Western Media’s War on Pakistan

#44 by HisExcellency

geeeeezzzz.... you are even more deluded than the author...

* Pakis plotting to blow-up stuff in Canada
* Pakis plotting to blow-up stuff in Britian
* pakis plotting to blow-up stuff in Australia
* Pakis selling nukes in an Islamabad mall

try spinning those in Canadian, british and Australian media.

#42 by arjun_m

Armitage met and threatened Mahmoud (who was already in Washington DC, and was a known Taliban-sympathizer). But Mahmoud was only the ISI chief, not the Chief Executive of Pakistan. He did not make decisions in Pakistan. His commander-in-chief, Musharraf did. As Newsweek and PBS interviews of Powell establish beyond doubt, the Chief Executive (Musharraf) of Pakistan had already decided to support America within 4 hours of 9/11 attacks. This was even before Armitage met Mahmoud the next day (Sep 12) or Powell spoke with Musharraf the day after (Sep 13).

#38 by rsridhar on April 23, 2004 11:21am PT

`` Pak has to clean up its house to be viewed with respect. Meanwhile, it has a model to follow: the Indian model. After all, we have the same genes, don`t we?
Sridhar ``

hmmm.... i am not so sure about this Genes thing. They may also be related to Arabs. Whatelse can explain their collective stupidity of obsessive compulsive pipedream ummah mindset? Stupid Arabs are only one step above africans in the human evolution process.
For example, if we remove the western technology of Oil exploration, refinement and consumption, do you think Arabs would be living in mansions. They would be clueless nomads roaming around frikking desert eating camel meat. Now those stupid ``genes`` in pakistanis also explains their collective stupidity.

#45 by Romair on April 23, 2004 12:51pm PT

Excellent comments!

I was born and raised in Pakistan, and among the huge number of my acquaintances (from outright atheists to highly religious people), there is not a single person who would be willing to live in Taliban’s Afghanistan, or to go out blowing up people in the name of Islam. Even if we take the surveys shown on CNN seriously, I would be worried if majority of Pakistanis thought that Osama was responsible for WTC tragedy AND considered him a hero. But that is not the case. This just proves that the US government has failed to make a strong case against him in front of Pakistani population. Pakistan’s major problems are the ones shared by every third world country – poverty, uncontrolled population growth, unemployment, low literacy, high crime rate, political instability etc. Religious extremism is not even among the top problems for an average Pakistani because religious extremists (however vocal they might be) could never fit into the fabric of Pakistani society, and they will remain outcasts in future too. If we can manage to address the key issues, religious extremism will die out itself, because it is not rooted into our society.

re: #51 by sri
Read my post again and read that line in its proper context. You will not miss the cynicism this time.
Sridhar

If US was maligning muslims even before 9/11 then why would the U.S of A save the collective behinds muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo while their fellow macho jehadi ummah-ites wore fine Hyderabadi bangles and behaved like hijras ? I`ll tell you why.... because that Slobodan Milosevic guy is one bad a$$ dude who would cut the b@@lls of every frikking jehadi and put them in their hands... that`s why.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#51 by sri on April 23, 2004 2:34pm PT

+++
``Stupid Arabs are only one step above africans in the human evolution process``

``collective stupidity of obsessive compulsive pipedream ummah mindset``

``clueless nomads roaming around frikking desert eating camel meat``

``Now those stupid ``genes`` in pakistanis also explains their collective stupidity``
+++

I will only interact with you after you admit to your own bigotry and racist stereotyping of Pakistanis/Arabs... expressed in the dim-witted ``gems`` you posted above. Do you really expect Muslims to listen to sermons on openminded tolerance, delivered by closeminded bigots like yourself?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#55 by kaurasach

Hehe.. The comments about Pakistan`s leading role in fighting terrorism were made by President Bush and Colin Powell. These comments are also borne out by reality, since the Americans refused the Indian offer of military bases and chose Pakistan instead. Moreover, Pakistan has recently been declared as a major non-NATO ally. Similarly, the ``afwaa`` about Musharraf having made up his mind within 4 hours of 9/11 was reported in Newsweek magazine. I think you need to accept the fact that rest of world does not share your perceptions about Pakistan. Think about it.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#50 by tahmed32 on April 23, 2004 2:34pm PT

I agree with you that Zia`s policy of Jihadizing the state was indeed harmful for Pakistan but America was an accomplice in this policy. Many madrassas were set up with American and Saudi money. These madrassas provided a steady stream of Mujahids who could hurl themselves at Soviet troops. Jihad became a glamorous word during the 1980s on CNN as well as Hollywood.

Why didn`t America take the trouble of financing the roll back of these Jihadi institutions? Zia-ul-Haq died in 1988. His successors (Benazir and Nawaz Sharif) were not particularly fond of madrassahs and Jihadis. Why didn`t the Americans help these elected leaders roll back the Jihadi culture that America helped create? Instead America just sanctioned Pakistan and left the country with millions of refugees, unemployed youth and unemployable Jihadis. Pakistan is lucky in a sense that Kashmir flared up in 1989 and these Jihadis could be diverted to Kashmir.

Now that the Pakistani state is rolling back the Jihad brigade slowly but surely, Pakistan`s image should have improved drastically in the West. This has not happened. The country is still being projected (for ulterior reasons) as a fundamentalist state, which it is not.

#59 by arjun_m on April 23, 2004 3:59pm PT

+++
How do you spin the president of your country defending a terrorist group? pakis...?
+++

By continually pointing out that Lashkar-e-Tayyaba has to date never operated outside Kashmir. LeT has already disowned the actions of the people caught in Canada, Australia and other parts of the world. These people were acting on their own initiative.

A provocative article.
But it does not induce introspection where it is needed. People should be asking questions as to why Pakistan has got the image that it has? Furthermore, what was the establishment`s reason behind such actions as:
- creation and support of taleban
-seeking `strategic depth` in Afghanistan
- development of nuclear weapons
- turning people of proven lack of scruples (A.Q.Khan) into heroes
- creation/tolerance of jihadi culture

The answer very simply is - enmity with India. And why does Pakistan have enmity with India? Kashmir, of course, will be the pat and correct answer. It is Kashmir or, more correctly, Pakistan`s inability to forget about Kashmir problem, or at least putting it in cold storage, that has caused the loss of half the country and continues to be the albatross around its neck. The day Pakistanis start to think of Pakistan, rather than Kashmir, as their first priority and throw of this albatross will be the day when all its problems will start to disappear. And there is no need for a Think Tank for Pakistan to find that out.

``These ``Noam Chomskies of Pakistan`` have forgotten that `Chomskian courage` lay squarely in bold attempts to understand the reality of political processes - even if it meant confronting the powerful. But who is the powerful, the mentor, and the financier in the case of Pakistani Noam Chomskies? Who is rewarding the so-called courage? I leave this question to the readers``

It does not require much courage to be a Noam Chomsky in the U.S or an Arundhati Roy in India. They will be criticised by many and lionised by some; despite such criticisms, they are able to charge hefty fees on the lecture circuits and for book advances to say things that they want to say. Can this happen in Pakistan? In case you dont know the answer, read the article on Blasphemy to find out what happens to people in Pakistan who say things that are not popular.

#63 by dost-mittar on April 23, 2004 8:01pm PT

Don`t you think the Altaf Hussains, Benazir Bhuttos, Qazi Hussain Ahmads, Asif Zardaris, Nawaz Sharifs, Fazlur Rehmans and half a dozen convicted/exiled politicians have assumed the role of ``Noam Chomsky of Pakistan``? What would be a good criteria for sifting out the real Noam Chomsky from among so many contenders? Or do you think we have to still wait for the real Noam Chomsky to emerge on the political scene?