The city in Pakistan that loves a British hairstyle

[TheLahoriGuy]

Wishing all the best to Pakistan.
Mannnnn..... There brainwashed islamic terrorists don't know the damage they have done to many people. . Without them I'm sure Pakistan will be much more developed than it is today. Anyway, better late than never.

From what I have heard, Pakistan was much better and more liberal/open in the 50s to 70s is it true ?

Ofcourse its true. Nothing closer to Western countries obviously. But liberal enough that everyone could live their lives however they want without any prosecution. It was a series of regime changes supported by the West (mainly US) that screwed up this part of the world (Iran,Pakistan and Afghanistan). But we are moving back to those times, not the government but the people. The biggest problem right now we are facing is polarization of society, the liberals are moving far to the left where as the conservatives are moving far to the right. And it wont go this way for long , in the end either side will prevail. Lets hope its the right one

 

[mike2000 is back]

Ofcourse its true. Nothing closer to Western countries obviously. But liberal enough that everyone could live their lives however they want without any prosecution. It was a series of regime changes supported by the West (mainly US) that screwed up this part of the world (Iran,Pakistan and Afghanistan). But we are moving back to those times, not the government but the people. The biggest problem right now we are facing is polarization of society, the liberals are moving far to the left where as the conservatives are moving far to the right. And it wont go this way for long , in the end either side will prevail. Lets hope its the right one

How did the West/U.S cause Regine changes in Iran(guess you mean Islamic mullah revolution), Afghanistan(guess you mean the Taliban, but they too were supported by Pakistan against the Soviets and India northern alliance) and Pakistan(guess you mean Zia ul Aq ir whatever his name, but he too had popular support for his islamic ideas for the country if I'm not mistaken)?

 

[Zibago]

Mannnnn..... There brainwashed islamic terrorists don't know the damage they have done to many people. . Without them I'm sure Pakistan will be much more developed than it is today. Anyway, better late than never.

They cause death and destruction everywhere they dont understand how the world functions and they want to impose their view on everyone even those who disagree with them by force
They just dont understand you cant turn the clock back

Without them I'm sure Pakistan will be much more developed than it is today.

It sure will be

From what I have heard, Pakistan was much better and more liberal/open in the 50s to 70s is it true ?

They were more tolerant yes but i would say only certain city dwellers were liberal the rural areas were more conservative back in the day than they are now What changed in the 70,s was growth of intolerance between those who were conservative and those who had more liberal leaning.We altered our society for the Afghan war which helped the radicals get more courageous and threaten all who disagree with them.The experimentation we did in the 70,s and 80,s will need decades to fully cure @TheLahoriGuy

 

[TheLahoriGuy]

How did the West/U.S cause Regine changes in Iran(guess you mean Islamic mullah revolution), Afghanistan(guess you mean the Taliban, but they too were supported by Pakistan against the Soviets and India northern alliance) and Pakistan(guess you mean Zia ul Aq ir whatever his name, but he too had popular support for his islamic ideas for the country if I'm not mistaken)?

In countries in this part of the world just popular vote and local backing isnt enough to put you as head of state. Since all three are economically weak countries , to keep the inflow or foreign aid running we give certain powers to the countries backing us. They're given privileges that otherwise no state would be give. Afghanistan and Pakistan allowing drone strikes on their soil is one of these privileges. Zia ul Haq's rise wasnt just due to the fact that the public started supporting islamism overnight. It was a systematic process. With an already weak government in place (Bhutto) and with massive US backing it wasnt difficult for Zia to sieze power. The "privilege" in this case was that we had to support the US cause in Afghanistan to drive out the soviets.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Since all three are economically weak countries , to keep the inflow or foreign aid running we give certain powers to the countries backing us. They're given privileges that otherwise no state would be give. Afghanistan and Pakistan allowing drone strikes on their soil is one of these privileges

But I thought the drone strike allowed by the Pakistanis government did help kill alot of these islamic radicals/terrorists in Pakistan thus degrading their capabilities and fighting potential as well . So it also helped Pakistan in some way(reason the government tolerated them as well) no?
As for the "three countries". Why did you mention Iran? I know the shah we as a secular liberal ruler and had very very good relations with Pakistan (even helped during the War with India from what I red), but the Islamists/Mullahs/Khomeini toppling him had nothing to do with the West/U.S , so the fact that Iran-Pakistan relations deteriorated with the rise of the mullahs in the new islamic state of Iran had nothing to do with the U.S I believe

Zia ul Haq's rise wasnt just due to the fact that the public started supporting islamism overnight. It was a systematic process. With an already weak government in place (Bhutto) and with massive US backing it wasnt difficult for Zia to sieze power. The "privilege" in this case was that we had to support the US cause in Afghanistan to drive out the soviets.

Pakistan "had" to support the U.S against the Soviet communist forces in Afghanistan and Indian backed Northern alliance? I will believe this was in Pakistan's interests even more than the West ,NO? Since the spread of communism in south Asia was a threat to Pakistan itself(islamic country) and the threat of Indian and Iranian backed forces (northern alliance seizing power) was an even bigger threat to Pakistan national interests. So I believe Pakistan's leaders were not forced by the West to act against them in Afghanistan, they were well aware that it was in their interests to do so and they more than obliged(which I understand).

 

[Taimoor Khan]

WOW....is this really Pakistan??
Never knew the country's landscape was so green. Looks more like a tropical island Caribbean country or something.

Depends on where in Pakistan you are.

My brother went up north few weeks ago, uploaded his trekking adventure on youtube.

South, on the other hand is desert with some stunning beaches with warm water which wont freeze your balls.

and this is where I spend my childhood

 

[TheLahoriGuy]

But I thought the drone strike allowed by the Pakistanis government did help kill alot of these islamic radicals/terrorists in Pakistan thus degrading their capabilities and fighting potential as well . So it also helped Pakistan in some way(reason the government tolerated them as well) no?
As for the "three countries". Why did you mention Iran? I know the shah we as a secular liberal ruler and had very very good relations with Pakistan (even helped during the War with India from what I red), but the Islamists/Mullahs/Khomeini toppling him had nothing to do with the West/U.S , so the fact that Iran-Pakistan relations deteriorated with the rise of the mullahs in the new islamic state of Iran had nothing to do with the U.S I believe


Pakistan "had" to support the U.S against the Soviet communist forces in Afghanistan and Indian backed Northern alliance? I will believe this was in Pakistan's interests even more than the West ,NO? Since the spread of communism in south Asia was a threat to Pakistan itself(islamic country) and the threat of Indian and Iranian backed forces (northern alliance seizing power) was an even bigger threat to Pakistan national interests. So I believe Pakistan's leaders were not forced by the West to act against them in Afghanistan, they were well aware that it was in their interests to do so and they more than obliged(which I understand).

All islamist leaders came into power by foreign backing. This includes Khomeini and Zia ul Haq. There was no reason to intervene in Afghanistan. The soviets had no intention to attack Pakistan. Had they wanted to attack us they had two allies in the area who could help them launch an offensive against us. Yes there were attacks on the tor kham border but that was only to discourage us from training the mujahideen or to cut off supply to them.

 

[Zibago]

Pakistan(guess you mean Zia ul Aq ir whatever his name, but he too had popular support for his islamic ideas for the country if I'm not mistaken)?

He gave the public the system they asked for well when public has a low literacy rate you dont give them everything they ask for he did that to silence opposition

In countries in this part of the world just popular vote and local backing isnt enough to put you as head of state. Since all three are economically weak countries , to keep the inflow or foreign aid running we give certain powers to the countries backing us. They're given privileges that otherwise no state would be give. Afghanistan and Pakistan allowing drone strikes on their soil is one of these privileges. Zia ul Haq's rise wasnt just due to the fact that the public started supporting islamism overnight. It was a systematic process. With an already weak government in place (Bhutto) and with massive US backing it wasnt difficult for Zia to sieze power. The "privilege" in this case was that we had to support the US cause in Afghanistan to drive out the soviets.

Zia gave Pakistanis what they wanted i.e a fundamentalist system it took us decades to neutralize the unjust laws he gave us still there exist many laws which we are having difficulty in removing
Once you touch the Islamization genie its really hard to put it back inside

All islamist leaders came into power by foreign backing. This includes Khomeini and Zia ul Haq. There was no reason to intervene in Afghanistan. The soviets had no intention to attack Pakistan. Had they wanted to attack us they had two allies in the area who could help them launch an offensive against us. Yes there were attacks on the tor kham border but that was only to discourage us from training the mujahideen or to cut off supply to them.

Getting rid of soviets wasn't wrong but what was wrong was altering the very fabric of our society to achieve that goal