The new enemy...

[WAJsal]

Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is some background on Jamaat-e-Islami:

Jamaat-e-Islami - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looking at Pakistan's history since its creation, it comes as no Surprise that Jamatis have had their way all along. First Objective Resolution, later Qadianis were declared non-Muslims through supposedly 'national' parliament. Then came Zia's Islamization and all the shitty Hudood and modesty laws. And only recently Islamic words are banned in English as well by Zia's Baqiat Nawaz Sharif.
Good luck, if you still believe all this is mere coincidence. Jamaat-e-Islami in collusion with other Islamist parties, radical elements in the military have successfully infiltrated the Pakistani society for decades, yet no one dare to talk about it.

1971 is different times. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Other than that hardly anything debatable in your post. And i agree with you.

 

[VCheng]

I gave you one of the reasons why it works in favor of US, Russia and few other countries to keep Kashmir burning and yes, India is being forced to buy weapons. We share fractious relationship with both China and Pakistan and ergo we need to keep up with the defence upgrades in the region.

Those are the perceived justifications for the decisions made by India, which benefits from, and pays the price of, the decisions it makes. Others may do whatever suits them, but the responsibility for the decisions made must lie with India and not anyone else. Nobody is forcing India to buy weapons. It could decide to pursue a different strategy to solve Kashmir, if it wants to.

In fact sounds quite stupid, ISI funding a faction which would later on hurt Pakistan.

Hmmm, interesting comment. A certain kind of group does come to mind, now that you mention it.

I know what you're hinting at and for the same reason I avoided adding Kashmir to the OP, i did contemplate doing so. I didnot want to make this thread into a India Vs Pak thread so I avoided bringing subcontinent to discussion.

Yes, that is called playing to the gallery. Demonizing USA is far easier than talking about the real issues like Kashmir. Tsk, tsk.

 

[VCheng]

When are you opening a thread on USS Liberty - 08 June 1967 ?

Aren't the 5,723 threads on it already existing not enough?

 

[Levina]

This part is a little wrong, considering why would ISI want to help a faction which will cause troubles in future. Makes no sense? needs correction.

This from a book called "The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America" - by Peter Dale Scott
This shows how CIA and ISI worked in tandem.

Yes, that is called playing to the gallery. Demonizing USA is far easier than talking about the real issues like Kashmir.

which gallery am I playing to sire?
Now you must produce proof which counters my OP other than accusing me of demonizing US of A.

The reason I kept kashmir out of this discussion is because, one, US of A's interests in Kashmir are not very evident and its very indirect. Two, yesterday I had posted a thread on kashmir where members started picking on each other without even reading the content of my thread. Three, dont expect me to tread the most jaded path. lol

 

[VCheng]

Now you must produce proof which counters my OP other than accusing me of demonizing US of A.

I have already asked a few questions regarding statements made in your OP:

1. Who exactly asked the question "who is going to be America’s next enemy?" or is this another way of prejudicially judging global threat assessments that a superpower must do, and indeed all regional powers do as well?

2. What a leading question, just like asking "When did you stop beating your husband?", the assumption being that a fact not in existence is already assumed to be true: "America which is perpetually on look-out for a new enemy forgets the fact that it is its own enemy." (Besides, if USA is its own worst enemy, it is facing up to a similar adversary, and hence self-defeating.)

3. "It is unfortunate that while America was the sole reason behind most of the wars fought around the world in last 2 decades, the blame had to be shouldered by the followers of Islam". So please tell us who attacked USA on 9/11 so that we can conclude that the blame was misplaced.

 

[Levina]

I have already asked a few questions regarding statements made in your OP:

1. Who exactly asked the question "who is going to be America’s next enemy?" or is this another way of prejudicially judging global threat assessments that a superpower must do, and indeed all regional powers do as well?

2. What a leading question, just like asking "When did you stop beating your husband?", the assumption being that a fact not in existence is already assumed to be true: "America which is perpetually on look-out for a new enemy forgets the fact that it is its own enemy." (Besides, if USA is its own worst enemy, it is facing up to a similar adversary, and hence self-defeating.)

3. "It is unfortunate that while America was the sole reason behind most of the wars fought around the world in last 2 decades, the blame had to be shouldered by the followers of Islam". So please tell us who attacked USA on 9/11 so that we can conclude that the blame was misplaced.

Here we go around the mulberry bush...
Could you provide any evidence that proves America has not supported the (terrorist) organisations mentioned in my OP?

 

[VCheng]

Here we go around the mulberry bush...
Could you provide any evidence that proves America has not supported the (terrorist) organisations mentioned in my OP?

Look, in international geopolitics, things change all the time. At one time it served the national interest to support the jihadis against the USSR. Then things changed after the breakup of the USSR. Then things changed again after 9/11. Now things will change again. And so on. What is your point? That USA at one time supported certain organizations? Of course, whatever serves the national interest. USA attacked Vietnam too, but now there is increasing trade. So showing a photo of the mujaheddin in the Oval Office has no importance today, except in the historical context, or to say that USA supported the predecessors of Al-Qaeda. At one time OBL may been a supported agent. Then things changed. What are we supposed to conclude here? Eternal damnation for USA because steps taken a quarter century ago have changed with the state of flux of international geopolitics? No, it is the just normal way things are, and not just with USA, with all countries.

 

[Levina]

Look, in international geopolitics, things change all the time. At one time it served the national interest to support the jihadis against the USSR. Then things changed after the breakup of the USSR. Then things changed again after 9/11. Now things will change again. And so on. What is your point? That USA at one time supported certain organizations? Of course, whatever serves the national interest. USA attacked Vietnam too, but now there is increasing trade. So showing a photo of the mujaheddin in the Oval Office has no importance today, except in the historical context, or to say that USA supported the predecessors of Al-Qaeda. At one time OBL may been a supported agent. Then things changed. What are we supposed to conclude here? Eternal damnation for USA because steps taken a quarter century ago have changed with the state of flux of international geopolitics? No, it is the just normal way thing are, and not just with USA, with all countries.

You're justifying America's actions, also in the process have accepted that America doesnt have a decorous past. I would say, even to this day America in its own way has been trying to manipulate and control the world, lets not forget about the petro-dollars.
The issue is with American hypocrisy and its "holier than thou attitude".

 

[VCheng]

You're justifying Americas actions, also have accepted that America doesnt have a decorous past. I would say even to this day America in its own way has been trying to manipulate and control the world, lets not forget about the petro-dollars.
The issue is with American hypocrisy and its "holier than thou attitude".

Take all the issue and umbrage you want. It does not change anything about the way things are, as I have clearly and bluntly outlined above, but it will make a lot of people here feel righteously good about themselves.

Death to America! Oh wait, that is another country that said that. Now they sit at the same table to negotiate deals.

 

[Levina]

Death to America! Oh wait, that is another country that said that. Now they sit at the same table to negotiate deals.

Or they were forced to do so.

 

[VCheng]

Or they were forced to do so.

I can assure you that the Iranians are pursuing whatever serves their own national interests, just like every sovereign nation on Earth has a right to do.

 

[Levina]

I can assure you that the Iranians are pursuing whatever serves their own national interests, just like every sovereign nation on Earth has a right to do.

Right!!!
But then Iran is not our topic.

 

[VCheng]

Right!!!
But then Iran is not our topic.

Which is why I said "pursuing whatever serves their own national interests, just like every sovereign nation on Earth has a right to do". Why single any one out?

 

[Levina]

Which is why I said "pursuing whatever serves their own national interests, just like every sovereign nation on Earth has a right to do". Why single any one out?

One gets singled out by its actions.

You've proved that my OP wasnt so off the mark after all.

 

[VCheng]

One gets singled out by its actions.

You've proved that my OP wasnt so off the mark after all.

Nothing of the sort. Look at any nation's actions by the same jaundiced eye and and they all look yellow. The OP remains prejudicial and infantile, but only in my view. I am sure others will find it intellectually awesome. I will let them take this thread forward as I feel I have nothing more to add here, having made my point.