Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
You re-read the OP he linked the 9/11 discussion with that of Peshawar. So by default they are linked. And thus the hypocrisy.
You can't read can you?
Mashallah. So if its collateral damage a dead kid is okay?
Why are you insulting me? Have a grown up discussion.
Its not OK but there is a difference, a big difference.
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
And you had the same articles when 9/11 happened. You act like Pakistanis are the only ones who have double standards. How many Americans believe the conspiracy theories? A good many.
How many believe that the US deserved 9/11? A good many. Or did you forget the Michael Moore movie which said the exact same thing? Don't you remember the amount of on line pieces that said this is because of our policies in the middle east?
You compare the US and Pakistan and the double standards, yet state that drone killing kids is acceptable.
Here is the simple thing whether you like it or not. The Washington Post article goes into great detail to state that we provided patronage to the TTP. Which we never did. The TTP and the Quetta Shura are two very distinct entities with the ISI supporting one and the NDS supporting the other.
The US articles lump them all together and say we provided patronage to all and we got this as blow back. The Washington Post piece says just that.
We can agree to disagree but if you maintain a double standard I will call you out on it.
The articles do say that but they don't say anywhere that Pakistan deserved it.
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
Why are you insulting me? Have a grown up discussion. Its not OK but there is a difference, a big difference.
I have that problem. Its called have a moral backbone. A dead kid is a dead kid. Doesn't matter if its intentional or not. You can't to quote pheonix "intellectual discussions" around the death of children. You certainly can't make the distinction.
Legally speak it is a war crime regardless of intention.
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
The articles do say that but they don't say anywhere that Pakistan deserved it.
Then every Pakistani media person who doesn't explicitly state that the US deserved 9/11 doesn't do the same either.
See what I mean about hypocrisy? If the justifications are valid, they are valid for both sides.
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
and what stopped US from carrying out the same and eliminate terrorism in Iraq?
recession & public opinion not wanting to stick around there for another decade
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
Mr Mirchandani, where in my posts did I excuse terrorism? Please don't make such assumptions, its extremely saddening and agitating to be blamed of such. I can be anti-terrorism, and be anti-"war on terrorism" at the same time, because both are leading to suffering for human beings. I believe in the utmost sanctity of human life, regardless of national and religious background.
All nations are at all times looking after their geopolitical and geostrategic interests. Just because I'm of Pakistani origin, I'm not going to blindly believe in the Pakistani narrative. I expect likewise, from any peace loving Indian and American. Because none of India, Pakistan and US, are working unconditionally for the greater good, which is 100% (unconditional) peace in the region. Not when that peace comes at the price of what they perceive as the best interests of their nation.
Am I wrong in pointing this out? Am I wrong in being able to distinguish between an objective view on the matter, from a biased one?
I would also like to know, what correlation does condemning American military intervention have to do with supporting terrorism? I'm baffled how you can correlate the two, so please do elaborate on this? Its rather simplistic to believe that America is unconditionally working for the greater good, when facts prove otherwise, no?
Frankly, going by just what you have written in this post at face value, there is little I will object to or argue with.
Your previous writings seemed to imply you are equivocating aggression, defence and punishment. What OBL, Al Qaeda, LeT, TTP etc do are aggressions not out out of any nationalistic interests.
America used mujahideens through Pakistan, to punish Soviet invasion; to punish OBL and Al Qaeda. There was no covert agenda there; they did not go after civilians.
BUT when Pakistan uses these outfits to prosecute their covert agenda such as in Afghanistan for so called 'strategic depth' or in India for Kashmir dreams, they can no longer be called geopolitical or geostrategic or anything else - it is terrorism pain and simple. Their primary targets are civilian
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
Yes English is not my strong point, same is the case with my ability to explain things/events. The point is "terrorists" are not going to create a "village" or "town" or "housing/compound" for themselves to become an easy target for any stronger army, they will live within civilians. War in any country will create reactionary forces. There were no terrorists in Iraq before US's invasion of Iraq, but when they devastated Iraq and removed its government it became an open field for every powerful criminal to carve out an area for his control as well as invite "jihadis" from around the world.
Both Iraq and Afghanista/Iraq have a parallel, it has to be brought into discussion. Iraq's example is a clear indication that you can't eliminate terrorists by bombing. US had full authority and full fledge army in Iraq but still failed to control terrorism. Now lets move to Afghanistan, US keeps harping about Pakistan playing double game to deflect its failures in Afghanistan but at the same time it shies away from failure in Iraq.
There are parallels but very major differences which you must consider, especially in a discussion about terrorism and Pakistan.
Unlike in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Pakistan claimed to be America's partner in the wot. But in actions they were playing the double game of shielding the terrorists. That is trying to eat and have the cake which they failed in and experiencing the consequences!
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
recession & public opinion not wanting to stick around there for another decade
lol, seriously?
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
There are parallels but very major differences which you must consider, especially in a discussion about terrorism and Pakistan.
Unlike in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Pakistan claimed to be America's partner in the wot. But in actions they were playing the double game of shielding the terrorists. That is trying to eat and have the cake which they failed in and experiencing the consequences!
You can blame Pakistan all you want, Pakistan supported America and US failed. In Iraq, there was no "partner" to blame, but still US failed. Its obvious someone wants to bash Pakistan.
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
lol, seriously?
yeah, in democracies public opinion counts.
You can blame Pakistan all you want, Pakistan supported America and US failed. In Iraq, there was no "partner" to blame, but still US failed. Its obvious someone wants to bash Pakistan.
US failed in the sense they trusted Pakistan as an ally and realized very late that it is untrustworthy.
Pakistan is blamed, not because I want to but because they committed that crime and hence the blame.
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
yeah, in democracies public opinion counts.
US failed in the sense they trusted Pakistan as an ally and realized very late that it is untrustworthy.
Pakistan is blamed, not because I want to but because they committed that crime and hence the blame.
Pal, if Pakistan is oh so untrustworthy, why did they allow drone attacks on their own soil? Not to mention, the raid in Islamabad. Hundreds if not thousands of civilians have been killed through those drone attacks.
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
Pal, if Pakistan is oh so untrustworthy, why did they allow drone attacks on their own soil? Not to mention, the raid in Islamabad. Hundreds if not thousands of civilians have been killed through those drone attacks.
I don't know how you define 'so untrustworthy' vs 'just' untrustworthy. You may recall for a long long time Pakistan was denying they knew or allowed drone attacks. Then when it was exposed that parts of the Pak military knew about these attacks, they changed the language to 'only when we allow' to save a modicum of dignity. After sometime it was further exposed that in many cases some Pakistani units had actually been supplying coordinates of their political internal enemies as that of terrorists and thus getting rid of them.
Pakistani establishment does not give rats whisker if hundreds and thousands of Pakistanis get killed - as long as their business floursihes. We saw that not just in this wot but repeatedly and historically - in East Pakistan, in Balochistan! We also saw Pakistan after taking a lot of aid (in addition to reimbursement) extorting even more money and resorting to blackmail.
So yeah, I think Americans have a pretty darned good reason to call Pakistan untrustworthy.
even from a Pakistani well being point of view this made no sense and actually proved to be very dumb and expensive
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
I don't know how you define 'so untrustworthy' vs 'just' untrustworthy. You may recall for a long long time Pakistan was denying they knew or allowed drone attacks. Then when it was exposed that parts of the Pak military knew about these attacks, they changed the language to 'only when we allow' to save a modicum of dignity. After sometime it was further exposed that in many cases some Pakistani units had actually been supplying coordinates of their political internal enemies as that of terrorists and thus getting rid of them.
Pakistani establishment does not give rats whisker if hundreds and thousands of Pakistanis get killed - as long as their business floursihes. We saw that not just in this wot but repeatedly and historically - in East Pakistan, in Balochistan! We also saw Pakistan after taking a lot of aid (in addition to reimbursement) extorting even more money and resorting to blackmail.
So yeah, I think Americans have a pretty darned good reason to call Pakistan untrustworthy.
even from a Pakistani well being point of view this made no sense and actually proved to be very dumb and expensive
And your point is? I agree, Pakistani government is corrupt and values money over their own people but again, how does that come into play with America finding Pakistani alliance untrustworthy?
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
And your point is? I agree, Pakistani government is corrupt and values money over their own people but again, how does that come into play with America finding Pakistani alliance untrustworthy?
my point is exactly what I said right upfront - Pakistan tried to eat the cake and have it - an instance of that being posing as an ally with the USA in the wot while at the same time rearing terrorists by state sanction.
This (Pakistan rearing terrorists) made the Pakistani state untrustworthy in the eyes of USA resulting in such episodes as the Mission Neptune Spear, the open lambasting of Pakistan by almost every world leader - embarrassments that have made it very difficult for the intelligent accomplished Pakistani diaspora throughout the world.
This (Pakistan taking money and hosting American troops) also made the Pakistani state untrustworthy in the eyes of the terrorists resulting in recurring attacks of civilians in mosques, markets, marriages and schools; as well as demonstrative attacks on military bases! stuf that has made it very difficult for Pakistanis to live in Pakistan!
Doesn't these convince you that there must be something intrinsically unsound about the goals and strategies of Pakistani establishment?
The moment you agree that this establishment does not care if thousands of Pakistanis die; and see that they use the religion as a tactic to retain that power, my case is made
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
my point is exactly what I said right upfront - Pakistan tried to eat the cake and have it - an instance of that being posing as an ally with the USA in the wot while at the same time rearing terrorists by state sanction.
This (Pakistan rearing terrorists) made the Pakistani state untrustworthy in the eyes of USA resulting in such episodes as the Mission Neptune Spear, the open lambasting of Pakistan by almost every world leader - embarrassments that have made it very difficult for the intelligent accomplished Pakistani diaspora throughout the world.
This (Pakistan taking money and hosting American troops) also made the Pakistani state untrustworthy in the eyes of the terrorists resulting in recurring attacks of civilians in mosques, markets, marriages and schools; as well as demonstrative attacks on military bases! stuf that has made it very difficult for Pakistanis to live in Pakistan!
Doesn't these convince you that there must be something intrinsically unsound about the goals and strategies of Pakistani establishment?
The moment you agree that this establishment does not care if thousands of Pakistanis die; and see that they use the religion as a tactic to retain that power, my case is made
It's not that simple. You went from accusing Pakistan as untrustworthy for America to questioning the existence of Pakistani establishment. My case is made as well.
Re: No Sir no...you can't have your cake and eat it too!
yeah, in democracies public opinion counts.
US public opinion failed because of continued failures, there was no success to be seen and no possibility either, public was fed up.
US failed in the sense they trusted Pakistan as an ally and realized very late that it is untrustworthy.
Pakistan is blamed, not because I want to but because they committed that crime and hence the blame.
and what resulted in US failure in Iraq? Pakistan again?