JI asks govt to reject US aid

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Were these hypocrites sleeping when first aid came from Uncle Sam a long long time ago? I hate JI because of its munafiqat. It had no objection when dictators like Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Mush kiss @$$ of Uncle Sam, for getting billions of $s to suppress the local population and indulge in all sorts of corruption. Laanat hay in jamaateyon par.

It was the duty of first PM Liaqat Ali Khan to reject the aid from Uncle Sam to save selfrespect and selfesteem of the nation. Later the addiction of getting aid from Uncle Sam took the foundation of the country. Now Pakistan can not survive without the aid, whatever strings attached to it, (it is just like heroine) Pakistan has to obey for its survival.

DAWN.COM | National | JI asks govt to reject US aid

LAHORE, Sept 25: Jamaat-i-Islami amir Syed Munawwar Hasan has said the government must reject the US aid with strings as it would undermine the national sovereignty.

Speaking at the Friday congregation at Mansoora Masjid here, he said no self-respecting nation would accept financial aid linked with conditions against its sovereignty because it rarely benefited it.

He recalled that at the time of devastating earthquake in the Northern Areas, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states had offered maximum assistance whereas the US and Europe had advanced soft loans.

He said a bill including conditions linking the aid with restricting our nuclear programme, gearing up the war on terror and excluding certain ‘objectionable’ portions from our educational syllabi had been tabled at the ‘Friends of Democratic Pakistan’ meeting a fortnight ago. And the Transparency International report which referred primarily to corruption was released just at a time when the session was to be held.

2

Numerous countries accepted Cold War era aid. Many of them developed well and certainly nearly all of them, aside from some of the African nations, are better off than Pakistan today. Come on yaar. Pakistan cannot blame foreign entities for everything. Who has received more foreign aid than any other country since World War 2? Israel and compare its development in the same amount of time with that of Pakistan. Other nations which received a lot of foreign aid for years and have developed well are South Korea and Taiwan. Of course, there is also the example of the short-term aid via the Marshall Plan which Western Europe accepted and a similar level of aid that was given to Japan.

Much of that aid was military aid. The only time Pakistan was ever anywhere near India in military strength was when it was equipped with US weapons while India had inferior Soviet weaponry. Was this a bad thing? Were they suppose to turn that down? Thanks to its alliance with the US Pakistan was saved from an Indian invasion in 71'. Pakistan may not even exist today if Khan and co. did not build ties with the US. President Nixon believed India planned to invade and dismember West Pakistan and threatened US intervention if they did so. Needless to say, India quickly backed down.

Also, no one forced Pakistan to accepted American aid. It could have went to the USSR, which was only miles away from Pakistan, for aid.

Also, JI is painting their beloved Arab "brothers" as great friends of fellow Muslims. Where were they when Indonesia was ravaged by the tsunami? Saudi Arabia gave $30 million; Michael Schumacher, a German Christian race car driver, gave $10 million alone. The biggest donors to the tsunami were Japan, Australia, the US and forget the other nation. It was either China or the UK. No "brother" Muslim country ranked among the top donors. Once again Islamists are misleading people with their "ummah" mythology.

3

Re: JI asks govt to reject US aid

JI would rather make Pakistan a slave state of the Saudis.

4

Re: JI asks govt to reject US aid

Try luring the JI leaders with Amrikan Visa for their sons....

5

Why do you think USSR would have helped Pakistan, a great aid giver and friend to India in fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties and even now? Pakistan and India have been arch rivals had three wars in the past on issue of Kashmir. I think you know that. Will India a great ally of Russia would have allowed Russians to give aid to Pakistan? I think now Russia itself receive aid from Uncle Sam for rebuilding and switching over to market economy?

It is now Russia, no more USSR after its disintegration in the nineties. You kept on writing USSR.

The Hi/Bye Thread
6

It could have used Pakistan as a check on Iran for one. The US helped both Turkey and Greece so there is no requirement to take one side in a conflict for a superpower. Plus, India was not a close ally of the Soviet Union, especially during the early stages of the Cold War. Until the late 60's the USSR adopted an even-handed approach to the India-Pakistan conflict. India never became a satellite in the sense of a Cuba. However, they did become close by the 70's. Pakistan had two decades to turn to the USSR and it didn't. Face it: Pakistan is where it is today primarily because of what Pakistanis have done. Again, just compare the trajectories of India with that of Pakistan. They were both created at the same time, have the same history, have basically the same culture, etc.

It was the USSR then. When I say USSR/Soviet Union I am referring to the former superpower. Russia today has a completely different role on the world stage.

7

Re: JI asks govt to reject US aid

niden they did protest when mush was getting the eid... by the way who is leading the JI these days, since qazi resigned a few months ago or did he?

8

Interesting!

Knowing a bit of JI history, we can clearly say that The Amir only said the first half of the sentence:

--- amir Syed Munawwar Hasan has said the government must reject the US aid

And the "second" and "missing" half of this sentence is:

---- Unless, Uncle Sam gives JI "its due" share.

:-)

9

Bhutto in his tenure of five years in seventies wanted that kind of relations you are talking about now. He was the first Pakistani leader to get Steel Mill from Russia. But he was hanged by the dictator. Dictators of all times hate Russia. I still remember any Pakistani talking about friendly terms with Russia, was spied on by the intelligence agencies and labeled as disloyal to the country. Habib Jalib, Faiz Ahmad Faiz are the few examples of sufferings. Even people who went to do masters or PhD got spied on by the dictators. The final nail in the coffin of friendly terms was hammered by malown Zia-ul-Haq, supported by laanati jamaati, who faught the war of Americans and destroyed the future of Pakistni generations.

Dictators ruled 2/3rd of the time since 1947, never wanted friendly terms with Russia, go figure, who is responsible for that.

Due to balanced foreign policy, India enjoyed equal friendly terms with Russia and USA. Why because they don’t have dictatorship to usurp the rights and wishes of the people.

10

:rotfl:

I see some reflections of Spock’s vocal comments.:slight_smile:

11

So Bhutto was able to advocate such a policy for half a decade? Wait, I thought the US “controlled” Pakistan? How did they let an ally flirt with the USSR for half a decade if they “controlled” it? There you go. Pakistan could have left the US bloc at any time.

The “war of Americans”? Why the “war of Americans”? Why not the “war of the Saudis” since they played a more important role in the conflict? Or why not the “war of Pakistanis”? Surely you do not believe Pakistan needed foreign prodding to get involved in Afghanistan. Do you think Pakistan wanted the USSR in Afghanistan? That would place Pakistan between a hostile superpower, archenemy India, and a revolutionary Iran.

What consequences did the war have for the future of Pakistan? Was it the US who told Zia to build a network of Islamist “schools”? Was it the US who paid for Islamist imans to “teach” there? Was it the US who provided the ideology that said if you blow people up you receive a one way ticket to heaven and 72 virgin sex slaves? All of these things, which led to the Taliban and the current chaos in Pakistan, were aided by Saudi Arabia but in the end Pakistan deserves the ultimate blame. Pakistan created the schools in the first place. Pakistan could have refused Saudi money, textbooks, etc. Pakistan could have taught a peaceful ideology there–but didn’t because it wanted an army of jihadists for its Kashmir policy.

Pakistan needs to take responsibility for its own actions.

There is no cultural component involved? Almost all of Europe is democratic and the exceptions are semi-Western states like Russia and Belarus. All of the Western hemisphere is democratic except for Cuba. Much of Africa and East Asia is democratic (Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). Here is a map from Freedom House. Green=free, yellow=partially free, red=unfree.

http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/350pxfreedom_house_world_map_2005_10.png

Notice that India is green. Then there is a sea of red to Pakistan’s left. Indonesia is the only Muslim country that is classified as fully free. The only democracies in the Arab world are Iraq and Lebanon, and these come with asterisks. One is a democracy after a foreign invasion, the other adopted democracy when it was majority Christian. There is a 1,000+ year tradition in Islamic culture of having “dictators.” While other civilizations also had dictator after dictator (in the form of kings, czars, emperors, khans, etc.), Islam has the quirk of a religious sanction of the idea. Jesus was never president, Buddha was never commander of the military, etc. Islam’s founder was the political, military, and religious head of his community. When he died his friends continued the system. Many molvis and ulema say democracy is un-Islamic. No one says democracy is “un-Christian” or “un-Hindu.” The US has nothing to do with this tradition and whether Islam, especially the heartland of Islam, can reconcile Islam with democracy and liberty remains to be seen and it is a question Muslims will have to settle internally.

12

perhaps you were unborn at that time. From 1947 to 1971 till breakup of the country most of the time military ruled the country 100% supported by Uncle Sam. Bhutto tried to change that direction, was thrown out from seat of PM of Pakistan to gallows. He was HANGED spell again HANGED for changing the direction. During Bhutto tenure, Pakistanis were controlling Pakistan. But dictators supported by Uncle Sam did not want that. Hence he was kicked out from the office. Is that difficult to understand?

During Bhuttos regime, Pakistan had Steel Mill, Super High Way, and OGDC, the pioneer of exploring gas and oil in Pakistan. Great many discoveries are attributed to that organization. These mega progjects are themselves are proof of how cordial relations were with Soviet Russia during Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's tenure.

Now quote any example of Soviet aid before Bhutto and after Bhutto. Ye khiali pulao banana chorh do aor haqiqat ki dunya main aajao.

13

[QUOTE]
From 1947 to 1971 till breakup of the country most of the time military ruled the country 100% supported by Uncle Sam.
[/QUOTE]

And? They could have switched sides, as other nations did. What did this "support" consist of? "Support" does not mean control. Saudi Arabia "supported" Musharraf and Zia. Does that mean they controlled Pakistan too?

A few quick examples:

*The USSR "supported" Mao's China. Mao turned on the Soviets and became their enemy. How could this be? He received "support" from the superpower. How could he survive without it? Was he not a "puppet" because a small percentage of his budget came from the USSR?
*Egypt was "supported" by the USSR. It expelled the Soviets. Nothing happened. The USSR did not bomb it in response. Egypt then joined the US bloc a few years later.
*The US "supported" the Shah more than anyone else--including Israel. How did that "support" work out for the Shah? The government the US "supported" the most was toppled. What does that say about the alleged omnipotence of this "support" (which in some cases is as low as $300 million a year)?
*The USSR "supported" Yugoslavia and Albania. They both left the Soviet bloc. How?
*The USSR "supported" Israel in its infancy. It left the Soviet bloc. How?
*The US "supported" France. It left the US bloc for an independent, Gaullist foreign policy. How?
*The US "supported" Cuba. It left the US bloc for the Soviet bloc.

Countries changed sides. Usually there were no repercussions of any significance. Even in a situation were there were, such as Cuba, it was offset by a massive aid package from its new ally.

[QUOTE]
Bhutto tried to change that direction, was thrown out from seat of PM of Pakistan to gallows. He was HANGED spell again HANGED for changing the direction
[/QUOTE]

Yeah--by the Pakistani military. If the US "controlled" Pakistan they would not have allowed him half a decade to flirt with the Soviets. Bhutto caused his own fall from power by rigging the 1977 election. Bhutto publicly humiliated Zia time and again by calling him things like "my little monkey." Did the US cause him to do that? Bhutto created the political conditions for his fall in 1977 and the personal conditions by instigating the hatred of Zia through his humiliations of him. These were all his fault.

What made Zia turn away from the atheistic USSR from 1977-1979? It could not have been his Islamist ideology!

14

yaar reason bhai. Kiyon ghubara phortay ho, in conspiracy theorists ka?

Let them live in the fantasy world of "would have, should have".

They mostly live on the dole out of Western societies and yet the heavens would fall, if Pakistan cooperates with the West.

15

Re: JI asks govt to reject US aid

and what are these idiots alternative plan?

16

They are a joke. I saw Qazi Hussein give a speech once during an election. His entire speech was about "Amreeka" and how "Islam" would solve everything. He offered no economic policy, nothing of substance on anything else. This is partly due to calculation and partly because they have no other option. The calculation is that if they tell people what Islamism would bring it would scare people. The other part is that Islamism simply is an empty ideology which has no answers to real problems. Even if they decided to issue a real platform they would not be able to do so?

[QUOTE]
Let them live in the fantasy world of "would have, should have".
[/QUOTE]

The problem with those views is they are a big reason why so many join terror groups such as Al-Qaeda is that they blame the US for their homeland's failures. Notice how terrorism against the US is all from the Muslim world. No one from Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, or Laos is involved in anti-US terrorism.

17

Re: JI asks govt to reject US aid

...so that JI leaders can get it directly :)

18

Topic has gone off tangent. It is regarding jamaatis who are now asking government not to accept american aid. They were silent when aid was pouring during dictators time.

Was it Bhuttos fault or not during elections of 1977, That has nothing to do with this thread. I have quoted you examples to prove that relations with former USSR were cordial during Bhuttos time. Open another thread regarding Bhuttos fault in 1977 elections, I will be happy to contribute and try to remove wrong notions in your mind.

19

Which refutes your claim of US "control" of Pakistan. Bhutto proved Pakistan could have left the US bloc for the USSR bloc at any time. This could not have been possible if the US "controlled" Pakistan (as if the US would even care about "controlling" Pakistan. Pakistan was not exactly geopolitically important from 1947-1979).

Regarding 1977, even if you absolve Bhutto of the blame for what happened, the notion that the US caused Bhutto's downfall is ridiculous.

Male models wearing female accessories
20

No it does not. Why he had to leave US bloc? Can't Pakistan balance its policy like India did? It would be stupid to leave US block for sake of oppostion. It does not make any sense. I think you should be REASONABLE here.

US controlled Pakistan through dictators. There was less influence when democracy was installed in the country. Relations with USSR or Russia had always been at lowest ebb whenever dictators ruled the country. Is this difficult to understand?

I am not sure what you want to say. Your ambiquous thoughts do not make any sense here. Again open another thread on this and be clear what you want to say. I will be happy to respond with links and proofs what I am saying. Don't discuss this here.

My comments clearly shows that I am in very much agreed with the economic aid being given by the Uncle Sam to improve the lives of Pakistanis. Do you agree with this or not. Or are you propogating Jamaaiti agenda here by posting off tangent posts?