vile habits and speech have done great and good things. Check out John Wilkes, for example. He's the guy who made England's government officials accountable to the people, and whose Parliamentary election battles truly secured democracy in England. (In the U.S., although old streets and cities are named after him, we don't learn about him in school because the details are pornographic.)

one who even hates Mother Thresa!!! Can you believe it?
Maybe Hitch knows something about M.T. you don't? I don't think Hitch likes many people - I certainly don't think he'd ever like me.

This article is just another one of Anti-Islamic ramblings from this frustrated neocon imported from England.
He's a Trotskyite, not a neocon, and he's a very (even foolishly) brave reporter.
 
I'll leave it to the Pakistanis here to detail Zia's policies.

One of the most distressing things I discovered when studying history is that sometimes people of the most vile habits and speech have done great and good things.

Maybe Hitch knows something about M.T. you don't? I don't think Hitch likes many people - I certainly don't think he'd ever like me.

He's a Trotskyite, not a neocon, and he's a very (even foolishly) brave reporter.

i dont know where to begin. with the kind of stuff you are putting before me i dont know which mole to wack first.

firstly Zia and the fostering of taliban. you speak as a student of history so i hope you can recall the scuffle known as the soviet invasion of afghanistan. If you know of it you will know that that it lasted the 80s and taliban were supported, very entusiatically i might add, by the American government. just as the American gov was best buddies with sadam hussain helping him kill millions of his own citizens and also Iranis. And then everyone in the u.s. was pitching the moronic slogan "he has WMDs," well DUH you gave those to him. Just like the American support of Sadam and his murderers, you seem to have amnesia that U.S. is nothing short of a godfather to these Taliban. everyknow freakin knows it and yet you have the audacity to throw the entire load on Pakistan like we were running this whole shindig because we had too much time on our hands.


I am glad to read that atleast you dont disagree with me what a vile, hateful and racist bastard hitchens is. you might have come across one or two examples of a criminal doing some sort of good, but that does not then mean that if there is a bastard such as hitchens he must therefore, due to his abhorant nature, also bring some sort of good to this world. What good did Hitler bring to this world?

about Mother Thresa, what is it you think he knows about her that rest of the world does not?? there are few things in this world that everyone agrees with, and hating Mother Thresa isnt one of them. The only way hitchens would like you is if your first name is whiskey and your last name scotch.

and lastly, getting your *** handed to your doesnt qualify you as "brave." Most of the times it means you are such a douchebag that someone would risk losing his/her own freedom just to have the satisfaction of kicking your ***.

During that famous KKK march in the 70s in skokie, il those neo nazis got their ***** handed to them by the residents. Does that then mean that those nazi bastards were awfully brave trying to march in an area with a large number of holocaust victims?
 
Last edited:
thats the problem. our country is still being run by a single sick head. when kerry lugar bill (US 1.5 bullion aid package) was brought in parliament, the whole nation and parliament rose up against it and said that we will eat grass and die of hunger but wont accept this kerry ***** from US to feed our stomach..but our most corrupt president (who unfortunately has the powers) accepted this bill to fill his own account. even 10% of this amount wont go for the people anyway. as i said earlier, that is the US strategy. it buys the corrupt leaders of different countries and black mails the people of that nation through that leader by putting disgraceful conditions

Why do we get so emotional? No one has bought or sold anyone. There are multiple centers of power in Pakistan, just as there are in the US. These power centers play out some of their unaddressed issues in the press sometimes. That is why you see strange stories being leaked to the press both in Pakistan and in the US.

The situation right now is as follows. The US needs Pakistan. And Pakistan is fundamentally not enemical to the US, but we do resent several aspects of US policy over the years. These issues can be addressed if the US continues down a path that is helpful to Pakistan without creating 'space' in Afghanistan that can be exploited by Pakistan's enemies. I think the military establishment in the US understands this completely and has altered its strategy to suit Pakistani interests more so than what was being done in the past. That said, there is still some more to do on their part and I'm optimistic that this will happen. Drone strikes within FATA happen with Pakistan's knowledge and there must be a reason - in our own interests - behind why we don't shoot these Predators out of the sky. It would be best if we had our own Predator or similar drones, but until we do, we will probably tolerate this activity as long as their is joint targetting and joint intelligence sharing, strictly within the confines of FATA.

As for Zardari, a single person, whoever it might be, seldom changes the trajectory of a nation. Only a handful of people in history have achieved that, and I don't think Zardari or Obama are in that category. For example, Obama campaigned on an anti-war platform, but was he able to pull the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan overnight? No. Similarly, Zardari, whatever his heart's desires might be, is subject to checks and balances in the form of the foreign office, the bureacracy, the army, influential private citizens, the intelligence services... the 'establishment' if you will. Trust me, the KL Bill or any other such 'contract' will not be agreed to until and unless the establishment and almost all of its components are in agreement.

Just because a two-bit individual such as this US columnist writes a two-bit article in a two-bit newspaper, it doesn't alter reality. The US understands that India can never be a world power. They are surrounded by a much larger player in China, and a smaller neighbour antagonistic to India is enough to neutralize their military and economic potential if things get out of hand. What is left is a series of other smaller neighbours none of whom look upon India in a very friendly way. Net-net, never in the history of man has a global power emerged in a situation where the power in question was surrounded by military equals or superiors. It is impossible for a global power to emerge from this sort of situation. Thus, India is not and will not be a global power. Look to the US itself. It is a world power because it is geographically isolated from other great powers. So, when this kook writes about the US supporting India and delinking from Pakistan etc. he is doing nothing but exposing his own mental limitations. What can India do for current US strategic imperatives? NOTHING. India has weak intelligence assets in Afghanistan that are only concerned with destabilizing Pakistan's border areas. India cannot be part of real long term, popular government in Afghanistan. In fact, most Pashtun factions despise India. I am putting this gently, but India is not even remotely as influential in Afghanistan as Pakistan is and has been. As I said previously, India is not the country that will stare down China on the US' behalf either. So what is India? At best it is a market for America's soft exports and military gear. And of course, a source for cheap labour. Sorry to be blunt about, but that is about it. This does not a strategic partnership make.

So when you read such articles, instead of jumping on the bandwagon with 'Hai Zardari corrupt', 'Hai humaray siyasat dan chor', 'Hai this and Hai that', let's be a little objective. Nothing that is fundamentally against the interests of Pakistan will be allowed to happen. Whosoever thinks otherwise has read one Tom Clancy novel too many.
 
You know i continue to laugh at those idiot Americans who think Pakistanis hate them for their so called freedom and because they are not Muslims.Get a ******* life.We don't hate Chinese and they're atheists.Pakistanis have very positive views about China so does it mean we want to be atheists..?It's much more complex then the usual right wing neocon agenda.
US also enjoyed the same kind of love in Pakistani hearts back in 1900....becaused they gave you money...they gave you weapons...aggainst India and overlooked whatever you did against your neighbours..... but now that thay have started scrutinizing Pakistan...they have suddnly turned into enemies......
Who knows what future holds for China in Pakistan.. they are friends because they are giving money...and weapons....that can be used against India...lets see if this love for China holds ground after China gets tierd of supporting Pakistan.
 
Just because a two-bit individual such as this US columnist writes a two-bit article in a two-bit newspaper, it doesn't alter reality. The US understands that India can never be a world power. They are surrounded by a much larger player in China, and a smaller neighbour antagonistic to India is enough to neutralize their military and economic potential if things get out of hand. What is left is a series of other smaller neighbours none of whom look upon India in a very friendly way. Net-net, never in the history of man has a global power emerged in a situation where the power in question was surrounded by military equals or superiors. It is impossible for a global power to emerge from this sort of situation. Thus, India is not and will not be a global power. Look to the US itself. It is a world power because it is geographically isolated from other great powers. So, when this kook writes about the US supporting India and delinking from Pakistan etc. he is doing nothing but exposing his own mental limitations. What can India do for current US strategic imperatives? NOTHING. India has weak intelligence assets in Afghanistan that are only concerned with destabilizing Pakistan's border areas. India cannot be part of real long term, popular government in Afghanistan. In fact, most Pashtun factions despise India. I am putting this gently, but India is not even remotely as influential in Afghanistan as Pakistan is and has been. As I said previously, India is not the country that will stare down China on the US' behalf either. So what is India? At best it is a market for America's soft exports and military gear. And of course, a source for cheap labour. Sorry to be blunt about, but that is about it. This does not a strategic partnership make.

I respect your sentiments..Atleast you posted your POV without being offensive and complemented with logic...However when you use words like "Never"..."at best a market", "cheap labour" etc etc you got to be careful......Certainly this is not a thread to talk about what India can and what it cannot become....The only thing i would like to say is that China whom you addressing it as a big player(which no one can deny) had a head start of 10-15 years than India...Our economy is also on a song and catching up....Militarily we are progressing even at faster rate(because of out of state weapon available from all possible exporters)...However the most important thing is the TOT and JV which is helping our indegenous abilities many folds....So may be in a decade or so you will see India on a altogether different platform....As far as global power is concerned there can be no more global powers so i am fine with India being a regional power which we will...


It is a world power because it is geographically isolated from other great powers.

Not really...US became global power only because it did not participated in First World War..that helped their economy a lot....They also did not participated in Second World War till Pearl Harbour happened(no one can deny the hard work Americans put in)...So in other words when other powers were busy fighting and loosing their shine US economy was booming........USSR(today's Russia) was another example that was able to achieve super power status even though had hostile neighbours...So yes being geographically isolated from great powers will help but is not the only criteria to be a super power...The same reason Australia is no where close to be a super power... It is your economy which should be strong enough to sustain after effects of war and your defense/offense capabilities....

Net-net, never in the history of man has a global power emerged in a situation where the power in question was surrounded by military equals or superiors
If Pakistan whose economy is in shambles...never enjoyed any kind of numerical superiorty against Indians(not going into quality) and yet is considered militarily equal to India then not sure what made you think India can never surpass or equal to china and thereby a global player???


P.S : I have no issues with your posts...You have your reasons to believe what you wrote...
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom