[Inzamam99]

Despite helping to catch Osama Bin Laden, Afridi still aided a foreign intelligence agency and is guilty of treason- any other nation in the world would have done the same thing.

[122025278]

This man should be offered not just asylum in the UK, but citizenship for him and his entire family.

[Inzamam99]

(Original post by Steevee)
If Pakistan was an upright nation, then yeah, sure.

But the fact is Pakistan is a nation that helps the Taliban, have proved numerous times that they are totally untrustworthy and have in multiple cases failed to act on intelligence. They refuse to share intelligence more often than not and are an increasingly, alarmingly, conservative Islamic nation. With all that in mind, military action that invades their sovreignty should be expected if they fail to act on their own soil. They are playing both sides, they don't like the result, maybe they should declare for a single side.

I love when people comment on Pakistan without understanding the nation.

1) The country is conservative and yet the vast majority of the population is extremely peaceful. The number of extremists is relatively low and only came about due to our support for the Mujahideen during the 1980's. Remember who else supported individuals like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Dostum etc. or do you have a selective memory in this context as well?

2) Helps the Taliban? What a ridiculous laughably simple statement. I've seen you justify Western support for Israel and various other vile regimes in the past on the grounds of things such as national security. What makes Pakistan different?

We have lost over 30,000 civilians in this phony war- consider the reaction in the UK after losing around 50. Supporting the Afghan Taliban ensures they (on top of the TTP) also do not turn on the Pakistani populace plus allowing the country to maintain its interests inside the country. Do I like this? No. Do I like the Afghan Taliban? No, I despise them. But the other side isn't exactly angelic either- it also consists of warlords and tyrants and mass murderers. I would comment further but I really don't have time to engage in useless circular arguments.

Perhaps you should look towards the hypocrisy and double standards of the West before you judge others.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by abdiz12)
It's funny, because Bin Laden has been dead since December 2001.

And little pink men from venus regularly come into my local pub for a pint after work..?

[Steevee]

(Original post by Inzamam99)
I love when people comment on Pakistan without understanding the nation.

1) The country is conservative and yet the vast majority of the population is extremely peaceful. The number of extremists is relatively low and only came about due to our support for the Mujahideen during the 1980's. Remember who else supported individuals like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Dostum etc. or do you have a selective memory in this context as well?

2) Helps the Taliban? What a ridiculous laughably simple statement. I've seen you justify Western support for Israel and various other vile regimes in the past on the grounds of things such as national security. What makes Pakistan different?

We have lost over 30,000 civilians in this phony war- consider the reaction in the UK after losing around 50. Supporting the Afghan Taliban ensures they (on top of the TTP) also do not turn on the Pakistani populace plus allowing the country to maintain its interests inside the country. Do I like this? No. Do I like the Afghan Taliban? No, I despise them. But the other side isn't exactly angelic either- it also consists of warlords and tyrants and mass murderers. I would comment further but I really don't have time to engage in useless circular arguments.

Perhaps you should look towards the hypocrisy and double standards of the West before you judge others.

Why do you people always try to equate the West with the Islamic militias? It's pathetic.

When the US goes around murdering people for comitting adultery, stoning women seen out with men, denying girls the right to education, forcing farmers into the drug trade, killing teachers and denying all human rights to the populace it controls, then you may have a point. Until such a time it's pathetic and transparent rhetoric.

[Inzamam99]

(Original post by Steevee)

There you go, you know the reason. The US work for the West, generally speaking the people who don't want to kill us, opress our people and bring in dogmatic, dark ages law systems. If they are less than upstanding in the pursuit of such a course I'm far less likely to worry.

Yes and obviously because the "US works for the West", its support of murderous regimes.groups ranging from Saddam to Pol Pot to Pinochet to the Contras, destabalisation of nations everywhere and the ruination of millions of lives caused which would otherwise have not happened is completely justified right? Oh and don't forget how most of this was due to economic/"national security" reasons and nothing at all to do with human rights etc.

So basically your viewpoint: I will hypocritically support my own side no matter how many people are killed/maimed but God forbid when other nations go against ones I like for the betterment for their own citizens.

[Inzamam99]

(Original post by Steevee)
Why do you people always try to equate the West with the Islamic militias? It's pathetic.

When the US goes around murdering people for comitting adultery, stoning women seen out with men, denying girls the right to education, forcing farmers into the drug trade, killing teachers and denying all human rights to the populace it controls, then you may have a point. Until such a time it's pathetic and transparent rhetoric.

Oh good tactic. Instead of answering my post, call it pathetic and change the topic from Pakistan's foreign policy/ national security policy to some absolute tripe about some Taliban factions get up to in Afghanistan.

And I didn't equate the West with Islamic militias- I simply pointed out how they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into people like Hekmatyar and Dostum as well as pointing out the hypocritical stance in general- I'am afraid this is fact. I doubt you know about this as your posts usually rely on intelligent sounding rhetoric but are undone as soon as one goes into a bit of depth.

[Steevee]

(Original post by Inzamam99)
Yes and obviously because the "US works for the West", its support of murderous regimes.groups ranging from Saddam to Pol Pot to Pinochet to the Contras, destabalisation of nations everywhere and the ruination of millions of lives caused which would otherwise have not happened is completely justified right? Oh and don't forget how most of this was due to economic/"national security" reasons and nothing at all to do with human rights etc.

So basically your viewpoint: I will hypocritically support my own side no matter how many people are killed/maimed but God forbid when other nations go against ones I like for the betterment for their own citizens.

I see, so you would have the US phsycically know when any regime is going to turn out bad, and then withdraw all support and trade with that nation regardless of the cost to itself every single time, just incase. That seems perfectly reasonable

The difference between doing trade with these regimes and being one is rather large my dear, but of course you will wilfully neglect that difference to fit your own narrative. And I presume you;re talking of Iraq and Afghanistan? The 'ruination' of so many lives would stop if ISlamic militias would stop bombing their own people, fighting in crowded civilian areas, hell, stop fighting altogether. And the reasons for the invasions are myriad, from NAtional security, to regional stability, to human rights issues to economic stability. All important. But wait, I'm guessing according to you it was all to make money right!

So basically your viewpoint: I will try to defend my Islamic brothers no matter how abhorrent they are, and seeing the West as the enemy I will constantly try to equate their actions to those abhorrent actions perpetrated by those I'm trying to defend, in order to justify their actions.

[Inzamam99]

(Original post by ChampEon)
I don't know what on earth you're going on about. I'm talking about two countries, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Now concentrate. Don't change the subject to America or Japan or whatever. Pakistan massacred 3 million Bangladeshis and did not apologise. It's as simple as that.

Yes, it was terrible and Pakistan should apologise but the figure most historians agree on is 300,000 not 3m.

[Inzamam99]

(Original post by Steevee)
I see, so you would have the US phsycically know when any regime is going to turn out bad, and then withdraw all support and trade with that nation regardless of the cost to itself every single time, just incase. That seems perfectly reasonable

The difference between doing trade with these regimes and being one is rather large my dear, but of course you will wilfully neglect that difference to fit your own narrative. And I presume you;re talking of Iraq and Afghanistan? The 'ruination' of so many lives would stop if ISlamic militias would stop bombing their own people, fighting in crowded civilian areas, hell, stop fighting altogether. And the reasons for the invasions are myriad, from NAtional security, to regional stability, to human rights issues to economic stability. All important. But wait, I'm guessing according to you it was all to make money right!

So basically your viewpoint: I will try to defend my Islamic brothers no matter how abhorrent they are, and seeing the West as the enemy I will constantly try to equate their actions to those abhorrent actions perpetrated by those I'm trying to defend, in order to justify their actions.

hahaha sure, the US had no idea of what people like Pol Pot and Pinochet were going to do despite knowing their policies beforehand and obviously somehow just COULDN'T stop supporting them even when mass murder etc. started.

No, I'am not a retard- I know there was a myriad of reasons and yet most had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with self-interest.

No, this has nothing to do with Islam. I condemn things I consider wrong no matter what the religion of the perpetrator. I don't really know how you came to that conclusion from the arguments I presented.

[Steevee]

(Original post by Inzamam99)
hahaha sure, the US had no idea of what people like Pol Pot and Pinochet were going to do despite knowing their policies beforehand and obviously somehow just COULDN'T stop supporting them even when mass murder etc. started.

No, I'am not a retard- I know there was a myriad of reasons and yet most had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with self-interest.

No, this has nothing to do with Islam. I condemn things I consider wrong no matter what the religion of the perpetrator. I don't really know how you came to that conclusion from the arguments I presented.

And what are they to do after these people are seen as less than savoury? Impose sanctions, well, they are ripped apart for that, for isolating dictators, making things worse for there subjects. They do nothing? They're still the great Western devil. Activley get involved? Ruination of millions of lives. See the problem. People like you are never satisfied.

BEcause the US is the only country in the world that does things out of self-interest....oh wait

Funny how it's always the West you're condemning and your Islamic bretheren you're defending, just a coincidence right?

[ChampEon]

(Original post by Inzamam99)
Yes, it was terrible and Pakistan should apologise but the figure most historians agree on is 300,000 not 3m.

I disagree. Those who state 30,000-300,000 were mainly pro-government Pakistanis, who committed the atrocities, as well as pro-US scholars (note that the US government wanted Pakistan as their ally and as a result US military aide was only concentrated in West-Pakistan. Read up on the Blood Telegram for enlightenment)
English historians, scholars and writers, however, usually say the number is nearer to 3,000,000 with a few claiming 1,500,000. E.g. Matthew J. White, R. J. Rummel, etc.
Just to clarify, this doesn't mean I have anything against Pakistanis themselves. I simply don't trust the Pakistan government (most of the politicians were hypocrites who claimed to be Muslim and yet were heavy drinkers e.g. Jinnah, Yahya Khan etc). I equally distrust the US government.

[ChampEon]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
They should apologise. As should a whole host of other countries for their crimes. Why single out Pakistan?

I never said that the US shouldn't apologise to Vietnam (and Iraq, Afghanistan, Native Americans, Japan etc) and for inventing the concept of 'terrorists'. I do indeed hate the US goverment.
However this thread was about Pakistan which is why I brought up the Bangladesh massacre, mainly because the whole world ignored it even though it's the third worst genocide in the 20th century - pretty much a holocaust.
I admit, it was my anger that made me write those initial posts.

[Inzamam99]

(Original post by ChampEon)
I disagree. Those who state 30,000-300,000 were mainly pro-government Pakistanis, who committed the atrocities, as well as pro-US scholars (note that the US government wanted Pakistan as their ally and as a result US military aide was only concentrated in West-Pakistan. Read up on the Blood Telegram for enlightenment)
English historians, scholars and writers, however, usually say the number is nearer to 3,000,000 with a few claiming 1,500,000. E.g. Matthew J. White, R. J. Rummel, etc.
Just to clarify, this doesn't mean I have anything against Pakistanis themselves. I simply don't trust the Pakistan government (most of the politicians were hypocrites who claimed to be Muslim and yet were heavy drinkers e.g. Jinnah, Yahya Khan etc). I equally distrust the US government.

I understand your viewpoint but that figure is genuinely inaccurate if you do some research. The figure given by the Pakistanis was 30,000- again wildly off.

The origins of the figure of 3m is from comments made by Yahya Khan to journalist Richard Payne. I would refer you to a conference held by the US DoD in 2005 in which the Bangladeshi speakers accepted that the figure of 3m had been wrongly translated from Bengali to English and that the actual figure of 300,000.

[Inzamam99]

(Original post by Steevee)
And what are they to do after these people are seen as less than savoury? Impose sanctions, well, they are ripped apart for that, for isolating dictators, making things worse for there subjects. They do nothing? They're still the great Western devil. Activley get involved? Ruination of millions of lives. See the problem. People like you are never satisfied.

BEcause the US is the only country in the world that does things out of self-interest....oh wait

Funny how it's always the West you're condemning and your Islamic bretheren you're defending, just a coincidence right?

OK, the US's support for individuals who they knew held genocidal viewpoints and ended up murdering millions of people were completely justified. Comfort yourself with that opinion. There's a difference between actively and enthusiastically supporting such regimes and ignoring them which is different still from imposing sanctions against them or active intervention. You seem to be justifying ACTIVE WESTERN SUPPORT for murderous regimes.

No, every country does things due to its own self-interest not just Pakistan and that's exactly the point I was trying to make.

Give me one instance in which I have defended my "Islamic brethren" unjustifiably- for example when a Muslim has murdered and raped etc.

[bethanyd]

I'm sure I read somewhere about people being allowed to gain citizenship if they have done something like help save lives in America or supported America abroad or something like that, I'm sure someone is able to grant him citizenship somehow.

[ChampEon]

(Original post by Inzamam99)
I understand your viewpoint but that figure is genuinely inaccurate if you do some research. The figure given by the Pakistanis was 30,000- again wildly off.

The origins of the figure of 3m is from comments made by Yahya Khan to journalist Richard Payne. I would refer you to a conference held by the US DoD in 2005 in which the Bangladeshi speakers accepted that the figure of 3m had been wrongly translated from Bengali to English and that the actual figure of 300,000.

You seem like an honest person so I'll take your word for it. 300k people is still a damn lot though.

[Steevee]

(Original post by Inzamam99)
OK, the US's support for individuals who they knew held genocidal viewpoints and ended up murdering millions of people were completely justified. Comfort yourself with that opinion. There's a difference between actively and enthusiastically supporting such regimes and ignoring them which is different still from imposing sanctions against them or active intervention. You seem to be justifying ACTIVE WESTERN SUPPORT for murderous regimes.

No, every country does things due to its own self-interest not just Pakistan and that's exactly the point I was trying to make.

Give me one instance in which I have defended my "Islamic brethren" unjustifiably- for example when a Muslim has murdered and raped etc.

Active support consists of what exactly? As far as I'm concerned the US treated these countries no differently to how they treated many other countries. Which seems to me to be the right thing to do, when action either way just recieves a ton of criticsm.

And yet you imply it's a bad thing when the US do it? You argue these double standards all the time. 'Oh so and so isn;t so bad, the US do it!' Except that 'so and so' are a backwards and repressive regime. Osama Bin Laden and Ghandi both liking apples and the Salsa doesn't mean the two are one and the same, but that is the sort of parallel you are forever trying to draw. X does Y and so does Z means X=Z is a fallicious argument.

You defend them by proxy, many a time I have seen you wade in with your tired rhetoric where you equate Western forces to the Taliban or Islamists.

[Inzamam99]

(Original post by ChampEon)
You seem like an honest person so I'll take your word for it. 300k people is still a damn lot though.

Thanks! I just get incredibly restless when inaccurate things about Pakistan are said.

Indeed and there is no doubt it was one of the worst genocides of the 20th century as well. I hope if Imran Khan comes to power he offers an apology to the Bengali people. The main reason for refusing to offer an apology even amongst those who know the extent of what happened is that most of the atrocities were arguably committed by pro-Pakistani Bengali Volunteer Groups (Razakars) such as Al-Badr and Al-Shams brigade and not by the Pakistani army itself. And yet that's no excuse considering the command to form these groups came from Yahya himself.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by ChampEon)
I never said that the US shouldn't apologise to Vietnam (and Iraq, Afghanistan, Native Americans, Japan etc) and for inventing the concept of 'terrorists'. I do indeed hate the US goverment.
However this thread was about Pakistan which is why I brought up the Bangladesh massacre, mainly because the whole world ignored it even though it's the third worst genocide in the 20th century - pretty much a holocaust.
I admit, it was my anger that made me write those initial posts.

So basically you made an off-topic comment