Fucking up Pakistan

[nino_savatte]

But I have already said that what I said earlier had been misunderstood and I explained what I meant so I really can't understand why you're continuing with this line of questioning? (In fact I gave my opinion on military intervention in the first post I wrote on this thread)

Actually I have in my first post in this thread...

Perhaps you could give me the courtesy of actually reading it? Then we might not be having this pointless petty squabble?

I'm not the only one, in case you hadn't noticed. Brainaddict also has similar points and concerns.

I've seen you do this sort of thing before btw.

 

[CyberRose]

That idiot, Barack Obama, said that he would bomb "al-Qaeda targets" in Pakistan without first seeking permission from Islamabad.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...g02,0,5330469.story?coll=chi-newsbreaking-hed

This doesn't provide a solution, it just says military action would be wrong. I have gathered that's what people's opinions are (in fact I have said the same myself in my original post)

ETA: Sorry didn't notice what you wrote above was actually my quote!

 

[Crispy]

The same generalised solution that can be applied to pretty much all the 'why do the muslims hate us' problems.

1. Troops - all troops, out of the ME
2. Israel - stop supporting it

are a really good starting point.

In the meantime, it is likely that there will still be angry young men trying to hurt us. In some cases there really is nothing you can do except try and stop them just before they commit the act. Because any intervention (military or otherwise) on their home turf will only be seen as further provocation in their eyes.

 

[nino_savatte]

This doesn't provide a solution, it just says military action would be wrong. I have gathered that's what people's opinions are (in fact I have said the same myself in my original post)

Er, you haven't read what Obama has proposed, have you? Obama never said that "military action would be wrong". On the contrary, he has indicated that he would be prepared to bomb Pakistan without seeking permission from Islamabad first.

 

[CyberRose]

I'm not the only one, in case you hadn't noticed. Brainaddict also has similar points and concerns.

I've seen you do this sort of thing before btw.

Yes and as soon as those concerns were pointed out I tried to clear up what I meant. I'm really not sure what else I can do?

 

[CyberRose]

Er, you haven't read what Obama has proposed, have you? Obama never said that "military action would be wrong". On the contrary, he has indicated that he would be prepared to bomb Pakistan without seeking permission from Islamabad first.

Sorry see edit in previous post (I saw what you said before you edited it and I thought you said you'd answered in your first post)

 

[nino_savatte]

Sorry see edit in previous post (I saw what you said before you edited it and I thought you said you'd answered in your first post)

This post?
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6299449&postcount=2

 

[Brainaddict]

What is the solution to the problem in Pakistan (the problem that directly effects the safety of British citizens)?

The Western world used to believe in encouraging democracy as a moderating force. I don't think Iraq or Palestine disprove this idea as they have both involved radicalisation because of military responses.

So, how about encouraging democracy in Pakistan rather than funding the military dictatorship? A crazy idea but it might just work.

Of course, it might also be too little too late at this point, but it would be a start.

Then if you want to address the issue of the border areas - it's easy for radical political islam to take hold in areas that are poor and lack other forms of education. Something to think about.

Building infrastructre in those regions to make them not quite such good guerilla fighting country could also help.

None of it is rocket science and all of it would be better than military solutions.

 

[CyberRose]

This post?
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6299449&postcount=2

No this post: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6304436&postcount=31

Before if was edited half of my quote came up as yours and it looked like you were saying "I have answered your question in my original post" but that was me that said that!

 

[nino_savatte]

No this post: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6304436&postcount=31

Before if was edited half of my quote came up as yours and it looked like you were saying "I have answered your question in my original post" but that was me that said that!

Problems with editing, I'm afraid. It's been sorted at any rate.

 

[CyberRose]

The Western world used to believe in encouraging democracy as a moderating force. I don't think Iraq or Palestine disprove this idea as they have both involved radicalisation because of military responses.

So, how about encouraging democracy in Pakistan rather than funding the military dictatorship? A crazy idea but it might just work.

Of course, it might also be too little too late at this point, but it would be a start.

Then if you want to address the issue of the border areas - it's easy for radical political islam to take hold in areas that are poor and lack other forms of education. Something to think about.

Building infrastructre in those regions to make them not quite such good guerilla fighting country could also help.

None of it is rocket science and all of it would be better than military solutions.

I would agree, in fact, it reminds me of something one of the great minds of our time recently said on this very same subject:

Seeing as the original cause that led to the Islamist ideology was opposing oppressive regimes, perhaps the answer lies in reforming the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to remove some of the factors that lead to this kind of discontent?

It was me! In my original post! Yo mummy, yo daddy, lets all play kabaddi!

 

[JoePolitix]

How about cutting support to the corrupt dictatorship and supporting the emerging democratic opposition movement?

They'll be in a far better position to deal with the religious fascistic scum than the present discredited nepotistic regime is.

 

[nino_savatte]

How about cutting support to the corrupt dictatorship and supporting the emerging democratic opposition movement?

They'll be in a far better position to deal with the religious fascistic scum than the present discredited nepotistic regime is.

Agreed. Mushareff has benefitted greatly from US largesse and patronage. Odd, when you consider that he siezed power in a coup and the US is supposed to be promoting democracy around the globe.

 

[JoePolitix]

Agreed. Mushareff has benefitted greatly from US largesse and patronage. Odd, when you consider that he siezed power in a coup and the US is supposed to be promoting democracy around the globe.

His regime was also in bed with the medieval mullahs prior to The War Against Terror (T.W.A.T) thingy too. Now the poor Pakistanis are caught in a clash between these two cliques of utter wankers.

Hat tip:

http://www.laborpakistan.org/articles/pakistan/ourfrankenstein.php

 

[nino_savatte]

This is interesting

It is ironic that Gen. Zia's son, Ijazul Haq who is currently Minister for Religious Affairs, was among the negotiators trying to work out a solution with Ghazi until talks failed in the early hours of Tuesday. The failure of the talks, according to an Asia Times Online report, was due to pressure from Washington that quotes anonymous sources according to whom Musharraf said that he was ""heavily under duress from his allies".

 

[CyberRose]

How about cutting support to the corrupt dictatorship and supporting the emerging democratic opposition movement?

They'll be in a far better position to deal with the religious fascistic scum than the present discredited nepotistic regime is.

And when the new democracy is formed, there needs to be something done about national unity. That's where we come in:

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articl...me=LATEST-SPORTS-NEWS&ssid=90&ssname=Football

Hopefully we'll see Pakistan winning some trophies like Iraq has just done.

Up the Blades

 

[nino_savatte]

Tbh, partition has been an unmitigated disaster (is there anywhere where partition has achieved real success?) and has contributed to the state of affairs that we have today. Out of the two countries, India is the one with the better economy and both countries suffer from their fair share of religious fundamentalism.

 

[JoePolitix]

And when the new democracy is formed, there needs to be something done about national unity. That's where we come in:

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articl...me=LATEST-SPORTS-NEWS&ssid=90&ssname=Football

Hopefully we'll see Pakistan winning some trophies like Iraq has just done.

Up the Blades

Aye but one of the lessons from Iraq is surely that real change cannot be achived from without at the behest of imperial interests.

 

[obanite]

What does everyone think needs to be done about the "Pakistan" issue? IMO, the two greatest sources of Islamist terrorism are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, altho ironically the governments of both countries are allied to America and the West. I am specifically concerned as a British citizen as the Wahhabist strain of Islamic ideology and its spread originates from Saudi Arabia, and this version of Islam has contributed to the brainwashing of British-born Islamic extremists. Pakistan-based groups have also contributed to this problem in that British-born Islamic extremists have received training from them in Pakistan.

It seems to me that Islamic extremism in the UK can be traced back to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and as the July 7th attacks show, something needs to be done.

I don't think intervention from the West is a good idea at all for the same reasons it wasn't a good idea in Iraq at that time, because it will just fuel the extremists and make the job of those who brainwash them even easier. A hard line from the respective governments is also not without its problems as both seem to be very unstable regimes and one has half the world's oil and the other has nuclear missiles, so it would be a complete disaster is either of the two countries fell into Islamist hands (well, of the al-Qaida variety anyway).

Still, something needs to be done to counter this threat, and IMO, it is a very real threat...

ETA: Seeing as the original cause that led to the Islamist ideology was opposing oppressive regimes, perhaps the answer lies in reforming the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to remove some of the factors that lead to this kind of discontent?

We should encourage the reformation of Islam in the West. To be honest, I think it's something that has to come from within... that way you won't have disillusioned teenagers jetting off to Al'Qaida training camps in the Hindu Kush then coming back here to blow up trains. Or at least, not as many. I don't think we can realistically expect to change what's going on in Pakistan - at least nothing above board anyway...

 

[Brainaddict]

Who should encourage reformation though? And how?

 

[grogwilton]

The west should not fund or encourage the non-islamist opposition forces, doing so will be the kiss of death for such forces as they will be seen as collaborators or imperialisty stooges. Also most of the help western govenrments give the opposition forces will not be free it will come at price, which means you end up where you started, corrupt pro western goverment where only the most anti-western nutters are in opposition. I repeat, there is nothing the west CAN do in Pakistan to undermine these groups.

 

[Brainaddict]

The west should not fund or encourage the non-islamist opposition forces, doing so will be the kiss of death for such forces as they will be seen as collaborators or imperialisty stooges. Also most of the help western govenrments give the opposition forces will not be free it will come at price, which means you end up where you started, corrupt pro western goverment where only the most anti-western nutters are in opposition. I repeat, there is nothing the west CAN do in Pakistan to undermine these groups.

I agree with your assessment - not sure if I agree with the conclusion but only cos I haven't thought about it enough to make such an absolute statement.

 

[4obama2008]

Oh god is this pro Obama guy gonna be the democrat mirror image of Mears??

Almost no American elected officials put forward the pacifist line. Almost all hold to some variation of "Military response is the last option and I would only use it most reluctantly, but..." The only exception to this I can think of is Kucinich (sort of) and he's a novelty act.

I'm very new to this forum but it seems many here are not really interested in the political process as it currently exists. I am interested. Starting in January of 2009, some person is going to be the next President of the United States. I think it matters quite a lot who that someone is. If I did not think it mattered I would simply ignore politics.

 

[4obama2008]

How depressing. The 'problem' you refer to is essentially a problem of how certain people think. What on earth do you think military power can do about that? You can kill a few of them, sure. And then their brothers and sons and friends will hate you even more.

The problem is how people act. How they think is up to them. I think it is insufficient to vaguely wail about "hearts and minds" while people are organizing to destroy you. Self-flagellation alone will not deter Islamists. If the left can come up with nothing more than this then the right will continue to occupy the White House.

 

[laptop]

My nightmare goes like this:

• Some bright spark in the State Department decides to head off the Defense Department's plan to bomb Pakistan, because it's stupid as noted above;
• So instead they start a civil war in Pakistan
• And then they're surprised when said civil war breaks out in Yorkshire and Lancashire
• Why are they surprised?
  • Because they're Americans, and to them the Rest of the World is a mystery, and they've no idea how closely linked the RoW is, because of the US tradition of immigrating and instantly Becoming American and reducing the Auld Country to a postcard on top of the TV
  • And because they have no notion that some streets in Yorkshire and Lancashire will have fairly strong loyalties to places in Pakistan, irrespective of what Americans would see as "politics" - for the same reason.

Now, it may be that there's something I don't know about, about the politics and loyalties of different groups living in the UK with ancestry in India/Pakistan, that prevents this. I certainly hope so.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The problem is how people act. How they think is up to them. I think it is insufficient to vaguely wail about "hearts and minds" while people are organizing to destroy you. Self-flagellation alone will not deter Islamists. If the left can come up with nothing more than this then the right will continue to occupy the White House.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused here, perhaps I haven't been keeping up - so, the choice is between the candidate who supports counterproductive arbitrary US military action, and the candidate who supports counterproductive arbitrary US military action? (Anything else being a bit "radical left".)

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Ever since the bombing of Afghanistan and the increase in US support to Pakistan it has been obvious to anyone with half a brain that the US/Western countries funding and arming a secular dictatorship (with nuclear weapons) in a muslim country infested with extremist religious types who were never going to lie down and go quietly is just about the biggest recipe for disaster you could imagine.

So I read this depressing story today with complete lack of surprise:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2139715,00.html

But what I don't get is, how come I can predict what all the US govt analysts on a hundred grand a year can't? I mean, I know they're somewhat blinded by the current imperialist ideology of this administration, but even so, have they not *read* any history? Are they utterly incapable of learning from their mistakes? It's fucking mind-boggling.

They got the nukes themselves.

 

[yield]

The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan only exists on maps and where there are American or British blockhouses. It's more interesting to look at the areas that are mainly Pashtun.

There was an article in the IHT from a few days back about a possible "Pashtunistan".

Also it would seem that it's in the USA's interests to destabilise Pakistan, in a further attempt to isolate Iran.

India says no quid pro quo over U.S. nuclear pact.

"Congressmen and U.S. officials have publicly urged India several times in the past to distance itself from Tehran and not push projects such as an ambitious Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline as Washington accuses Iran of pursuing a covert nuclear weapons programme."

...

Perhaps we'll see the Partition of Pakistan with the east rejoining India?

 

[muckypup]

We should encourage the reformation of Islam in the West. To be honest, I think it's something that has to come from within...

I see that as a failure to distinguish between cause and effect. Normally to solve a problem you'd focus on the cause, change that and the effect will take care of itself.

I'm very new to this forum but it seems many here are not really interested in the political process as it currently exists ...

Whoever you vote, core state policy stays the same. Unfortunately voting for ideological change is not an option.

 

[4obama2008]

• Because they're Americans, and to them the Rest of the World is a mystery, and they've no idea how closely linked the RoW is, because of the US tradition of immigrating and instantly Becoming American and reducing the Auld Country to a postcard on top of the TV
• And because they have no notion that some streets in Yorkshire and Lancashire will have fairly strong loyalties to places in Pakistan, irrespective of what Americans would see as "politics" - for the same reason.

Rather than simply declaring those with whom you disagree to be ignorant, you might consider responding to their actual aguments. One common argument in favor of supressing Islamist activities in the Pakistani northwest tribal areas is that these Islamist activities are a threat to the rest of the world *because* of the close connections between Islamists in Pakistan and their relatives already living in England and elsewhere abroad. This is a prime basis for rejecting an isolationist approach to the issue.