Pakistan-India Discussion

[VidaRed]

When you're belittling the contributions of thousands of Pakistani soldiers dead fighting the war on terror then I may also question the validity of Osama's death. Both ridiculous assertions if I may add.

pakistans war on terror ?

They're the founding fathers of the terrorists masquerading as religous fighters. if pakistan was fighting a war on terror it wouldn't just be targeting pakistan taliban and leaving the afghan taliban, haqqani, jud, let etc scott free since the latter are still taking orders from the isi. There's a reason why India has fenced its border with pakistan and afghanistan and iran are also in the process of doing it, and do you know why ? because they want to keep the terrorists out. Every week terrorists cross the border and carry out attacks and you're here claiming pakistan is fighting a war on terror.

 

[VidaRed]

Oh I understand the Saudi perspective, I just find it amusing how countries like Sudan, Pakistan and the rest of the pathetic Arab league have all rushed to this crusade of theirs. If these countries channeled half the enthusiasm and resources to combat ISIS, they'd cease to exist.

Well pakistan survives on yankee and saudi alms and sudan is seeking some alms itself. Basically they're client states ready for hire for the highest bidder. Im sure you dont expect saudi and co to take on isis ? They practically gave birth to it.

 

[LeChuck]

pakistans war on terror ?

They're the founding fathers of the terrorists masquerading as religous fighters. if pakistan was fighting a war on terror it wouldn't just be targeting pakistan taliban and leaving the afghan taliban, haqqani, jud, let etc scott free since the latter are still taking orders from the isi. There's a reason why India has fenced its border with pakistan and afghanistan and iran are also in the process of doing it, and do you know why ? because they want to keep the terrorists out. Every week terrorists cross the border and carry out attacks and you're here claiming pakistan is fighting a war on terror.

I'm astounded that you actually believe this. Pakistan has been the victim of some of the worst terror attacks in recent years, and you think they're complicit in them?

 

[snk123]

pakistans war on terror ?

They're the founding fathers of the terrorists masquerading as religous fighters. if pakistan was fighting a war on terror it wouldn't just be targeting pakistan taliban and leaving the afghan taliban, haqqani, jud, let etc scott free since the latter are still taking orders from the isi. There's a reason why India has fenced its border with pakistan and afghanistan and iran are also in the process of doing it, and do you know why ? because they want to keep the terrorists out. Every week terrorists cross the border and carry out attacks and you're here claiming pakistan is fighting a war on terror.

You're Indian I presume so naturally you're inclined to speak out of your arse when it comes to terrorism and Pakistan. Pakistan is the biggest victim of terrorism/Taliban aggression and after the Peshawar attack, there is definitely no distinction between the different Taliban groups.

If there was any distinction before regarding Haqqani, JUD by ISI then it was because RAW in India supported and funded factions of TTP in Afghanistan for years (even to this day) to create havoc in Pakistan. And wasn't it the CIA that actually created these religious fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets?

 

[milemuncher777]

@snk123 Raw has never funded TTP thats nonsense. But what's true is they have stirred shit in Balochistan for years.

 

[Desert Eagle]

You're Indian I presume so naturally you're inclined to speak out of your arse when it comes to terrorism and Pakistan. Pakistan is the biggest victim of terrorism/Taliban aggression and after the Peshawar attack, there is definitely no distinction between the different Taliban groups.

If there was any distinction before regarding Haqqani, JUD by ISI then it was because RAW in India supported and funded factions of TTP in Afghanistan for years (even to this day) to create havoc in Pakistan. And wasn't it the CIA that actually created these religious fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets?

Sorry but that line demonstrates your own ignorance on the topic. Pakistan and Muhammad Zia ul-haq is pretty much the birthplace/daddy of what we call modern islamist terrorism.

 

[Desert Eagle]

I'd be interested to see this as well - I presume your proposals don't resemble this in any way:

Get some 30 arab Lee kuan yews and we're sorted.

 

[LeChuck]

Sorry but that line demonstrates your own ignorance on the topic. Pakistan and Muhammad Zia ul-haq is pretty much the birthplace/daddy of what we call modern islamist terrorism.

lol

So let's ignore the USSR, US, Mohammed Daud, the coups from 1843-1973, the constitutional monarchies, Zahir Shah, and Britain, and instead, blame Pakistan and M Zia Ul-Haq.

Some of you people need to get hold of a history book.

 

[Desert Eagle]

lol

So let's ignore the USSR, US, Mohammed Daud, the coups from 1843-1973, the constitutional monarchies, Zahir Shah, and Britain, and instead, blame Pakistan and M Zia Ul-Haq.

Some of you people need to get hold of a history book.

I'd love to be educated. But since you're going back to 1843 apparently to look at cause for what's happening today, I doubt you'll be the one to teach me.

 

[LeChuck]

I'd love to be educated. But since you're going back to 1843 apparently to look at cause for what's happening today, I doubt you'll be the one to teach me.

Ok, let's remove 1843.

You still have: USSR, US, Mohammed Daud, the coups to -1973, the constitutional monarchies, Zahir Shah, and Britain.

So, none of the factors listed above contributed to " the birthplace/daddy of what we call modern islamist terrorism"?

And then, on top of that, you have the audacity to call someone else's post ignorant.

 

[Desert Eagle]

Ok, let's remove 1843.

You still have: USSR, US, Mohammed Daud, the coups to -1973, the constitutional monarchies, Zahir Shah, and Britain.

So, none of the factors listed above contributed to " the birthplace/daddy of what we call modern islamist terrorism"?

And then, on top of that, you have the audacity to call someone else's post ignorant.

You have a habit of responding to things that haven't been stated or claimed. You are responding to a straw man.

I'll help you out though. This is what i called ignorant:

And wasn't it the CIA that actually created these religious fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets?

The role of the CIA and operation cyclone is obviously complex but is directly connected to Pakistan and the ISI. To try to blame one while excusing the other reeks of bias.

 

[LeChuck]

You have a habit of responding to things that haven't been stated or claimed. You are responding to a straw man.

I'll help you out though. This is what i called ignorant:



The role of the CIA and operation cyclone is obviously complex but is directly connected to Pakistan and the ISI. To try to blame one while excusing the other reeks of bias.

You're avoiding the argument, yet again.

Let's try one more time, and see if you can follow.

First:

And wasn't it the CIA that actually created these religious fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets?

You:

Pakistan and Muhammad Zia ul-haq is pretty much the birthplace/daddy of what we call modern islamist terrorism.

Me:

So, none of the factors listed above contributed to " the birthplace/daddy of what we call modern islamist terrorism"?

But now, you're trying to back out of your initial ignorant, biased, agenda driven and stupid comment by saying:

The role of the CIA and operation cyclone is obviously complex but is directly connected to Pakistan and the ISI. To try to blame one while excusing the other reeks of bias.

So, you've gone from 'the birthplace/daddy of islamist terrorism' to 'directly connected to Pakistan and the ISI', which, to me, shows your spouting nonsense on a subject you probably know very little about.

 

[Desert Eagle]

You're avoiding the argument, yet again.

Let's try one more time, and see if you can follow.

First:


You:


Me:


But now, you're trying to back out of your initial ignorant, biased, agenda driven and stupid comment by saying:



So, you've gone from 'the birthplace/daddy of islamist terrorism' to 'directly connected to Pakistan and the ISI', which, to me, shows your spouting nonsense on a subject you probably know very little about.

I can't believe you just strawmanned again. Try to read what is written not your weird interpretation of it.

First:
And wasn't it the CIA that actually created these religious fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets?
You:
Pakistan and Muhammad Zia ul-haq is pretty much the birthplace/daddy of what we call modern islamist terrorism.
Me:
So, none of the factors listed above contributed to " the birthplace/daddy of what we call modern islamist terrorism"?
But now, you're trying to back out of your initial ignorant, biased, agenda driven and stupid comment by saying:

The role of the CIA and operation cyclone is obviously complex but is directly connected to Pakistan and the ISI. To try to blame one while excusing the other reeks of bias.
So, you've gone from 'the birthplace/daddy of islamist terrorism' to 'directly connected to Pakistan and the ISI', which, to me, shows your spouting nonsense on a subject you probably know very little about.

First post by snk123 was in response to someone criticising pakistan. It was bigotted and stupid in full but I chose to highlight a certain phrase that is a tell if you like for ignorance. That the CIA created these religious fighters. The CIA armed the mujahadeen because they were afraid of soviet expansion. The religious aspect of these conflicts has nothing to do with funding for weapons.

My line that you've quoted in in response to his whole post. The first sentence was in response to the part you bolded. Since you seem to be confused, here's a visual representation.

You're Indian I presume so naturally you're inclined to speak out of your arse when it comes to terrorism and Pakistan. Pakistan is the biggest victim of terrorism/Taliban aggression and after the Peshawar attack, there is definitely no distinction between the different Taliban groups. If there was any distinction before regarding Haqqani, JUD by ISI then it was because RAW in India supported and funded factions of TTP in Afghanistan for years (even to this day) to create havoc in Pakistan.

Pakistan and Muhammad Zia ul-haq is pretty much the birthplace/daddy of what we call modern islamist terrorism

.

And wasn't it the CIA that actually created these religious fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets?

Sorry but that line demonstrates your own ignorance on the topic.

The second bit is in response to the first and the last in response to the third.

Now back to your strawmanning. Do you realise that even in your post the train of thought doesn't follow? He asks a question about the CIA and afghanistan and I respond with something completely irrelevant? Oh it's becuase you left out most of his post. Try not to do that, makes you look ignorant, biased, agenda driven and stupid.

You keep saying " so x,y.z doesn't contribute to ....". It should follow that I implied or stated that something to give you that impression. All you have is

Pakistan and Muhammad Zia ul-haq is pretty much the birthplace/daddy of what we call modern islamist terrorism

If you have another birthplace or daddy in mind then do share but don't make up shit in your head to score gotcha points on the internet.

 

[Member 60376]

@Uzz sorry but have to side with Vida and DE here, Pakistan somewhere along the way molded their foreign policy to containment of India. If you cannot recognize that, well we can have a debate but in a different thread. ISI was instrumental in supporting the Afghan Talib, and the various groups closer home like the LeT, JeM etc. It is abundantly clear that Pakistan followed a dual approach wrt Afghan Talib (under US pressure) and the other groups. It was a strategy of a thousand pin pricks to continually bleed India and keep the Kashmir border dispute alive. And it has worked. Problem is, their state is collapsing from within because the non state actors have become stronger than the 3 pillars of state (I would go on to say that the 4th pillar i.e. army was the strongest to begin with, but that is another discussion). Pakistan is bleeding today, because of what they created is out of control. Parts of the country e.g. FATA are not even fully under Islamabad control. It is a geo political mess and nothing to do with religion though

 

[MDFC Manager]

@Uzz sorry but have to side with Vida and DE here, Pakistan somewhere along the way molded their foreign policy to containment of India. If you cannot recognize that, well we can have a debate but in a different thread. ISI was instrumental in supporting the Afghan Talib, and the various groups closer home like the LeT, JeM etc. It is abundantly clear that Pakistan followed a dual approach wrt Afghan Talib (under US pressure) and the other groups. It was a strategy of a thousand pin pricks to continually bleed India and keep the Kashmir border dispute alive. And it has worked. Problem is, their state is collapsing from within because the non state actors have become stronger than the 3 pillars of state (I would go on to say that the 4th pillar i.e. army was the strongest to begin with, but that is another discussion). Pakistan is bleeding today, because of what they created is out of control. Parts of the country e.g. FATA are not even fully under Islamabad control. It is a geo political mess and nothing to do with religion though

Perfect summary there. To add to it, there doesn't seem to enough political willpower or military tact to rid their country off it. Simply claiming 'Pakistan is the worst hit party in terror attacks' is pointless. The Peshawar school massacre was supposed to be a turning point according to many Pakistanis...its been anything but.

 

[snk123]

Perfect summary there. To add to it, there doesn't seem to enough political willpower or military tact to rid their country off it. Simply claiming 'Pakistan is the worst hit party in terror attacks' is pointless. The Peshawar school massacre was supposed to be a turning point according to many Pakistanis...its been anything but.

How is it anything but?

There is consensus across the board and between political parties and cleansing operations (Zarb e azb) have been remarkably successful. There has been retaliation from the Taliban with a few suicide attacks but they're extremely weak at the moment.

 

[LeChuck]

@Desert Eagle -Firstly, please stop clinging onto an idea of a strawman argument to cover your own ignorance.

First post by snk123 was in response to someone criticising pakistan. It was bigotted and stupid in full but I chose to highlight a certain phrase that is a tell if you like for ignorance. That the CIA created these religious fighters. The CIA armed the mujahadeen because they were afraid of soviet expansion. The religious aspect of these conflicts has nothing to do with funding for weapons.

My line that you've quoted in in response to his whole post. The first sentence was in response to the part you bolded. Since you seem to be confused, here's a visual representation.

This paragraph is messy, and I'm finding it a little hard to understand what you're trying to convey.

But, I've bolded part of it-the US/UK funded the mujahideen who began fighting in the first place because the 'Democratic Republic of Afghanistan' didn't adhere to the religious and land laws of the Afghan Muslims. Now, if we go back to what snk123 said...all the way to...

And wasn't it the CIA that actually created these religious fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets?

And now you, yourself, have said:

The CIA armed the mujahadeen because they were afraid of soviet expansion.

Which in itself isn't too dissimilar. So, I could easily repost your own criticism to snk123, as you're saying practically the same thing.

The rest of your post is just garbage/a mess. Your response was to the bolded bit of snk, and now you're trying to cover your tracks. I'm not going to sit here and go over the semantics of your posting style, or what is in response to what.

I'm happy to debate how the mujahideen came from tribal, farming folk to fighters, and I'm happy to debate how "Pakistan and Muhammad Zia ul-haq is pretty much the birthplace/daddy of what we call modern islamist terrorism" (in a separate thread). To blame Pakistan for all of this, however, is just plain false. Considering the numerous other factors at play here that haven't even been mentioned, it's a cop out to just say 'it's their fault' and that's it.

 

[snk123]

Sorry but that line demonstrates your own ignorance on the topic. Pakistan and Muhammad Zia ul-haq is pretty much the birthplace/daddy of what we call modern islamist terrorism.

Nowhere did i absolve ISI of the blame but it was VidaRed and your bigoted implication that Pakistan deserved all of the blame for creating the Taliban. Birthplace, daddy, founding fathers?
ISI would have never helped create/train the Taliban if it hadn't been told to by the CIA to do so, which was my whole point.

I think Hilary sums it up pretty nicely.

 

[PedroMendez]

The USA didnt introduce a violent and intolerant reading of Islam to Pakistan. That was part of the mix right from the start (Maududi/JI). No doubt, that the USA funded and armed some religious lunatics, but parts of the administration were close to those movements before.

 

[snk123]

The USA didnt introduce a violent and intolerant reading of Islam to Pakistan. That was part of the mix right from the start (Maududi/JI). No doubt, that the USA funded and armed some religious lunatics, but parts of the administration were close to those movements before.

I disagree. Are you trying to compare JI with the brainwashed TTP? JI has been present since Pakistan's inception in 1947.
How many suicide attacks were carried out in Pakistan before 2001? How many terror activities was Pakistan the victim of before 1980?

There was no "violent" reading of Islam in Pakistan before - it was deliberately introduced by the Pakistani regime of Zia ul Haq backed by the U.S to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

 

[Nikhil]

@Uzz sorry but have to side with Vida and DE here, Pakistan somewhere along the way molded their foreign policy to containment of India. If you cannot recognize that, well we can have a debate but in a different thread. ISI was instrumental in supporting the Afghan Talib, and the various groups closer home like the LeT, JeM etc. It is abundantly clear that Pakistan followed a dual approach wrt Afghan Talib (under US pressure) and the other groups. It was a strategy of a thousand pin pricks to continually bleed India and keep the Kashmir border dispute alive. And it has worked. Problem is, their state is collapsing from within because the non state actors have become stronger than the 3 pillars of state (I would go on to say that the 4th pillar i.e. army was the strongest to begin with, but that is another discussion). Pakistan is bleeding today, because of what they created is out of control. Parts of the country e.g. FATA are not even fully under Islamabad control. It is a geo political mess and nothing to do with religion though

Perfect post. Pakistan and their ISI are solely responsible for nurturing and supporting the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. ISI has been funding and training extremist groups like Hizb ul Mujahideen, Lashkar e Toiba and Jaish e Mohammed to fight India on Indian soil in Kashmir. Rather nasty shock for them now that the very groups they trained are now training their guns on their trainers. As you sow, so shall you reap.

 

[Raoul]

Alright people.....created your own thread. Have at it and stay out of the Saudi one.

 

[PedroMendez]

I disagree. Are you trying to compare JI with the brainwashed TTP? JI has been present since Pakistan's inception in 1947.
How many suicide attacks were carried out in Pakistan before 2001? How many terror activities was Pakistan the victim of before 1980?

There was no "violent" reading of Islam in Pakistan before - it was deliberately introduced by the Pakistani regime of Zia ul Haq backed by the U.S to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

I understand the difference between TTP and JI. I am just saying, that there has been a strong lobby for a totalitarian interpretation of Islam since the creation of Pakistan. Over decades this had significant influence on governments, administrations and the society. Furthermore I agree with Nikhil. ISI supported many extremist groups.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Alright people.....created your own thread. Have at it and stay out of the Saudi one.

I was having a sense of deja vu when I started reading this thread.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

@Uzz sorry but have to side with Vida and DE here, Pakistan somewhere along the way molded their foreign policy to containment of India. If you cannot recognize that, well we can have a debate but in a different thread. ISI was instrumental in supporting the Afghan Talib, and the various groups closer home like the LeT, JeM etc. It is abundantly clear that Pakistan followed a dual approach wrt Afghan Talib (under US pressure) and the other groups. It was a strategy of a thousand pin pricks to continually bleed India and keep the Kashmir border dispute alive. And it has worked. Problem is, their state is collapsing from within because the non state actors have become stronger than the 3 pillars of state (I would go on to say that the 4th pillar i.e. army was the strongest to begin with, but that is another discussion). Pakistan is bleeding today, because of what they created is out of control. Parts of the country e.g. FATA are not even fully under Islamabad control. It is a geo political mess and nothing to do with religion though

Well said.

Perfect post. Pakistan and their ISI are solely responsible for nurturing and supporting the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. ISI has been funding and training extremist groups like Hizb ul Mujahideen, Lashkar e Toiba and Jaish e Mohammed to fight India on Indian soil in Kashmir. Rather nasty shock for them now that the very groups they trained are now training their guns on their trainers. As you sow, so shall you reap.

My thoughts exactly. The debate on what/who 'created' this is purely theoretical. Despite it's clouded origins, the fact that ISI had a major role in nurturing these elements cannot be disputed. Mabe similar to what CIA found out, it is never easy when the beast turns on it's master.

On the other hand it would be bias on from the Indian posters to ignore Pakistan's 'war on terror'. Maybe belated and of their own making, it is obvious that the leadership (or at least parts of it) have realized the mess they are in and are attempting to bring down the hardcore elements. It may be a case of too little too late, but I believe a bit of progress on that front has been made.

 

[MJJ]

@Uzz @snk123 Why are you guys even bothering to argue this?

 

[2mufc0]

I disagree. Are you trying to compare JI with the brainwashed TTP? JI has been present since Pakistan's inception in 1947.
How many suicide attacks were carried out in Pakistan before 2001? How many terror activities was Pakistan the victim of before 1980?

There was no "violent" reading of Islam in Pakistan before - it was deliberately introduced by the Pakistani regime of Zia ul Haq backed by the U.S to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Couldn't agree more with this and i've had first hand experience how things have changed since 2001, unfortunately in a bad way.

 

[LeChuck]

@Uzz @snk123 Why are you guys even bothering to argue this?

Tbh, my only point of contention was the notion that Pakistan was the 'birthplace/daddy of modern Islamic terrorism', which is such a bullshit statement, I might as well do ghusl now that I've typed it.

To lay blame solely at the door of Pak is just plain false.

 

[MJJ]

Tbh, my only point of contention was the notion that Pakistan was the 'birthplace/daddy of modern Islamic terrorism', which is such a bullshit statement, I might as well do ghusl now that I've typed it.

To lay blame solely at the door of Pak is just plain false.

I know but what do you expect out of a forum heavily populated by Indians. Can't really expect an unbiased discussion.

 

[NM]

I know but what do you expect out of a forum heavily populated by Indians. Can't really expect an unbiased discussion.

There are plenty of non Indians here too though. I disagree with Pakistan being the birthplace of modern terrorism, but Pakistan's support of terrorist outfits is probably the reason the country is such a mess right now. More than anything, it's the common man suffering due to the government waking up and trying to do something about it. Hopefully the focus is 100% on eradicating terorism rather than just the "bad" terrorists that kill Pakistanis.

I'm not hopeful though.

 

[MJJ]

There are plenty of non Indians here too though. I disagree with Pakistan being the birthplace of modern terrorism, but Pakistan's support of terrorist outfits is probably the reason the country is such a mess right now. More than anything, it's the common man suffering due to the government waking up and trying to do something about it. Hopefully the focus is 100% on eradicating terorism rather than just the "bad" terrorists that kill Pakistanis.

I'm not hopeful though.

I know there are, but look at this thread. Roaul is probably the only one not of Indian descent. That's where the bias comes in.

 

[Member 60376]

I know but what do you expect out of a forum heavily populated by Indians. Can't really expect an unbiased discussion.

That is wrong and you know it. Let us take it to another thread if you feel like debating

And @snk123 you make interesting points, and I would counter that by the end 80s when the Kashmir and Soviet insurgencies were either peaking/peaked, there were no atrocities *in* Pak because the factories in PaK (note I am not saying PoK) and FATA were exporting it to both neighbors - east and west. The army has always been far too strong for Pak society's own good, and therein lies the problem. USA found a fertile ground to create extremists in Pak because the ISI was happy to be paid to create trouble. Democracy's other pillars are too weak in Pak, even though the judiciary tries its best. Contrast that to BD for e.g., which is much more moderate because the army (except in patches) never got strong enough to stage coups and/or assassinate the heads of state at will

 

[VidaRed]

I know there are, but look at this thread. Roaul is probably the only one not of Indian descent. That's where the bias comes in.

 

[VidaRed]

I'm astounded that you actually believe this. Pakistan has been the victim of some of the worst terror attacks in recent years, and you think they're complicit in them?

Yes, sometimes the victim is also complicit. Now, tell me would these terrorists be blowing up schools and mosques if they weren't given a helping hand by the pakistani state ? You are the victims now but you nurtured these guys along with the yanks and the saudis, just because you got the rough end of the stick whilst the other two didnt doesn't mean you're an innocent victim in all this. I acknowledge that you have taken on some of the terrorists but at the same time i also acknowledge that you have turned a blind eye to some of the terrorists just because they're still taking orders from the pakistani state and could be used as proxies against its enemies.

You're Indian I presume so naturally you're inclined to speak out of your arse when it comes to terrorism and Pakistan. Pakistan is the biggest victim of terrorism/Taliban aggression and after the Peshawar attack, there is definitely no distinction between the different Taliban groups.

If there was any distinction before regarding Haqqani, JUD by ISI then it was because RAW in India supported and funded factions of TTP in Afghanistan for years (even to this day) to create havoc in Pakistan. And wasn't it the CIA that actually created these religious fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets?

Thats a whole load of BS. Any concrete proof that India is aiding the taliban ? Thats like saying assad is aiding isis to weaken fsa

Pakistan was in league with the cia to create religious fighters, you weren't arm twisted into it unlike your entry into the war on terror when the yanks blackmailed mushy. You jumped in bed then so as to get the backing of a superpower against India.

 

[2cents]

As far as Operation Cyclone, what I remember from Steve Coll's Ghost Wars is that while the ISI, CIA and Saudi intelligence ALL had a hand in financing the mujaheddin, the ISI reserved the right to determine who got what, and actively prevented the CIA exerting any influence on the ground in Afghanistan. Each had their favourites - the ISI favoured the JI-alligned Hekmatyar, while the Americans liked Massoud. Of course, Charlie Wilson once said of Jalal al-din Haqqani that he was 'goodness personified.' So it's fair to say there's blame enough to go around for everybody. The Americans for not really knowing or caring enough about the type of people they were helping, and the Pakistanis and Saudis for knowingly aiding the more extreme elements.

The rise of the Taliban was a separate matter - no external actor 'created' them, they rose as a result of the lawlessness that gripped the south-east of Afghanistan in the early 90s, and ultimately came to be seen by the ISI as their best bet for a stabilizing, pro-Pakistani regime in Kabul. The US didn't take much interest in them at all, except to note the possibility that stability in Afghanistan might provide an outlet for Central Asian gas, but ended up turning against the Taliban in the late 90s. And according to Lawrence Wright, when bin Laden and al-Zawahiri returned to Afghanistan in 1996, they had never heard of the Taliban, and feared they might be communists!

I would highlight two important factors (no doubt there are more) which have helped drive the Pakistani establishment's support for Islamist militancy from the late 70s onwards. First, the loss of Bangladesh, a secession which exposed the incoherence of the ethnically diverse Pakistani state and failure of an overarching Pakistani identity in holding it all together, which in turn led to a greater reliance on Islam (supposedly the one common denominator) to do so. Second, the realization that Pakistan could not win a conventional war against India with which to win back Kashmir, which in turn led to support for non-state actors in that conflict (the Arabs suffered a similar realization in their struggle with Israel after 1967).

I'm not Indian or Pakistani, but have visited both places and enjoyed them a lot.

 

[VP]

Would it be fair to say that Pakistanis are the Liverpool supporters of international politics? Delusional, paranoid and obsessed with their (more successful) neighbours.

 

[fishfingers15]

I know there are, but look at this thread. Roaul is probably the only one not of Indian descent. That's where the bias comes in.

Hello, I have landed in this thread.

 

[fishfingers15]

My two cents on reading this thread,


1) Pakistan have basically shot themselves in the foot, they have paid dearly for coveting something that is not their own. I think it's wrong to highlight that Pakistan is the birthplace for all terrorism, but it's a broken country where being a Prime Minister is as good as playing a mediator role between warring tribes. Some of the recent terror attacks on Pakistan are despicable, they are suffering as well at the hands of Taliban, but unfortunately they have contributed hugely to this debacle. I would never assume India is spotless in any affair, I'm a Tamilian and the dealings with SriLanka are another thread altogether, but they've been largely blameless wrt Pakistan.

2) I've met a huge number of Pakistanis and I only will have very good things to say about them and they are exasperated as well at their own government. I'm not sure how much you can do in Pakistan to be honest.

3) It's a bit of a recurring theme for Uzz to blame the violence/terrorism on previous indulgence from a Western power.

 

[LeChuck]

The majority of Pakistan's problems lie with corruption and nepotism at the top. This constant brushing under the carpet is arguably more damaging for Pakistan as no one is effectively dealing with the problems internally. We are always either reactionary, or too slow to anticipate, and this is because of incompetent leadership. There is no support for the terrorists amongst the layman. I've travelled through Pakistan many times, the cities, the rural areas and the poorer places, where you expect to see some support, there is none. The people there are the victims and are caught between drones and terrorists themselves.

Would it be fair to say that Pakistanis are the Liverpool supporters of international politics? Delusional, paranoid and obsessed with their (more successful) neighbours.

No, a better comparison would be Pakistan being FC United of Manchester.

My two cents on reading this thread,


1) I think it's wrong to highlight that Pakistan is the birthplace for all terrorism,

2) I've met a huge number of Pakistanis and I only will have very good things to say about them and they are exasperated as well at their own government. I'm not sure how much you can do in Pakistan to be honest.

3) It's a bit of a recurring theme for Uzz to blame the violence/terrorism on previous indulgence from a Western power.

On point 1-If you've read my posts in this thread, you'll see this what I've been saying all along.

On point 3-Well, this is not true at all. I've been critical of Western influence, but I've also been critical of Saudi government, IS, Assad etc. Don't make things up. It'd be good for you to remember-Iraq's problems didn't start with the war in '03, neither did Syria's in '11.

 

[Raoul]