What's new

Who killed Benazir Bhutto?

You know what keeps this "hell" capped? Pakistan Army.
Pakistan Army is like a anchor that keeps a fissiperous, explosive, radical, sectarian, ethnic cleavages tied together inside the country. We saw what happened in Syria, Iraq when central authority failed and those states abandoned territory to lawlessness where ISIS and countless other groups took root. Indeed Afghanistan next door to Pakistan which shares similar cultures and history is keeping US Army and good chunk of NATO busy for the last 17 years. Prior to that they kept the Red Army dancing. Pakistan is over 7 times more populous than Afghanistan.

You might wish Pakistan Army away. But be prepared to send in the entire US Army and rest of NATO for the next 3o years and enforce compulsory draft as you face Vietnam v2.0 on sterioids in Pakistan. Most of Pakistan is armed. Most make American gun lovers look like pacifists. That is why Obama said "Pakistan was his nightmare".
 
.
You wouldn't know it from the article. Obviously the author relied almost exclusively on public domain, FIA, and police sources. He may not even have sought out military sources. Fear, I think. So the Pakistani military is suffering the same fate Alexandr Solzenitsyn attributed to the Soviet KGB: since criticizing the institution is illegal, not only won't people say anything bad about it, they are even too scared to seek out information to say anything good.


You were there, weren't you, RR? Share the top of your mind on this, please.

Solomon2, You will find me the strongest opponent of extremist mentality and mixing religion with statecraft. Pakistan has been hostage to three major powers and you can label them AAA:

Allah Wallay: "Refers to the Mullahs and those who exploit religious sentiments for political gains"
American Pitho: "Refers to American influence and locals who sympathies with American strategic designs for the region"
Army: Don't really need to explain this one.

Put the Allah Wallay on one side and the Pro Americans on the other side and you need a "Balance" and that balance is the Pakistan Army!
 
. .
Is or was?
Is!

stats yar.PNG
 
.
Pakistan Army is like a anchor that keeps a fissiperous, explosive, radical, sectarian, ethnic cleavages tied together inside the country. We saw what happened in Syria, Iraq when central authority failed and those states abandoned territory to lawlessness where ISIS and countless other groups took root. Indeed Afghanistan next door to Pakistan which shares similar cultures and history is keeping US Army and good chunk of NATO busy for the last 17 years. Prior to that they kept the Red Army dancing. Pakistan is over 7 times more populous than Afghanistan.

You might wish Pakistan Army away. But be prepared to send in the entire US Army and rest of NATO for the next 3o years and enforce compulsory draft as you face Vietnam v2.0 on sterioids in Pakistan. Most of Pakistan is armed. Most make American gun lovers look like pacifists. That is why Obama said "Pakistan was his nightmare".
You are right but you forget to mention the fact that the establishment also should share some of the blame for the state that pakistan is in. Frequent actions undermining the civilian govt over 70 years has stunted their capability and political development process. Every time the civilian govt needs to start from scratch.
 
.
Not talking about operations against Taliban and the rest of the radicals.
I meant the army,i heard and read that Islamists had infiltrated the army and thats why no interference anymore.
One could ask where the army was when Islamists took to the Streets and where many policemen got killed?
This could have never happened before.
Even at the end of Musharrafs ''reign'',there was some pressure from the Islamists(i heard).
 
.
Pakistani military is suffering the same fate Alexandr Solzenitsyn attributed to the Soviet KGB: since criticizing the institution is illegal, not only won't people say anything bad about it, they are even too scared to seek out information to say anything good.
You know it really is tedious to see rubbish being peddled. Media in US is far, far more "scared" of being critical of US military which is treated like a holy cow then PA is in Pakistan. I don't have time but if some Pak members could do this please. Dawn Newspaper full time job is being critical of Pakistan Army. Dawn never misses a chance to kick the Pak military so I have no idea where you get the "scared" thing from. I seriously do not believe any large US media house would get away with the continous, relentless b*tching about Pakistan Army by Dawn. Indeed I am surprised it has not been shut down like Erdogan did in Turkey ~ or as would happen in USA. Be bankrupted or bought out.

Any member who has time please give few prize examples of how Dawn is "scared" of PA.

You think Turkiye would go to war against Pakistan?
No, of course. I was merely being hypothetical. And Pakistan Army is not about to fall apart. So no need to worry.
 
.
Not talking about operations against Taliban and the rest of the radicals.
I meant the army,i heard and read that Islamists had infiltrated the army and thats why no interference anymore.
One could ask where the army was when Islamists took to the Streets and where many policemen got killed?
This could have never happened before.
Even at the end of Musharrafs ''reign'',there was some pressure from the Islamists(i heard).

Are you honestly telling me that anti state elements don't exist in military outfits? besides a small faction does not sully the entire outfit!
 
. .
Is or was?
Still is. It is the first and last bulwark against religious hell exploding inside Pakistan. I am a secularist. Although I would want the army to go all out "Kemalist" but the problem is the religious forces are well dug in and numerous. Also PA has to watch India. It can't afford a large scale internal instability.

One could ask where the army was when Islamists took to the Streets and where many policemen got killed?
There is and has been some Islamist infiltration into the military. You had Gullenist infiltrate Turkish military. In UK we had pro-UVF members infiltrate British Army and there were cases where British Army was possibly even involved in terrorist attack in Dublin in 1970s. These things happen but as a institution the army is secular.

The problem in Pakistan is the Islamists have grown to such level that I think even the army treads with care when dealing with this threat. I think they have decided they can't face this threat head on. I think the strategy to contain the Islamists is long term. Decades perhaps.

@T-123456

I think the military is aware of risk from Islamists and is in process of course correction. Read this article -

Faces of nationalism

Owen Bennett-JonesUpdated August 17, 2017


The writer is a British journalist and author of Pakistan: Eye of the Storm.



FOR several decades now, many Western scholars have argued that nations are manufactured. Nationalists may believe themselves to be part of a natural community that can trace its history back to a distant, often mythical, past, but in fact their ideas are bogus. Nations, the argument goes, have far messier, disparate and less glorious histories that many nationalists acknowledge. Nationalists feelings don’t exist before they are created.

Furthermore, some of these sceptics argue, nationalism is not only fake but also dangerous. Rather than stressing what people have in common, nationalists highlight what separates them, which leads to rivalry and conflict. And political leaders manipulate nationalist sentiment because they know they can become more powerful by whipping up intercommunal and international tensions.

Defenders of nationalism argue that these concerns are exaggerated. Even if they accept that extreme nationalism is peddled by propagandists and carries risks, they talk instead of patriotism, arguing that it is a positive and normal emotion that can help bring people together and give them pride in their country.


The two-nation theory has competition.


These issues are especially confusing in Pakistan. In the first place it has existed for only 70 years. And then there is the two-nation theory. The suggestion that religion is a more important source of communal feeling than geography or language has further complicated the situation. The need to incorporate religion into the national story has meant, amongst other things, that attempts to create a national sentiment out of the Indus civilisation have never found much traction.

The two-nation theory is still taught in Pakistan’s schools and remains an important element of the ideology underpinning the Pakistani state. But as Aug 14 was celebrated this year it was clear that this ideology is now facing new competition. If the two-nation theory were still the dominant discourse then the media coverage in the run-up to Independence Day would have been concerned with advancing Muslim rights and the need to protect Muslims from hostile cultures.

In fact, the country’s TV screens showed something else. They were filled with images of bright young Pakistanis rejoicing in their country. The national flag was superimposed onto anything that moves and quite a few things that don’t. Music videos showed smiling faces and the magnificent natural beauty of Pakistan. Banks and corporations even got in on the act, wrapping themselves in the flag so as to associate their business with the mood of the moment.

These highly produced short films generally included a few images of clerics and beautiful mosques. To that extent they associated their nationalism — or patriotism — with Islam. But far more striking was the emphasis placed on young people singing and dancing, often in Western clothes.

The minorities were virtually always featured prominently and in a positive light, as were women. These powerful images present a Pakistan that many conservative religious leaders would find distinctly disagreeable. Just imagine what would happen if Jamaatud Dawa or Jamaat-i-Islami were given the opportunity and the budgets to create films celebrating 70 years of Pakistan: no singing, no dancing, no Western attire, no minorities and quite possibly no smiles too. Instead there would presumably be a glorification of martyrdom and some form of jihad.

The kind of Pakistani nationalism that is now on such prominent display on the TV screens, in the social media and on the streets has its origins in the military campaigns against the Pakistani Taliban over the last decade. When the army launched its first serious offensive by moving into Swat in 2007 it was shocked to discover that some of its men reportedly defected. Even though the numbers were small it was, for senior officers, an extremely worrying development. Their response was to create a nationalist alternative to violent jihadist ideology. The TV channels pumped out images of highly professional soldiers risking their lives in defence of their nation. First this messaging came from the ISPR but then the channels starting producing similar material for themselves.

Those stirring militaristic images of a decade ago have given way to the current celebration of Pakistan’s natural beauty, creativity, inclusivity and liberalism. It’s a development that poses a dilemma for those who remain suspicious of nationalism and who continue to fret about its tendency to create conflict by exaggerating difference. Some will hold on to their worries. They fear the time when — probably at a time of tension with India — those who fail tests of patriotism will be branded traitors.

But those very same sceptics might also think that the kind of Pakistani nationalism that is currently being manufactured — youthful and liberal — is at least one that keeps the extreme Islamists at bay. And many might conclude that even if nationalism will create problems in the future, in the context of today’s Pakistan, it’s best to fight one battle at a time.

The writer is a British journalist and author of Pakistan: Eye of the Storm.

Published in Dawn, August 17th, 2017
[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
. .
never kick the hornets nest is what I'm saying! You smoke them out!
Good luck with that,take my country as an example of not kicking anything.
I hope you are not planning on countering with ''Erdogan is doing a good job'' because for Turkish standards,he fvcked up everything.
That what you are hoping for never happened in history(no where) when Islamists are/were involved,its like a virus,once in,it eats you from the inside.
I know you have hope and i also hope for Pakistan but im a realist,my country is fvcked and so is yours.
 
.
Good luck with that,take my country as an example of not kicking anything.
I hope you are not planning on countering with ''Erdogan is doing a good job''

I don't know about turkey, I only know about Pakistan. You can't hit the reset switch on 40 years in one day!
 
. .
Still is. It is the first and last bulwark against religious hell exploding inside Pakistan. I am a secularist. Although I would want the army to go all out "Kemalist" but the problem is the religious forces are well dug in and numerous. Also PA has to watch India. It can't afford a large scale internal instability.

There is and has been some Islamist infiltration into the military. You had Gullenist infiltrate Turkish military. In UK we had pro-UVF members infiltrate British Army and there were cases where British Army was possibly even involved in terrorist attack in Dublin in 1970s. These things happen but as a institution the army is secular.

The problem in Pakistan is the Islamists have grown to such level that I think even the army treads with care when dealing with this threat. I think they have decided they can't face this threat head on. I think the strategy to contain the Islamists is long term. Decades perhaps.

@T-123456

I think the military is aware of risk from Islamists and is in process of course correction. Read this article -

Faces of nationalism

Owen Bennett-JonesUpdated August 17, 2017


The writer is a British journalist and author of Pakistan: Eye of the Storm.



FOR several decades now, many Western scholars have argued that nations are manufactured. Nationalists may believe themselves to be part of a natural community that can trace its history back to a distant, often mythical, past, but in fact their ideas are bogus. Nations, the argument goes, have far messier, disparate and less glorious histories that many nationalists acknowledge. Nationalists feelings don’t exist before they are created.

Furthermore, some of these sceptics argue, nationalism is not only fake but also dangerous. Rather than stressing what people have in common, nationalists highlight what separates them, which leads to rivalry and conflict. And political leaders manipulate nationalist sentiment because they know they can become more powerful by whipping up intercommunal and international tensions.

Defenders of nationalism argue that these concerns are exaggerated. Even if they accept that extreme nationalism is peddled by propagandists and carries risks, they talk instead of patriotism, arguing that it is a positive and normal emotion that can help bring people together and give them pride in their country.


The two-nation theory has competition.


These issues are especially confusing in Pakistan. In the first place it has existed for only 70 years. And then there is the two-nation theory. The suggestion that religion is a more important source of communal feeling than geography or language has further complicated the situation. The need to incorporate religion into the national story has meant, amongst other things, that attempts to create a national sentiment out of the Indus civilisation have never found much traction.

The two-nation theory is still taught in Pakistan’s schools and remains an important element of the ideology underpinning the Pakistani state. But as Aug 14 was celebrated this year it was clear that this ideology is now facing new competition. If the two-nation theory were still the dominant discourse then the media coverage in the run-up to Independence Day would have been concerned with advancing Muslim rights and the need to protect Muslims from hostile cultures.

In fact, the country’s TV screens showed something else. They were filled with images of bright young Pakistanis rejoicing in their country. The national flag was superimposed onto anything that moves and quite a few things that don’t. Music videos showed smiling faces and the magnificent natural beauty of Pakistan. Banks and corporations even got in on the act, wrapping themselves in the flag so as to associate their business with the mood of the moment.

These highly produced short films generally included a few images of clerics and beautiful mosques. To that extent they associated their nationalism — or patriotism — with Islam. But far more striking was the emphasis placed on young people singing and dancing, often in Western clothes.

The minorities were virtually always featured prominently and in a positive light, as were women. These powerful images present a Pakistan that many conservative religious leaders would find distinctly disagreeable. Just imagine what would happen if Jamaatud Dawa or Jamaat-i-Islami were given the opportunity and the budgets to create films celebrating 70 years of Pakistan: no singing, no dancing, no Western attire, no minorities and quite possibly no smiles too. Instead there would presumably be a glorification of martyrdom and some form of jihad.

The kind of Pakistani nationalism that is now on such prominent display on the TV screens, in the social media and on the streets has its origins in the military campaigns against the Pakistani Taliban over the last decade. When the army launched its first serious offensive by moving into Swat in 2007 it was shocked to discover that some of its men reportedly defected. Even though the numbers were small it was, for senior officers, an extremely worrying development. Their response was to create a nationalist alternative to violent jihadist ideology. The TV channels pumped out images of highly professional soldiers risking their lives in defence of their nation. First this messaging came from the ISPR but then the channels starting producing similar material for themselves.

Those stirring militaristic images of a decade ago have given way to the current celebration of Pakistan’s natural beauty, creativity, inclusivity and liberalism. It’s a development that poses a dilemma for those who remain suspicious of nationalism and who continue to fret about its tendency to create conflict by exaggerating difference. Some will hold on to their worries. They fear the time when — probably at a time of tension with India — those who fail tests of patriotism will be branded traitors.

But those very same sceptics might also think that the kind of Pakistani nationalism that is currently being manufactured — youthful and liberal — is at least one that keeps the extreme Islamists at bay. And many might conclude that even if nationalism will create problems in the future, in the context of today’s Pakistan, it’s best to fight one battle at a time.

The writer is a British journalist and author of Pakistan: Eye of the Storm.

Published in Dawn, August 17th, 2017
[/QUOTE]
Still is. It is the first and last bulwark against religious hell exploding inside Pakistan. I am a secularist. Although I would want the army to go all out "Kemalist" but the problem is the religious forces are well dug in and numerous. Also PA has to watch India. It can't afford a large scale internal instability.

There is and has been some Islamist infiltration into the military. You had Gullenist infiltrate Turkish military. In UK we had pro-UVF members infiltrate British Army and there were cases where British Army was possibly even involved in terrorist attack in Dublin in 1970s. These things happen but as a institution the army is secular.

The problem in Pakistan is the Islamists have grown to such level that I think even the army treads with care when dealing with this threat. I think they have decided they can't face this threat head on. I think the strategy to contain the Islamists is long term. Decades perhaps.

@T-123456

I think the military is aware of risk from Islamists and is in process of course correction. Read this article -

Faces of nationalism

Owen Bennett-JonesUpdated August 17, 2017


The writer is a British journalist and author of Pakistan: Eye of the Storm.



FOR several decades now, many Western scholars have argued that nations are manufactured. Nationalists may believe themselves to be part of a natural community that can trace its history back to a distant, often mythical, past, but in fact their ideas are bogus. Nations, the argument goes, have far messier, disparate and less glorious histories that many nationalists acknowledge. Nationalists feelings don’t exist before they are created.

Furthermore, some of these sceptics argue, nationalism is not only fake but also dangerous. Rather than stressing what people have in common, nationalists highlight what separates them, which leads to rivalry and conflict. And political leaders manipulate nationalist sentiment because they know they can become more powerful by whipping up intercommunal and international tensions.

Defenders of nationalism argue that these concerns are exaggerated. Even if they accept that extreme nationalism is peddled by propagandists and carries risks, they talk instead of patriotism, arguing that it is a positive and normal emotion that can help bring people together and give them pride in their country.


The two-nation theory has competition.


These issues are especially confusing in Pakistan. In the first place it has existed for only 70 years. And then there is the two-nation theory. The suggestion that religion is a more important source of communal feeling than geography or language has further complicated the situation. The need to incorporate religion into the national story has meant, amongst other things, that attempts to create a national sentiment out of the Indus civilisation have never found much traction.

The two-nation theory is still taught in Pakistan’s schools and remains an important element of the ideology underpinning the Pakistani state. But as Aug 14 was celebrated this year it was clear that this ideology is now facing new competition. If the two-nation theory were still the dominant discourse then the media coverage in the run-up to Independence Day would have been concerned with advancing Muslim rights and the need to protect Muslims from hostile cultures.

In fact, the country’s TV screens showed something else. They were filled with images of bright young Pakistanis rejoicing in their country. The national flag was superimposed onto anything that moves and quite a few things that don’t. Music videos showed smiling faces and the magnificent natural beauty of Pakistan. Banks and corporations even got in on the act, wrapping themselves in the flag so as to associate their business with the mood of the moment.

These highly produced short films generally included a few images of clerics and beautiful mosques. To that extent they associated their nationalism — or patriotism — with Islam. But far more striking was the emphasis placed on young people singing and dancing, often in Western clothes.

The minorities were virtually always featured prominently and in a positive light, as were women. These powerful images present a Pakistan that many conservative religious leaders would find distinctly disagreeable. Just imagine what would happen if Jamaatud Dawa or Jamaat-i-Islami were given the opportunity and the budgets to create films celebrating 70 years of Pakistan: no singing, no dancing, no Western attire, no minorities and quite possibly no smiles too. Instead there would presumably be a glorification of martyrdom and some form of jihad.

The kind of Pakistani nationalism that is now on such prominent display on the TV screens, in the social media and on the streets has its origins in the military campaigns against the Pakistani Taliban over the last decade. When the army launched its first serious offensive by moving into Swat in 2007 it was shocked to discover that some of its men reportedly defected. Even though the numbers were small it was, for senior officers, an extremely worrying development. Their response was to create a nationalist alternative to violent jihadist ideology. The TV channels pumped out images of highly professional soldiers risking their lives in defence of their nation. First this messaging came from the ISPR but then the channels starting producing similar material for themselves.

Those stirring militaristic images of a decade ago have given way to the current celebration of Pakistan’s natural beauty, creativity, inclusivity and liberalism. It’s a development that poses a dilemma for those who remain suspicious of nationalism and who continue to fret about its tendency to create conflict by exaggerating difference. Some will hold on to their worries. They fear the time when — probably at a time of tension with India — those who fail tests of patriotism will be branded traitors.

But those very same sceptics might also think that the kind of Pakistani nationalism that is currently being manufactured — youthful and liberal — is at least one that keeps the extreme Islamists at bay. And many might conclude that even if nationalism will create problems in the future, in the context of today’s Pakistan, it’s best to fight one battle at a time.

The writer is a British journalist and author of Pakistan: Eye of the Storm.

Published in Dawn, August 17th, 2017
[/QUOTE]
I had to comment on this. I have to say what is wrong about about talking about women's rights and beautiful landscapes of geography?

Islam talks about women's rights.

If we want to promote Pakistan, what's wrong with using landscapes of geography?

I see nothing wrong in wearing western attire, but preference should be to Shalwar Kameez and to Sherwani for obvious reasons.

Mr. Owen Bennett-Jones is kind of stupid.

We should promote our culture obviously, and not some foreign culture.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom