The Wrong Kind of Pakistani

[M. Sarmad]

Of course we did. I was merely pointing out to Dayan Hassan's blatant intellectual dishonesty and injustice to 'established historic facts'. When he blames Pakistan 'alone' for the Jihad inc, he does come off as a bigot!

He is not blaming Pakistan "alone" .... And even if someone blames Pakistan "alone" for letting Jihad inc "thrive" , it is not "intellectual dishonesty" .... Whoever provided the funds and original "idea" , We provided our land , Our people and everything else under full protection of the state for this Inc. ..... This too is an "established/undeniable fact"

 

[Multani]

The wrong Pakistani does not do iniquity, hypocrisy, and derision.

The right Pakistani does

 

[Kompromat]

He is not blaming Pakistan "alone" .... And even if someone blames Pakistan "alone" for letting Jihad inc "thrive" , it is not "intellectual dishonesty" .... Whoever provided the funds and original "idea" , We provided our land , Our people and everything else under full protection of the state for this Inc. ..... This too is an "established/undeniable fact"

I haven't denied that and yes he did blame Pakistan for creating 'Jihad Inc'. Mind you (if you have forgotten) Mr Bhutto was cordial with Soviet Union and had agreed to a transit route the USSR had desired dearly. This of course was an 'unforgivable offense' in the eyes of the 'land of the free', therefore he was toppled and killed by a US stooge called Zia-ul-haq. Soviets reached out to him to keep the promise Bhutto had made (Karachi steel mills was a 'sweetener' from USSR), he did exactly what he was asked to do by his masters and he refused.

The Soviet Union thought that taking Afghanistan then Gwadar area would be an easy military venture given the fact that they could easily draw Indian military forces to our eastern flank (Operation Brasstacks) and hence get to keep access to Gwadar all by themselves without actually taking over entire Pakistan hence not pissing US off too much as they had seen the US abandon Pakistan in 1971. In other words the invasion of Afghanistan was a consequence of the US removal of Bhutto from power to stop the Soviet access to the Arabian sea and the strait of Hormuz.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

There is another patriotic/jingoistic kind of Pakistani who would wish death for fellow Pakistani if they ever criticize the policies or role of Army ( or should i say policies of Army General or decision making elite class in army). They would jump in to call you traitor and to wish death for you because that will make them real patriot

 

[VCheng]

I haven't denied that and yes he did blame Pakistan for creating 'Jihad Inc'. Mind you (if you have forgotten) Mr Bhutto was cordial with Soviet Union and had agreed to a transit route the USSR had desired dearly. This of course was an 'unforgivable offense' in the eyes of the 'land of the free', therefore he was toppled and killed by a US stooge called Zia-ul-haq. Soviets reached out to him to keep the promise Bhutto had made (Karachi steel mills was a 'sweetener' from USSR), he did exactly what he was asked to do by his masters and he refused.

The Soviet Union thought that taking Afghanistan then Gwadar area would be an easy military venture given the fact that they could easily draw Indian military forces to our eastern flank (Operation Brasstacks) and hence get to keep access to Gwadar all by themselves without actually taking over entire Pakistan hence not pissing US off too much as they had seen the US abandon Pakistan in 1971. In other words the invasion of Afghanistan was a consequence of the US removal of Bhutto from power to stop the Soviet access to the Arabian sea and the strait of Hormuz.

The main point of the article is not who created Jihad Inc, but that present day Pakistan has become so intolerant that any perceived dissent makes a person liable to be killed.

 

[Kompromat]

The main point of the article is not who created Jihad Inc, but that present day Pakistan has become so intolerant that any perceived dissent makes a person liable to be killed.

Pakistani intolerance has to be seen in the context of its very turbulent history in the recent past, starting from the defeat in 1971. My people have felt very insecure since then, followed by Indian nuclear terror of 1973, the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, torrent of the largest migration of refugees in recorded history, two periods of sanctions, nuclear crisis, post 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, earthquakes, natural disasters and corruption. If these elements are factored in, we can reach a conclusion that the Pakistani nation despite all its resilience has been in a communal survival mentality. Intolerance is a product of instability and the lack of the perception of security. This situation has 'no quick fix'. It will take, confidence that we won't be invaded, a thriving economy, jobs, education, healthcare services, a functional legal, civil and governance structure to 'slowly' get rid of this venom.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I haven't denied that and yes he did blame Pakistan for creating 'Jihad Inc'. Mind you (if you have forgotten) Mr Bhutto was cordial with Soviet Union and had agreed to a transit route the USSR had desired dearly. This of course was an 'unforgivable offense' in the eyes of the 'land of the free', therefore he was toppled and killed by a US stooge called Zia-ul-haq. Soviets reached out to him to keep the promise Bhutto had made (Karachi steel mills was a 'sweetener' from USSR), he did exactly what he was asked to do by his masters and he refused.

The Soviet Union thought that taking Afghanistan then Gwadar area would be an easy military venture given the fact that they could easily draw Indian military forces to our eastern flank (Operation Brasstacks) and hence get to keep access to Gwadar all by themselves without actually taking over entire Pakistan hence not pissing US off too much as they had seen the US abandon Pakistan in 1971. In other words the invasion of Afghanistan was a consequence of the US removal of Bhutto from power to stop the Soviet access to the Arabian sea and the strait of Hormuz.

Bhutto was snatched from Pakistan and the third world by forces of status quo ; something that changed the course of history for Pakistan, the Muslim World and the third world ..... But that is another story

Coming back to "Jihad Inc." , Mind you (if You have forgotten) , Pakistan was always meant to be an anti Soviet state .... The British created Jihadis , they also created Pakistan ; hanging around the Soviet neck, the "albatross" of Islam !!

If we read Diaries of Sir Cunningham (Governor of KPK) and the correspondence between Secretary for the state of India and Viceroy from that time , It becomes absolutely clear that when , how and why the British created "Jihadis" in KPK against the "anti God Bolsheviks" ...... :


State of Confusion II

On 1 May 1947 two Americans, Ronald A. Hare, Head of the Division of South Asian Affairs, and Thomas E. Weil, Second Secretary of U.S. Embassy in India, visited Jinnah. A detailed account of this visit was sent by the American Charge D' Affairs to Marshall, the Secretary of State. According to this account Jinnah stated that under no condition was he prepared to accept the scheme for a united and federated India. The Muslim League had decided to insist upon the creation of Pakistan:

He [Jinnah] sought to impress on his visitors that the emergence of an independent, sovereign Pakistan would be in consonance with American interests. Pakistan would be a Muslim country. Muslim countries stand together against Russian aggression. In that endeavour they would look to the United States for assistance, he added.[Venkataraman, American Role in Pakistan,p.1]

This is a variation on the old British game of hanging around the Soviet neck, the "albatross" of Islam

Jinnah was trying to persuade the United States that it was politically expedient to build an Islamic bastion against Russians. If India was allowed to remain unified then the bastion stretching from Turkey to China would be incomplete. This message was being communicated by Jinnah through every American Agent. The slogan was,


"Create Pakistan and save the western world!"

The relation between Pakistan and the so called "Free World" is much more deep than one may ever realize .... We have always served our "Masters" and those who tried to go against them were made "Nishan e Ibrat"


Jihad Inc. , Deoband Nexus etc. are all tools of the "Free World" that they use effectively against "any one" they want ...


My point is : Whoever provided the original "idea" , We provided our land , Our people and everything else under full protection of the state for all such Inc. and we are the ones who should be held responsible .......

 

[VCheng]

Pakistani intolerance has to be seen in the context of its very turbulent history in the recent past, starting from the defeat in 1971. My people have felt very insecure since then, followed by Indian nuclear terror of 1973, the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, torrent of the largest migration of refugees in recorded history, two periods of sanctions, nuclear crisis, post 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, earthquakes, natural disasters and corruption. If these elements are factored in, we can reach a conclusion that the Pakistani nation despite all its resilience has been in a communal survival mentality. Intolerance is a product of instability and the lack of the perception of security. This situation has 'no quick fix'. It will take, confidence that we won't be invaded, a thriving economy, jobs, education, healthcare services, a functional legal, civil and governance structure to 'slowly' get rid of this venom.

I would disagree with your analysis of the cause. The present intolerance has its main roots in dangerous mix of Religion and State that has been used as a tool by those in power to serve their own agendas, not realizing that it was only a matter of time before they lost control of their own creation that are now trying to replace their creators as the top arbiters.

I will, however, agree with you that there is no quick fix, and that it will take massive social development for this intolerance to abate.

 

[Multani]

Pakistani intolerance has to be seen in the context of its very turbulent history in the recent past, starting from the defeat in 1971. My people have felt very insecure since then, followed by Indian nuclear terror of 1973, the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, torrent of the largest migration of refugees in recorded history, two periods of sanctions, nuclear crisis, post 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, earthquakes, natural disasters and corruption. If these elements are factored in, we can reach a conclusion that the Pakistani nation despite all its resilience has been in a communal survival mentality. Intolerance is a product of instability and the lack of the perception of security. This situation has 'no quick fix'. It will take, confidence that we won't be invaded, a thriving economy, jobs, education, healthcare services, a functional legal, civil and governance structure to 'slowly' get rid of this venom.

This post deserves a positive rating, ma sha Allah

 

[Kompromat]

Bhutto was snatched from Pakistan and the third world by forces of status quo ; something that changed the course of history for Pakistan, the Muslim World and the third world ..... But that is another story

Coming back to "Jihad Inc." , Mind you (if You have forgotten) , Pakistan was always meant to be an anti Soviet state .... The British created Jihadis , they also created Pakistan ; hanging around the Soviet neck, the "albatross" of Islam !!

If we read Diaries of Sir Cunningham (Governor of KPK) and the correspondence between Secretary for the state of India and Viceroy from that time , It becomes absolutely clear that when , how and why the British created "Jihadis" in KPK against the "anti God Bolsheviks" ...... :


State of Confusion II

On 1 May 1947 two Americans, Ronald A. Hare, Head of the Division of South Asian Affairs, and Thomas E. Weil, Second Secretary of U.S. Embassy in India, visited Jinnah. A detailed account of this visit was sent by the American Charge D' Affairs to Marshall, the Secretary of State. According to this account Jinnah stated that under no condition was he prepared to accept the scheme for a united and federated India. The Muslim League had decided to insist upon the creation of Pakistan:

He [Jinnah] sought to impress on his visitors that the emergence of an independent, sovereign Pakistan would be in consonance with American interests. Pakistan would be a Muslim country. Muslim countries stand together against Russian aggression. In that endeavour they would look to the United States for assistance, he added.[Venkataraman, American Role in Pakistan,p.1]

This is a variation on the old British game of hanging around the Soviet neck, the "albatross" of Islam

Jinnah was trying to persuade the United States that it was politically expedient to build an Islamic bastion against Russians. If India was allowed to remain unified then the bastion stretching from Turkey to China would be incomplete. This message was being communicated by Jinnah through every American Agent. The slogan was,


"Create Pakistan and save the western world!"

The relation between Pakistan and the so called "Free World" is much more deep than one may ever realize .... We have always served our "Masters" and those who tried to go against them were made "Nishan e Ibrat"


Jihad Inc. , Deoband Nexus etc. are all tools of the "Free World" that they use effectively against "any one" they want ...


My point is : Whoever provided the original "idea" , We provided our land , Our people and everything else under full protection of the state for all such Inc. and we are the ones who should be held responsible .......

Put it this way. This venom is 'ours' to fix and i find no better fix than 'stability'. Let things take their own course and allow room for sociopolitical evolution. I don't believe in 'revolutions', they mostly go wrong as an entire nation opens itself up to foreign 'power engineering' if Egypt and Syria are any example to go by.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Put it this way. This venom is 'ours' to fix and i find no better fix than 'stability'. Let things take their own course and allow room for sociopolitical evolution. I don't believe in 'revolutions', they mostly go wrong as an entire nation opens itself up to foreign 'power engineering' if Egypt and Syria are any example to go by.

Agreed .... The answer is not a revolution but a renaissance !!

 

[Kompromat]

Agreed .... The answer is not a revolution but a renaissance !!

We need to create an 'environment', renaissance will follow as a 'consequence'.

 

[M. Sarmad]

We need to create an 'environment', renaissance will follow as a 'consequence'.

And that exactly is the point of this article .......

 

[Multani]

I would disagree with your analysis of the cause. The present intolerance has its main roots in dangerous mix of Religion and State that has been used as a tool by those in power to serve their own agendas, not realizing that it was only a matter of time before they lost control of their own creation that are now trying to replace their creators as the top arbiters.

I will, however, agree with you that there is no quick fix, and that it will take massive social development for this intolerance to abate.

What you are saying is that [ and this is for the benefit of the general reader of this thread ]

..because Pakistani Army and ISI have meddled with certain jihadi ideologies [ that of Salafi Jihadis and deobandis and Saudi wahabis in general ], beginning in the 70s, as a consequence, have mutated themselves within such a framework, and mixed the current political state of Pakistan with religion that is very dangerous. it has overall radicalised the society of Pakistan [ as a whole ] and created the so called intolerance against other voices [such as the neo liberals ].

However, how come india [ the big 1000 pound gorilla in the room ] is not noted? And the Kashmir issue? These are what @Aeronaut oointed to. And the fact that most of the country is of sufi backgrounds? I sense, what you, and another personality in this thread, feel is that religion has been emphasized more than it is needed, unnecessarily, and moreover a dangerous form of it, and that is the real danger. But, there is general antipathy against the religious views of Pakistanis. Your motivation, and that of members as PMLN supporters seems to be that this over-emphasis of religion [ of the mutated jihadi kind ] is hindrance to the progress and development of Pakistan. This could be based on your personal views of religion and the political state, and how they should interact, which is another elephant in the room.

Now,liberals want a modern prosperous Pakistan to verge ahead @Nadi. But that this intolerance is in the way, and was sustained by ISI and the Pak Army, until the TTP came back home to roost. This argument is repeated by Indians. Some users as @janbaaz say that the general Pakistani is an emotional, stupid person, who can't think for himself/herself, but is led by the Mullah Brigade, who have found a new enterprise to grow on, the jihad inc.

I feel what @VCheng and the composer of this article seem promote, is that


..the Common Pakistani is generally a bigot, a monkey, who cannot think, speak, or see with an open mind, out of the box, because they are misled by the Mullah Brigade. they speak what the Mullahs tell them. The other member in this thread pointed out that this accusation against Pakistanis has been there since Bhutto times. Bhutto realized the mullah treachery.

I would not be surprised that most of these liberals do have allergic reactions when they see a religious Pakistani talk or express his/her opinion on the street, or on the television, or any media source. Look, look at those arab wannabees. Your idea is that this is not the true nature of the Pakistani. If the jihad inc. had not radicalized the society, the real face of the general Pakistani might have appeared. hamid mir and asma Jahangir must have visited Bangladesh and the awami party to say the same thing.

And that exactly is the point of this article .......

The environment is based on the Kalimah

la ilaha illAllah Muhammad ur RasoolAllah

 

[VCheng]

I feel what @VCheng and the composer of this article seem promote, is that

Rather than put words in anybody else's mouths, what you think? What does the evidence seem to suggest to you?