POLL- What do Pakistanis on PDF think about the Saudi intervention in Yemen? Pakistani members only.

[Gunsnroses]

It's politics, not sunni and shia.

Superficially yes, digging deep no.

 

[Indian Patriot]

The taliban crisis was far worse than houthi crisis so Iran is not a problem

There are allegations that Iran and SA are having a proxy war. Of course it is not proven yet. But if the allegations are true then Iran won't be pleased to see Pakistan fighting against them. Turkey can act because Turkey does not share a border with Iran. Bear in mind that Turkey did not fight ISIS because they felt it would be against their interest.

Pakistan will need to see what serves their interest more - staying neutral, helping their immediate neighbor Iran or helping SA.

Iran will not attack Pakistan directly. But in political and diplomatic circles Iran will give a cold shoulder to Pakistan.

Superficially yes, digging deep no.

Unless you are trying to say that politics is motivated by Shia, Sunni divide then you are probably wrong.

 

[faisal6309]

We are not middle east. Let middle east handle their problems.

 

[Gunsnroses]

Unless you are trying to say that politics is motivated by Shia, Sunni divide then you are probably wrong.

You need to understand the bigger picture. Iran always supports shia states/people from behind the scene. Proven not proven is not a deal here. Bahrain crises was backed by Iran (of course not proven like Iraqi weapons of mass destruction) otherwise there would have been at least cold war between muslim nations. Not the geopolitics, but inter-muslim-nation's politic is very much guided by sectarianism. Saudia is another prime example of it alongside with Iran by backing wahabi ideology, again with no proof.

 

[Indian Patriot]

You need to understand the bigger picture. Iran always supports shia states/people from behind the scene. Proven not proven is not a deal here. Bahrain crises was backed by Iran (of course not proven like Iraqi weapons of mass destruction) otherwise there would have been at least cold war between muslim nations. Not the geopolitics, but inter-muslim-nation's politic is very much guided by sectarianism. Saudia is another prime example of it alongside with Iran by backing wahabi ideology, again with no proof.

That is what I was saying, maybe I could not put down the words properly. It is politics fueled by the Shia-Sunni divide. So basically it is a Iran-SA proxy war in Yemen.

Now Pakistan will have to chose where their interests lie, with their immediate neighbor Iran or the de facto leader of Sunni Islam which is SA.

You know these kind of fights reminds you of the petty fights you had in school. Two guys enter into a fight, the third guy rushes in to help his friend. The friend sensing an opportunity escapes into safety leaving the third guy alone to face all trouble.

In simple words, SA doesn't have much to lose. Iran cannot take on wealth and influence of Saudi Arabia. I don't know much about Islam or if Shias go to Mecca but Sunnis all over the world make their pilgrimage there. Saudi Arabia has like diplomatic immunity. But Pakistan lacks that shield. Malaysia, Indonesia etc. will hypothetically aid Saudis because of religious sentiments, there will be no sentiments in favor of Pakistan. Saudi Arabia whether they win or lose in Yemen can keep going on with their daily lives. It is Pakistan which shares a border with Iran and the latter would be very pissed.

 

[Goenitz]

Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in 1991. But Tamilnadu is a peaceful state and an economic power house while the civil war in Sri Lanka raged.

the real question is why is Pakistani state and Pakistanis allowing violence from foreign countries to spill over to its soil.
Don't you care about the blood of your countrymen ?
"]

1. we respect the lives of our countrymen and other innocent people.
2. If , suppose, sri lanka had been in war for 40 and india is blamed considering N.indians are doing to to south. Plus if foreign countries are aiding the souths and brainwashing them then india cannot remain peaceful..
THAT HAS BEEN MY ARGUMENT FROM LAST 2 POSTS.

similarly a unstable bengal would result the same or unstable nepal.[/QUOTE]

 

[xyxmt]

For God sake, stop interfering and taking part in other countries wars. We are still reeling from our Musharraf backed alliance in American war in Afghanistan.

This terrorism is a Sunni problem not Country specific anymore. It doesnt matter if you want to get involved or not, you are involved. How many terrorists caught in Pakistan are Yamani, Saudi, Egytian, Tunesian and what not. You cannot eliminate it from just one country and then feel safe. As much as I hate Saudis and their wahabism agenda but now they are getting taste of their own medicine just like we did. Pakistani should help Saudis but on one condition, stop spreading whabism and stop meddling in other countries, stop supporting groups in Syria and Iraq

 

[Gunsnroses]

That is what I was saying, maybe I could not put down the words properly. It is politics fueled by the Shia-Sunni divide. So basically it is a Iran-SA proxy war in Yemen.

Yes it is, and soon the repercussions will be heard in the colosseum called Pakistan. We have always had cold relations with Iran but to be frank Saudia and Pakistan both have reciprocated each other in many ways in the past (army training, skilled/unskilled labor, technology etc) so it is not an easy choice for Pakistan as well despite Iran being the next door neighbor. Task SHOULD only be to defend the holy places whereas rest of the Saudia is NOT a holy place for us et all, but for wahabi sympathizers only.

 

[Indian Patriot]

Iran does not have support of Shia backed states. India, Syria are countries with a sizable Shia population. But there are no shortage of Sunni states. The political support for SA would be immense.

 

[wiseone2]

1. we respect the lives of our countrymen and other innocent people.
2. If , suppose, sri lanka had been in war for 40 and india is blamed considering N.indians are doing to to south. Plus if foreign countries are aiding the souths and brainwashing them then india cannot remain peaceful..
THAT HAS BEEN MY ARGUMENT FROM LAST 2 POSTS.

similarly a unstable bengal would result the same or unstable nepal.

[/QUOTE]

Sri Lanka had a war for 26 years. India kept the violence out of its soil. There were a few high profile incidents - Rajiv Gandhi assassination, bomb blast at Chennai airport.

You are telling me that your military/political class cannot tell the Saudis to back off. I find that hard to believe.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

For God sake, stop interfering and taking part in other countries wars. We are still reeling from our Musharraf backed alliance in American war in Afghanistan.

babu Saab
Musharaf didnt start that war.

Taliban did when they decided to keep their guest with them. and when they got their behinds handed over to them then they turned on Pakistan. neither Americans asked Musharraf before Invading Afghanistan nor the Taliban listened to Musharraf on how to conduct themselves in the international stage. in the end they lost tens of thousands, further sank their country, lost their government and also destroyed the only country in the world that had supported them

 

[thesolar65]

Sorry to barge in, but there is a phrase known as "Catch-22"!!

 

[Goenitz]

Sri Lanka had a war for 26 years. India kept the violence out of its soil.
You are telling me that your military/political class cannot tell the Saudis to back off. I find that hard to believe.[/QUOTE]

1.Man insurgency and wars are way 2 different thing.
2. Its not indians diplomacy or expertise that no proxy developed/strengthened enough to damage india. Its just luck that your neighbors are not in turmoil or supporting openly armed opposition.
3. Till now Saudia remained peaceful despite heir involvement in Checnya, AFG etc. Just 2 hr neighbors got unstable (yemen & iraq) and thr existence is in danger..

 

[karakoram]

Lets burn the country one more time. Sab bolo Pakistan ZINDABAD!

Pakistan se zinda bhaag

 

[Secur]

Same goes for you, first wait and see before jumping to conclusion.

Really? You think that they are discussing it and trying to reach a decision? Wake up, it has already been decided ages ago, all this consultations drama is for public consumption.