Last time I wen't to Pakistan I was pretty happy with it and I'm not even a rich dude. Carefully check how the Muslim world works because it's quite similar to how the Western works: it's a bunch of different countries that share common interests and disagree on a lot of other things.
Trying to make a story with three links pointing at different countries.. Try the same with Hungary, Spain and the USA. You will hardly say anything interesting.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, make sure that you don't consider the Tribal Areas the same way you would consider the country itself. They are independent in many regards.
Knowing is understanding. I suggest you say no to your condition and discover other cultures and people. You will certainly become a much more interesting person in the process.
"The U.S. is openly accusing the Pakistani military of collaborating with Islamic terrorists, particularly the Haqqani Network, which has long enjoyed sanctuary in North Waziristan. The U.S. publicly agrees with many Pakistanis that the Pakistani military of being out-of-control and a threat to Pakistani democracy. Pakistanis who express these beliefs openly in Pakistan can get arrested or killed."
At least the western countries don't build and finance terror networks to attack neighbours. And so on.
It is a pity for the country, the economy should go like India or China if the place was better managed. I hope the article is correct in its optimism.
(I read that site for fun and to get the opposite perspective from my local Swedish media, which aren't that dependable.)
At least the western countries don't build and finance terror networks to attack neighbours. And so on.
Are you serious?
"In Nicaragua, the National Guard was a militia and a gendarmerie created during the occupation of that country by the United States from 1909 to 1933. It became notorious for human rights abuses and corruption under the regime of the Somoza family."
"The United States' Joint Special Operations Command (JSOT) conducted training for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group listed by the US as a terrorist organization, journalist Seymour Hersh claims."
"Washington, fearing the spread of Soviet influence (and worse the new government's radical example) to its allies in Pakistan, Iran and the Gulf states, immediately offered support to the Afghan mujaheddin, as the "contra" force was known."
I'm sure you're aware that the mujahheddin became Al-Quaeda.
This is just the US, because that's where the majority of the posters on this site are from. You can easily find examples of the UK & France doing the same thing. "The western countries" hands are not clean.
I wrote neighboring countries. There is also a difference -- granted, sometimes quite small in civil wars -- between terror/guerilla. (Besides, most any case is from the cold war.)
Also, if a country is the biggest terror sponsor on the planet, like Iran, I don't exactly feel sorry as long as civilians aren't targeted.
Edit: To be obvious, terror is worse for western governments, since they need to win elections. The idea with terrorism is to scare civilians -- it is just a place where those governments don't want to go.
In my opinion the "biggest terror sponsor" has to be the US and other "leading" European countries such as my own: France. All recent large-scale wars have been perpetrated by these countries and what's worse on the very name of freedom and for the ultimate good of human beings (except when it was a revenge, but I'd forgive America for that one quite easily even though it's one of the biggest recent mess).
Ahmadinejad has Fuck-You-Power (as in Fuck-You-Money) and he uses it. He doesn't need any Western government and doesn't care putting up with international sanctions. Whether he is doing good any good to his own country is another matter entirely.
I don't subscribe to the Western theory that Iran as a whole is a threat to anything. They see nuclear technology as both a mean to assert their military supremacy and as a way to overcome their energy issues so they go for it regardless of what other countries think of it. Right now, Nuclear weapons are still used by "strong" countries to impose their supremacy.
Look at Israel. That problem is unmanageable. I strongly believe that if Iran had Nuclear power, Israel would play much lower profile in the region and discuss equitably how to settle the issues over there.
A couple of things I wish to add: the balance of power must shift. Nobody likes living in a world that is biased toward a small group of "leading" countries. Nuclear power is like the instant disruption factor in the balance of power. An alternative is a slow and painful fight between countries such as what happens between Israel and their neighbouring countries.
> Nuclear power is like the instant disruption factor in the balance of power.
I used to believe this, but now I think it's no longer true. It's a case of aspirant countries looking up to the nuclear powers, and drawing the wrong conclusions.
Nuclear weapons are the end-product of a system and process. There's a notion that to surpass the master, you need to ask what the master sought, rather than copying what the master did. In some way, this pursuit of nuclear weapons is cargo-cultish.
How much more secure would Iran be if it had invested money in offensive and defensive cyberwarfare, instead of nuclear?
The problem is that the talent required to drive that doesn't want to live in Tehran, when they can live in San Francisco, New York, or Montreal.
If experience of India and Pakistan have to show anything, developing Nuclear Weapons is not a big deal, except when there are systematic attack against your infrastructure and scientists by foreign powers. Heck, I would wager that any decently educated engineers and physicist with government backing can build a nuclear bomb. The domain knowledge is not very exotic, either.
I think your logic misses he important factor here.
There must be some serious conflict: Juntas need external enemies, so opposition becomes treachery.
It is a pity, Iran would probably be a really cool place without the theocracy. I just hope those thieves don't get millions of Iranians killed before they are thrown out.
>>In my opinion the "biggest terror sponsor" has to be the US and other "leading" European countries such as my own: France. All recent large-scale wars have been perpetrated by these countries
Wars != terror. Which you know, you're just arguing dishonestly.
(Also, check the democratic peace theory on Wikipedia.)
Second paragraph -- "Ahmadinejad has Fuck-You-Power" is totally wrong, too. Most analysts claim he is on the wrong side with the theocracy and is more or less a figurehead for now.
I stopped reading. You're a propagandist or a troll.
When reading such things, we should try to imagine what Pakistan is facing in its remote areas. The coalition forces messed things up in the area.
Why was Bin Laden was in Pakistan?
Several Pakistanis regions bordering Afghanistan live in a legally or de-facto quasi-autonomy. They are tribal by nature (be it their name or not) and since the war in Afghanistan started, they are facing deep changes in their power structure due to waves of migrants and militants. Such areas have also been steeply radicalising (remember the Swat war?).
So, if Pakistanis officials are trying to keep a sense of unity, and perhaps reinforce Pakistani feeling, by collaborating with what the West sees as terror networks, so be it.
They must ensure that these areas don't radicalise more and that it doesn't spread.
Now, the US is totally biased in the situation. It's literally been trying to dictate decisions to the Pakistani officials (military or political) for years.
> At least the western countries don't build and finance terror networks to attack neighbours. And so on.
I'm unsure whether this is a joke or not. It has to be a joke, right?
Regarding the freedom of speech, I'll ask you if you think it matters. Because if you think it matters there are a couple of things you might consider:
You could stop buying Japanese cars and hard-drives as Thai people end up in jail for expressing opinions that go against the monarchy (google lèse-majesté law in Thailand).
You could stop buying French cars and wine as migrants are put in "jails" and drugged against their will to keep them quiet and sometimes denied lawyers and assistance.
You could stop buying IT equipment because of the situation in China.
etc...
What I do know about Pakistan is that the government was deeply criticized for their handling of the floods in 2009. I also do know for reading from there that freedom of speech in the press is not a vain thing (being French, living in Thailand, I've actually found their critics very open).
I'm not very hopeful regarding the freedom of speech in general. In France nobody talks about those migrant centres that I called "jails" above. Nobody cares. In Thailand people think it's fine to have such a law (of course, except those who have something to say). I think there's a threshold under which a problem isn't a problem for enough people to reach a critical mass that could lead to a change.
The claim that the perpetrators of 9/11 were only "what the West sees as terror networks" is breathtakingly disingenuous.
I hear that Bin Laden died in Abbottabad. I'm no Pakistan expert, but on my map that is not in FATA. It is a short commute from the capital of the country. The house was right next to a top military academy.
If openly supporting the perpetrators of 9/11 is what Pakistan needs to do in order to 'ensure that these areas don't radicalise more' then I wonder for whose benefit Pakistan is doing this wonderful thing. Certainly not New York's... probably just the government of Pakistan, actually. What do I care, if that government also would like me to die, whether it considers some villagers to be radical?
Lese-majeste sucks, but seriously - buying Thai parts through Japanese companies is hardly comparable to harboring and feeding intelligence to the perpetrators of 9/11 in order to maintain the upper hand in the conflict with India.
Do you have any supporting references for thinking it is just funny that ISI et al support terror groups, mainly for use against India?
It is easy to infiltrate the militarised border to go into Indian Kashmir for the terrorists? The Pakistani military REALLY tries to stop the infiltrators...? :-)
And so on.
I'm not an expert, but I need good references or I'll think you're a troll or writing propaganda.
Trying to make a story with three links pointing at different countries.. Try the same with Hungary, Spain and the USA. You will hardly say anything interesting.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, make sure that you don't consider the Tribal Areas the same way you would consider the country itself. They are independent in many regards.
Knowing is understanding. I suggest you say no to your condition and discover other cultures and people. You will certainly become a much more interesting person in the process.