Survey on Why Pakistanis support militancy - Harvard

[SMC]

WoT helped Pakistan initially however it's helpful no more. You're saying that America leaving US will mean Pakistan will lose all the aid and default, which is stupidity in a nutshell. Pakistan's exports before WoT are irrelevant because Pakistan's economy grew significantly during Musharraf's time and as a result exports grew as well (or vice versa, i.e. economy grew due to exports growing). But whatever the case is, if US leaves the region and doesn't interfere with Pakistan, it will have many positive effects on Pakistan's economy. So stop the bickering.

 

[indian_warrior]

You are plain wrong and you are wrong because you have done no research, neither on this forum, nor on the Internet. He does not know the figures, do you? How do you know how much money is being spent on the so-called WoT? Source? and how much money Pakistan has got in compensation (you call it aid, free money...)? Source?

If you go through the RiazHaq thread of "india borrows more and spends more", Lot of indians did research and posted figures.

I suggest you to have look at it.

My point is WOT giving Pakistan much needed foreign exchange(DOLLARS). Otherwise it has to export goods and compete with other countries.

 

[qsaark]

If you had examined the source properly, you would have seen that it is from a well-known book by an author who is not a part of the PPP. The PPP was merely quoting him. Javed Ashraf Qazi has not denied it.

Its getting funnier isn't it? Where is the original source? Because PPP quoted him (out of context), you took it as if its was gospel?

Amazing ignorance

Indeed, you have not seen my post, otherwise you would have not blamed me for this.

Sir, you may start a new thread for that.

There exist many... did you bother to search?

Focus on the ideas, rebut them if you can.

Ideas? which ideas? Since when this forum changed into an 'invention/innovation' forum? rebut 'ideas'... What is this? Dude, there is something called 'Dictionary', please consult it before trying to communicate with others in meaningless sentences.

 

[qsaark]

If you go through the RiazHaq thread of "india borrows more and spends more", Lot of indians did research and posted figures.

I suggest you to have look at it.

I do not have to because India or her economy, or her lending and spending is not my concern, maybe RiazHaq's.

My point is WOT giving Pakistan much needed foreign exchange(DOLLARS). Otherwise it has to export goods and compete with other countries.

Prove your point with figures that are relevant to your point if its a point at all.

 

[indian_warrior]

I do not have to because India or her economy, or her lending and spending is not my concern, maybe RiazHaq's.

Prove your point with figures that are relevant to your point if its a point at all.

That tread title is about india and misleading. But talked lot/more about pakistan economy only.

 

[qsaark]

That tread title is about india and misleading. But talked lot/more about pakistan economy only.

I am not asking for impossible or am I ? You are claiming that Pakistan's economy is dependent on the aid money that she is getting in the name of WoT, and I am asking you to prove it with figures. You have figures to support your claim? Post them here and I'll either accept your conclusion, or disagree and give my arguments. The thread you mentioned has figures, lots of figures maybe, you pick up the relevant ones and post here; what is so difficult about it?

 

[Kabir Panthi]

Its getting funnier isn't it? Where is the original source? Because PPP quoted him (out of context), you took it as if its was gospel?

Out of context? It's a whole article by Amir Mir, from The Post of April 27, 2007, which is excerpted from a book by the same author. General Qazi has not denied that it is an authentic quote.

Rest of your post is ignored.

 

[qsaark]

Out of context? It's a whole article by Amir Mir, from The Post of April 27, 2007, which is excerpted from a book by the same author.

Rest of your post is ignored.

Who is Amir Mir? brother of Hamid Mir? who is following the same path set by Hamid... sensational journalism? Book from which author? Post the passages from the book as the first hand source than we'll talk; till than, your post are ignored.

 

[EjazR]

@qsaark

I don't understand what you mean or possibly you might have misunderstood me. I am saying that this report shows that the majority Pakistanis DO NOT support militant organizations. What is negative about Pakistan in that? In fact, this has been quite consistent across many surveys and seeing these results even in 2009 should make Indians realize that the majority of Pakistani people are not supporters of violent militant groups. Similarly, support for political Islamist parties and military dictatorships has also been historically low as in Al Jazeera's survey last year. I would say this survey supports this viewpoint as well.

Again if you look at the graphs, the survey, however questionable, shows that the majority of the Pakistanis do not support militant organizations.

This has nothing to do with "loyalty". In fact, I'm sure this will be a surprise to those Indian members who think the majority of Pakistanis (wrongly) are extremists and support violence. In fact, I would really welcome a similar survey in India to find out how much support extremists groups have as well. Unless there is something specific that seems un-platable in this study, I can't understand what could be so disappointing.

Unfortunately, the thread is derailing again and going off topic.(and yes Indian members are to blame as well). Lets hope everyone sticks to the topic.

 

[jbond197]

Ejaz Saheb,

This is perhaps for the first time (and hopefully last time) you have disappointed me dearly. Posting crap based on statistical juggling was not expected from a senior and rather sane member like you. Anybody can go to any place, choose his target population and can obtain the results he desires. I understand that the Indian Muslims are under tremendous moral pressure to prove themselves 'loyal' to akhand Bharat, but coming up with these bogus studies to show your loyalty is in very poor taste.

Qsaark, I have read your arguments earlier as well and I must say, I was quite impressed a number of time by your counter-arguments to some of the posts you didn't agreed with. But here you disappointed me Sir, by indulging in personal attack against Ejaz just because you do not agree with what has been posted. If you want to prove him wrong then do it by posting objectively against the report not by throwing cheap slander against the OP.
I pitty you, that you had to fall to the level to question the loyality of anybody. May I ask you who gave you the right to question any body's loyality?

Sir, this post of you simply proves that you lack a counter-argument on this issue.

Best Regards.

 

[EjazR]

Here is a relevant paragraph from the report on page 23, that clarifies what I have said earlier

Support for Militancy in Pakistan
At the most basic level this survey arguably provides the most valid measurement of how Pakistanis feel towards militant groups obtained thus far. Figure 2(the graph TurthSeeker posted) reports our core results, showing the difference in support for policies between control and treatment groups for the entire country and then for each of the four provinces.

The striking result here is that Pakistanis are generally negative towards Islamist militant organizations. This negative affect is revealed by our measurement strategy and is a substantial improvement on the deeply ambiguous findings of previous surveys. A July 2009 survey by World Public Opinion.org, for example, found that 80% of respondents in the NWFP felt that al-Qa’ida’s activities posed a “critical threat” to the “vital interests of Pakistan”, yet 47% agreed that they “supported al-Qa’ida attacks on Americans and share its attitude towards the U.S.” What one should make of such findings is unclear, there seems to be a deep inconsistency in these responses. In contrast, our finding that no group’s endorsement had a positive effect on evaluation of policies is a striking demonstration that Pakistanis, on average, do not like the militant organizations operating in their country.

 

[indian_warrior]

I am not asking for impossible or am I ? You are claiming that Pakistan's economy is dependent on the aid money that she is getting in the name of WoT, and I am asking you to prove it with figures. You have figures to support your claim? Post them here and I'll either accept your conclusion, or disagree and give my arguments. The thread you mentioned has figures, lots of figures maybe, you pick up the relevant ones and post here; what is so difficult about it?

It is simple fact. Pakistan is not a self sufficient country. If it needs something from outside. It has to pay in dollars.

Where is dollars without export? Pakistan's major exports is agriculture products which has not adversely impacted by WOT. It is stagnant and no more growth. Pakistan can't produce anything competitive in global market. WOT really helped to get more money.

Is it hard to understand? Pakistan's export in 2001 is 15bil and 2009 is 19bil. If no WOT it will default in 1-2 years. It was near default in 09. It has to bailed out by World bank and IMF.

 

[qsaark]

Ejaz Saheb, and JBond197, you guys are right. I misunderstood the first post in the heat of, well, my own nonsense. I sincerely apologize for my post addressed to Ejaz Saheb.

 

[qsaark]

Is it hard to understand? Pakistan's export in 2001 is 15bil and 2009 is 19bil. If no WOT it will default in 1-2 years. It was near default in 09. It has to bailed out by World bank and IMF.

No it is not hard to understand, but actually impossible to understand. The unholy Afghan war had effectively ended in 1989 and along with it the American aid (even the F-16s already paid for were withheld). Pakistan survived throughout 90s till 2001, when Pakistan was literally dragged into this new unholy WoT. If Pakistan's economy was so much dependent on American aid (you really love to use this 'juicy' word) as you are thinking, Pakistan would have failed between 1989 and 2001 but she did not. Pakistan's economy is not doing good, it never did in past fifteen or so years (lots of credit goes to first Afghan war and its aftermath), but its is totally dependent on few million US dollars that are coming in the name of WoT is plain wrong. The American aid never helped us, neither when it was started back in the middle of 1950s, and nor its is helping our economy now.

 

[EjazR]

The other thing I wanted to highlight is how "religosity" was measured and why there was no correlation between militant extremists groups and religosity as "measured" in the report. In my view this measurement was quite flawed from the beginning.

It basically splits it into two (1)"Jihadism" and (2) Religious Seriousness
A person who thinks Jihad is a military struggle and could be done individually gets a score 1, while those who think of it only as a personal self-improvement struggle and to be undertaken by the govt. gets a zero. But this is very ambiguous as both definitions are applicable based on certain conditions. Moreover, Jihad in the battlefield has specific guidelines (i.e. no targeting of civilians, women and children, no destruction of farms or killing of animals e.t.c.) which have to be adhered to.

Religious seriousness gets a score of 1 as long as the respondent goes to mosque and studies koran on a regular basis.


A more accurate assessment would be to differentiate between those who believe in a political religious ideology including perhaps a military struggle where so called sharia law is imposed through the use force. A person may not be personally religious but may still may support this concept.

While those who are actually religious and do follow the Quran and Hadith will know the facts when Jihad as a military struggle is applicable and more likely to shun a misuse of Jihad or Islam for political purposes like Al Qaeda, TTP e.t.c are doing.


Something that should be taken note of everywhere including India. Basically, just because a Muslim has a beard, and goes to the mosque in no way means that he is an extremist or "jihadist"