well if im not wrong the terrorist whom the Pakistan army is fighting in FATA are offshoots of Taliban and it is a matter of fact that Pakistan along with USofA Created these groups and now your are facing the monster your country(+USA)created and incubated .
New Recruit
New Recruit
Still being haunted by paradox, aren't you?!
They used similar methods to encourage Arab violence against Israelis. The reason they don't encourage their own citizens to do this has to do with how the Saudi state itself was established: the Sauds used the bezerker Ikhwan to conquer Hejaz, but when they got too aggressive Ibn Saud and his household killed them. link
And Imran Khan's article above has summed up previous posts explaining this quite well.
How can Zakaria's article be the last word, or even a 'credible word' when it is full of factual inaccuracies, which, given his past expressed anti-Pakistan sentiment, could also in fact be deliberate lies since he is obviously smart enough to do some basic fact checking and research;
As I pointed out in my last post, Imran Khan summed up the points made regarding this quite well - there is in essence a war going on in regions of Pakistan that were almost completely out of GoP control and where the GoP now exercises some control - it is this vacuum and the war along the borders of those regions in Afghanistan and the resulting dynamics of instability and insurgency that allow for havens for terrorist/militant groups to exist, and for the 'connections' that Zakaria talks about to take place.
This is an unclear statement, unless read carefully. As pointed out previously, opposition to terrorism amongst the people of Pakistan accorinding to multiple polls over the years, some reported by Zakaria himself late last year, show an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis opposed to terrorism, more than almost all the other Muslim countries polled. Pakistanis also continue to reject Islamist parties at the ballot box, a trend that has held steady throughout its history. So the issue is obviously not one of 'popular support' for terrorism, which would be true were the allegations of 'Pakistan's DNA and identity being responsible' actually true.
The distinction between 'terrorists and freedom fighters' is not one that Pakistan has made, or continues to make, alone. The US, India and various other nations continue to make these distinctions when it suites their interests or narratives, so to argue that somehow Pakistan is alone in this is a flawed contention and only illustrates the depths to which Zakaria will cherry pick and distort facts to support his agenda.
Pakistan has its resource constraints and limitations, as well as external threats to cater for. Given that even NATO has ceded territory to the Taliban in Afghanistan because of its own 'constraints', Zakaria is incorrectly assigning the decision not to expand into NW and elsewhere some sort of 'malicious intent'. It remains an unsubstantiated allegation.
We don't really know that yet, but don't expect F Zakaria to exercise journalistic responsibility and verify the facts when it comes to bashing Pakistan.
I don't see why F Zakaria would assume the military does not see economic development as a priority - it does. Without economic development the military cannot maintain a credible deterrent, conventional or unconventional, against external and internal threats.
Comparing Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in terms of the efficacy of their actions against terrorism is comparing apples and oranges - Saudi Arabia does not have Afghanistan and the complications arising out of the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets next door. It does not have the resource constraints that Pakistan does (billions in oil revenue and what). Saudi Arabia has an autocratic regime that runs a very effective police State, instead of a dysfunctional political system that oscillates between military rule and elected governments, and is much smaller in size.
Depends on which poll you are looking at. Polls in Pakistan over the years have focused on both general questions about terrorism, Al Qaeda, Taliban and more specific questions about the Pakistani Taliban. In both cases the opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to terrorism.
No, I don't see the distinction you insist on making between EP and Kashmir as being valid, but that discussion is continuing on another thread.
India's exploitation of ethnic hatred and support for ethnically motivated atrocities is not really an improvement over 'religious extremism'. And yes, India's intervention had everything to do with its obsession with Pakistan and desire to damage it, and not any motives arising out of altruism.
Who said the fight for Kashmir's freedom is 'religious fundamentalism'? The 'revolution' is the fight to overthrow Indian occupation and subjugation of Kashmir and its people.
Actually the 'strawman' you allude to is one that has been advanced by Dhume and other Indians on this thread (and one that you continue to attempt to support despite trying to backtrack here - given the content at the beginning of your post), and pretty well shot down.
Given that polling and election results paint a picture of rejection of terrorism and religious parties, this is just a continuation of the canard promoted by many Indians like Dhume, and a return to the 'Strawman' you dismissed earlier.
You support terrorism/insurgency (East Pakistan) when it fits your goals and condemn it when it doesn't (J&K) - a discussion continuing elsewhere so lets leave it for there.
That havens exploited by terrorists exist in Pakistan is true, but as explained in the posts above this one, the reasons for that lie in the conflict and lack of GoP control over parts of its territory, control that the GoP is struggling to reassert, and not in 'Pakistan's Islamic identity or DNA'.
Dhume's contentions have been shown to be completely unsubstantiated given multiple polls from Pakistan indicating overwhelming opposition to terrorism and the continue rejection of religious parties in the polls. Dhuem can make all the points he wants to, but the lack of substantiation shows them to be what they are, canards and anti-Pakistan propaganda by yet another 'brainwashed Indian' who cannot get beyond an irrational hatred of Pakistan.
It became detrimental to Pakistan when it turned into a terror network, so Pakistan never condoned a 'terror network' to begin with.
The methodology does count, as illustrated by the opposition to attacks on civilians by an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis. Whether or not you think the polling questions where specific enough to suit you is your problem - they substantiate my point very well. You are the one that needs to provide evidence supporting your POV at this point, otherwise, as in Dhume's case, all you are doing is promoting canards based on speculative arguments that are countered by polling evidence.
That Pakistan has a religious identity and that religion has been used for political purposes is not the question being debated. What is being debated is whether the identity of Pakistan or its 'DNA', as Dhume and others have claimed, makes Pakistanis more susceptible to 'radicalization'. So while I appreciate the effort you went to, establishing the religious identity of Pakistan and its exploitation for political purposes is irrelevant.
Pakistan did not think it was creating a monster - a I explained in my previous posts on the rationale behind supporting the Taliban, at the time it seemed the best policy to pursue.
Discourse over the 'national identity' of the nation continues in Pakistan, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic and supports the argument that somehow the 'identity of Pakistan' is responsible for a handful of people engaging in terrorism. If the exploitation of religion for political purposes was responsible for radicalization, then why do polls show an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis rejecting terrorism and why are religious parties rejected in the elections time and time again?
Agreed, but as argued above, what relevance to substantiating the connection to terrorism given the continue opposition of the majority to terrorism.
Yes, but as I pointed out, the direction the country took did depended on a whole series of events - Zia's military coup and rule (he was arguable the most focused on a more fundamentalist bent of Islam and spreading it through society), the Soviet invasion, Pakistan's alliance with the US and the continued hostility between India and Pakistan.
Ayub was not a religious individual, in fact some quotes attributed to him come across as pretty derogatory towards religion/religious minded people. So I doubt the direction of the identity of Pakistan had any role to play in his decision in 1965.
But again, your argument has more to do with critiquing military coups, and ignores the external dynamics that led the General's to support the policies they did, and just blames the identity - again an oversimplification of the issues at hand by cherry picking certain aspects of Pakistan's history and just blaming them on the 'identity'.
Pakistan's politicians have not 'evolved the Islamic identity of the nation into extremism', that has happened because of the series of events that took place during the Afghan Jihad and after it. Once again you choose to cherry pick the result (current terrorism in Pakistan) and then arbitrarily pick Pakistan's Islamic identity as being responsible for the current situation, and ignore the external and internal (no religious) dynamics that led to the decision to push particular policies.
