How about doing your own research, rather than swallowing everything someone dishes up to you that suit your taste?lowing wrote:
"Since we hear from so many critics who either don't take the time to read this site, or simply can't understand the distinction between Islam and Muslims, we thought it best to bring together in one place what we have said in so many others over the years.Jaekus wrote:
Twisting things once more I see. When will you stop playing this tired game? I'm sure the shoe would be on the other foot if someone started flinging Michael Moore quotes and references around the place the back up their arguments. Or do you also feel such a person on the far opposite side of the fence has equal merit as to those on yours? I somehow suspect not in your eyes. Point is, how about trying to construct an argument using unbiased reporting, than biased? It's like going to a KKK site to argue about all the negatives of black people. I'm sure a lot of their info is based on actual events, just really fucking slanted and twisted by their bias.
Do you get this, how this bias in presenting facts just twists things? Somehow I think not.
You attempt to portray the entire Islamic culture based on the actions of very few (I've done the maths for you, of course you ignore this because it is win against you and you cannot handle that). Have a good life, bigot.
Islam is an ideology. No ideology is above critique, particularly one that explicitly seeks political and social dominance over every person on the planet.
Muslims are individuals. We passionately believe that no Muslim should be harmed, harassed, stereotyped or treated any differently anywhere in the world solely on account of their status as a Muslim.
As an ideology, Islam is not entitled to equal respect and acceptance, because ideas do not carry equal moral weight. In fact, it is not simply a belief about God. It is a word that means submission. Islam is inseparable from a set of rules that establish a social hierarchy in which Muslims submit to Allah, women submit to men and all non-Muslims submit to Islamic rule.
Since we don't live in a Muslim country - where censorship, intimidation and brute force are shamelessly employed to protect Islam from intellectual analysis - we are still free to openly exercise our right to debate the merits of the Islamic value system against Western Liberalism.
Are men really superior to women as the Qur'an says? Are women intellectually inferior as Muhammad taught? Does propagating material (the Qur'an) that openly curses people of other religions amidst random calls to violence really make for a better social environment? Is it right to keep women as sex slaves merely because the Qur'an explicitly allows it in multiple places? Should atheists and homosexuals have to choose between the noose and an outward profession of faith in Allah?
Yes, there are Muslims who take issue with these aspects of Islamic theology, but it doesn't change what Islam is. Don't confuse the ideology with the individual. Don't draw conclusions about Islam based on the Muslims that you know, be they terrorists or humanitarians. Islam must be understood on the basis of what it is, as presented objectively in the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira (biography of Muhammad).
By the same token, don't draw conclusions about the Muslims in your life based on the true nature of Islam. Like any other group, not all Muslims think alike. Even if there is no such thing as moderate Islam, it does not mean that there are no moderate Muslims.
If our years of dialogue with literally hundreds have taught us anything, it is that most Muslims (even devout ones) have only a superficial understanding of their religion. Many are secular and very few made the choice to even be Muslim. As with all religion, there are widely varying degrees of seriousness with which they may take the teachings of Islam. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali put it, "Muslims as individuals can choose how much of their religion they practice."
The Muslims that you know are not terrorists. More than likely, their interests in life are similar to yours and they have the same ambitions for their children. They should neither be shunned, mistreated, nor disrespected merely because of their religion. Their property should not be abused, and neither should copies of their sacred book be vandalized.
Prejudging an individual by their group identity (or presumed group identity) is not only unethical, it is blatantly irrational, since group identity reveals absolutely nothing about a person. Every individual should be judged only on the basis of their own words and deeds.
Don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know, and don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam.
TheReligionofPeace.com"
Yeah they sound soooooo closed minded....now, go there and refute the information in their site, but stop trashing a site because you don't like the information.
/yawn face
I had that face after the second page.Macbeth wrote:
/yawn face
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I am posting THEIR opinion regarding Islam and Muslims, it isn't "research", I am not writing a fuckin' paper. Maybe you didn't notice the quotes and the credit as to where it came from? How about you read what it says, after words your comments are welcome?Jaekus wrote:
How about doing your own research, rather than swallowing everything someone dishes up to you that suit your taste?lowing wrote:
"Since we hear from so many critics who either don't take the time to read this site, or simply can't understand the distinction between Islam and Muslims, we thought it best to bring together in one place what we have said in so many others over the years.Jaekus wrote:
Twisting things once more I see. When will you stop playing this tired game? I'm sure the shoe would be on the other foot if someone started flinging Michael Moore quotes and references around the place the back up their arguments. Or do you also feel such a person on the far opposite side of the fence has equal merit as to those on yours? I somehow suspect not in your eyes. Point is, how about trying to construct an argument using unbiased reporting, than biased? It's like going to a KKK site to argue about all the negatives of black people. I'm sure a lot of their info is based on actual events, just really fucking slanted and twisted by their bias.
Do you get this, how this bias in presenting facts just twists things? Somehow I think not.
You attempt to portray the entire Islamic culture based on the actions of very few (I've done the maths for you, of course you ignore this because it is win against you and you cannot handle that). Have a good life, bigot.
Islam is an ideology. No ideology is above critique, particularly one that explicitly seeks political and social dominance over every person on the planet.
Muslims are individuals. We passionately believe that no Muslim should be harmed, harassed, stereotyped or treated any differently anywhere in the world solely on account of their status as a Muslim.
As an ideology, Islam is not entitled to equal respect and acceptance, because ideas do not carry equal moral weight. In fact, it is not simply a belief about God. It is a word that means submission. Islam is inseparable from a set of rules that establish a social hierarchy in which Muslims submit to Allah, women submit to men and all non-Muslims submit to Islamic rule.
Since we don't live in a Muslim country - where censorship, intimidation and brute force are shamelessly employed to protect Islam from intellectual analysis - we are still free to openly exercise our right to debate the merits of the Islamic value system against Western Liberalism.
Are men really superior to women as the Qur'an says? Are women intellectually inferior as Muhammad taught? Does propagating material (the Qur'an) that openly curses people of other religions amidst random calls to violence really make for a better social environment? Is it right to keep women as sex slaves merely because the Qur'an explicitly allows it in multiple places? Should atheists and homosexuals have to choose between the noose and an outward profession of faith in Allah?
Yes, there are Muslims who take issue with these aspects of Islamic theology, but it doesn't change what Islam is. Don't confuse the ideology with the individual. Don't draw conclusions about Islam based on the Muslims that you know, be they terrorists or humanitarians. Islam must be understood on the basis of what it is, as presented objectively in the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira (biography of Muhammad).
By the same token, don't draw conclusions about the Muslims in your life based on the true nature of Islam. Like any other group, not all Muslims think alike. Even if there is no such thing as moderate Islam, it does not mean that there are no moderate Muslims.
If our years of dialogue with literally hundreds have taught us anything, it is that most Muslims (even devout ones) have only a superficial understanding of their religion. Many are secular and very few made the choice to even be Muslim. As with all religion, there are widely varying degrees of seriousness with which they may take the teachings of Islam. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali put it, "Muslims as individuals can choose how much of their religion they practice."
The Muslims that you know are not terrorists. More than likely, their interests in life are similar to yours and they have the same ambitions for their children. They should neither be shunned, mistreated, nor disrespected merely because of their religion. Their property should not be abused, and neither should copies of their sacred book be vandalized.
Prejudging an individual by their group identity (or presumed group identity) is not only unethical, it is blatantly irrational, since group identity reveals absolutely nothing about a person. Every individual should be judged only on the basis of their own words and deeds.
Don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know, and don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam.
TheReligionofPeace.com"
Yeah they sound soooooo closed minded....now, go there and refute the information in their site, but stop trashing a site because you don't like the information.
Last edited by lowing (2011-05-12 01:23:54)
You use that site as "evidence" for your arguments, don't pretend otherwise.
This has gone well beyond tedious a long time ago. Bye.
This has gone well beyond tedious a long time ago. Bye.
So, were you going to address what they say about Islam and Muslims? Do you disagree with it or agree with it?Jaekus wrote:
You use that site as "evidence" for your arguments, don't pretend otherwise.
This has gone well beyond tedious a long time ago. Bye.
Also, that site collects all the news events and reports from around the world and sources them. It is not as if this site invents these stories and can not be found anywhere else. They just pass them along. You can get this information everywhere. It is nothing more than a connivence to know if you want to read the latest and greatest regarding Islamic extremism, you can go there.
Wouldn't be so tedious if, you would just address it, instead of answering with insults. Or like Ken Jennings, make comments and refuse to back them up or answer questions about those comments.
Last edited by lowing (2011-05-12 01:31:26)
reposting to get a decent post on this pagerdx-fx wrote:
Pakistan's ISI has been, essentially, an enemy of the US for the last 30+ years.
They need to be treated as such.
I've been saying this for years.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p2613347http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p3283935rdx-fx (2 years ago) wrote:
Pakistani ISI;
Tons of information, all for sale to the highest any bidder.
But not a clue to be bought for any price.
In other words, as I've said before;
If the Pakistani ISI knows about it, it may as well be on eBay
During the 1970's and 1980's Afghani-Soviet war, 90% of every dollar the US/CIA put through the Pakistani ISI to help the Afghani ... got lost.
90%. Poof. Gone. Rerouted to the wrong people.
this is a large part of the reason the US is disliked in that region, by so many people. This was our step zero: mother of all fuckups in the middle east - trusting the Pakistani ISI with anything of importance.
Major error #2:
US Middle East policy from 1970-1991; "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
Bullshit.
The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
The enemy of my enemy may well be my enemy too. There is such thing as a three-way fight, if one can count past two.
Don't help one minor enemy against another -- set it up so both enemies destroy each other.http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p2862481rdx-fx (8 months ago) wrote:
All of the Pakistani agencies I can think of (the ISI being the 1st), are corrupt beyond belief.
Like 90% of the money you send through them for any purpose, is going to be funneled off to hostile organizations, or get "lost".
The only organizations that can work within that environment are "terrorist" organizations.
"Misdirect my funds, and we'll tell the UN on you!" doesn't work worth a damn in Pakistan
"Misdirect my funds, and we'll send a suicide bomber into your HQ, then sodomize your sons, then rape your women, then set YOU on fire after we've made you watch all that" that works in Pakistan. There is precious little in-between.
If you don't have a very strong Or Else hanging over their heads, you cannot trust the Pakistanis with anything, especially money or secrets.
If the Pakistani ISI knows about it, it may as well be on e-bay.
(Note: Pakistani above meaning governmental agencies, the individual people may be more reliable. YMMV)rdx-fx wrote:
IMHO, the Pakistani ISI can go choke on one of their own nukes. The Persians just need a new (moderate, sane, representative-of-the-people) government, without a supreme religious leader as the head of state.http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p3299265rdx-fx (1 year ago) wrote:
Have I mentioned my dislike for the Pakistani ISI lately?
Something along the lines of "If the Pakistanis know a secret, it may as well be in the front page of the New York Times"
Spy riddled, insecure, corrupt pile of steaming pig excrement.etc etcrdx-fx wrote:
Pretty sure Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan right now, either with the approval of elements of the Pakistani government or ISI, or their intentional ignorance.
[...]
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are no longer the peaceful side of Islam that the West has a chance of working with. Though they are still our allies in name, they are openly playing against us too.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Always amazes me how and why people that are not part of any discussion care so much about what is being said in a thread. Sorry Spark, my discussions have been relegated to Bin Laden and his relationship with Islam. If people wanna come here and trash me, instead of talk about that relationship, or argue how peaceful tolerant and serene Islam is, in the face of overwhelming proof it is not. I can't help it. Answer the questions, post your insults, or stay out, is about the only choices we have.
How is Osamas relationship with Islam overwhelming proof that Islam is a violent religion?
You have a way of implying that all followers of Islam aka all Muslims are evil without saying it in plain words ...
I saw a fat stupid warmongering American the other day, I'd take that as proof that all Americans are fat, stupid and warmongerers by your reasoning lowing ... or is that wrong of me?
You have a way of implying that all followers of Islam aka all Muslims are evil without saying it in plain words ...
I saw a fat stupid warmongering American the other day, I'd take that as proof that all Americans are fat, stupid and warmongerers by your reasoning lowing ... or is that wrong of me?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
because this thread was about the us-pakistani relationship and its future, and about why/how bin laden was in pakistan etc. etc. etc.
instead it's become like how many other threads on "is islam evil?" - nothing to do with the actual topic at hand. that osama bin laden was killed about ten blocks from a major pakistani military base.
instead it's become like how many other threads on "is islam evil?" - nothing to do with the actual topic at hand. that osama bin laden was killed about ten blocks from a major pakistani military base.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
lol, alone, it isn't. Coupled with every fuckin' thing else, Islamic teachings, laws, actions and RE-actions pretty much shows a pattern. Sorry.Varegg wrote:
How is Osamas relationship with Islam overwhelming proof that Islam is a violent religion?
You have a way of implying that all followers of Islam aka all Muslims are evil without saying it in plain words ...
I saw a fat stupid warmongering American the other day, I'd take that as proof that all Americans are fat, stupid and warmongerers by your reasoning lowing ... or is that wrong of me?
I have never implied anything beyond what I post regarding Islam. I have made it clear I judge individuals, and I judge religions and cultures. They are different.
As far as Bin Laden goes, when Islamic leaders are pissed as to the way Bin Laden was treated after death above any concern regarding his actions in life, well, I am allowed to form an opinion on that. and for you or anyone else to consider that opinion irrational, we will just have to agree to disagree.
how did you know the American you saw was "stupid and warmongering"?
no actually Spark, this thread is about the death of Bin Laden, and like I said before as prominent a figure Bin Laden was in Islam, it is kinda hard to not discuss that coincidence as to how violent and intolerant bin laden was compared to his religion.Spark wrote:
because this thread was about the us-pakistani relationship and its future, and about why/how bin laden was in pakistan etc. etc. etc.
instead it's become like how many other threads on "is islam evil?" - nothing to do with the actual topic at hand. that osama bin laden was killed about ten blocks from a major pakistani military base.
He had a too small white T-shirt with a print on it that said "Kill all arabs" or something like that ... it was a tad difficult to see because he had the T-shirt on inside outlowing wrote:
how did you know the American you saw was "stupid and warmongering"?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
1. i didn't. the type of government and the ways of changing it doesn't mean shit when deciding whether certain society is well developed or not. as to freedom - i already said that it's a subjective thing. so there.lowing wrote:
1. you kinda sorta forgot the free and non-violent change of govt. thing, a free people, but hey a small details don't matter.Shahter wrote:
1. "ussr" stands as an example you asked for. you know, a developed society with unique culture, high standarts of living, high education levels, advanced technology, industry and science, good social and medical care, unmatched levels of social security and... nothing in the ways of what you call "freedom". there you go.
2. now you lost me - what does it have to do with anything they had before you "helped" them? ME had no means to get their oil. you helped them. now they do have oil. how much of it do you need as payment for your help? all of it? then what was the point?
4. the "extremists" take action in trying to prevent their home lands from being dominated by you. they are trying to preserve their culture and tradition from being overrun by something they view as intrusive and alien. yeah, they do some really fucked up shit, but you hammered them to the point of desperation and they've nothing to lose. some things cannot be simply bought with all the goodies you mentioned there - and as it can clearly be seen in those countries who did allow themselves to be consumed by this "global market" bullshit of yours, those awesome things are only going to be available to very small part of the population, the rest get shafted.
5. crap, you got me there, man. tsunami... oh, wait, there's really no way this thing could be used for information manipulation, huh? it's sensationalist material, it's only good for making noises and getting the ratings up so that when it comes to the real propaganda those who do that kinda thing would pay for the services of the most popular of the media. if somebody tried to really research the matter and see how many locals actually approved of hanging the corpses and burning them who do you think would pay for that kinda report? nobody would, and you know it. the only things that sells these days is sensational bullshit and "news" paid for by those interested in this kinda stuff.
6. do you really need "teachings" to understand that when you are attacked you need to fight back? i'd simply call it common sence and self preservation instincts. mind you, i don't approve of the stuff i'm told obl did, but blaming islam - an information manipulation tool which could be swang any way based on situation - for that is completely idiotic. you've got that "freedom and democracy"-thing for ideology in usa, man, and in its name so many innocent people are having the crap beaten out of them right now that all the terrorist attacks would seem child's play in comparison. should i now start calling that ideological shtick "violent and intolerant"?
2. how much do we need as payment? Last I checked we were BUYING their oil, they were not giving it to us as payment. but again a small detail I am sure does not matter.
4. Ummm in 2001 we were not in the ME "dominating" anyone.
5. It is sensationalist material for one reason. The material is sensational, or did you think 9/11 was just slanted reporting?
6. When did we attack Al Qaeda again I forgot, was that before or after 9/11? Had most people even HEARD of Al Qaeda or Bin Laden before 9/11 I doubt it. No one blames Islam for Osama Bin Laden, Bin Laden did what he did in the name of Islam, and he had plenty of world wide support in that venture. And yeah, it was more than "a few."
2. wait, last time you told me they were "holding their resources hostage" against you - now you are saying they do actually allow you to buy them?
4. you were trying to dominate everyone since... well... forever, actually. anyone who didn't fit into that "global market" ponzi scheme of yours have been branded "oppressive regime" or "horrible dictatorship" and fucked. this forum's "usa fuck yeah"-ers call it "pursuing national interests", but those on the receiving end of it tend to - understandably - perseive it as aggression and imposition of something they view as alien. they view everything you stand for exactly as you view islam and the culture it was formed in, and they damn well have reasons for that.
5. orly? are you trying to say media don't manufacture anything they report? that they don't blow things out of proportion when they are paid to and then overlook similar stuff when it doesn't suit them? how long have you been living under a rock, man?
6. i ask again: should i start viewing your own ideology - the one you so aggressively try to spread around the globe - "violent and intolerant" based on all the killing and plundering your jedi do in the name of it? yes or no?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Since you mentioned that, and to tweak Dilbert:Spark wrote:
because this thread was about the us-pakistani relationship and its future, and about why/how bin laden was in pakistan etc. etc. etc.
instead it's become like how many other threads on "is islam evil?" - nothing to do with the actual topic at hand. that osama bin laden was killed about ten blocks from a major pakistani military base.
Puts bin Laden's death, the US-Pakistan relationship, Petraeus' departure, and the overall US antiterrorism strategy into perspective.www.STRATFOR.com wrote:
U.S.-Pakistani Relations Beyond Bin Laden
Created May 10 2011 - 03:54
By George Friedman
The past week has been filled with announcements and speculations on how Osama bin Laden was killed and on Washington’s source of intelligence. After any operation of this sort, the world is filled with speculation on sources and methods by people who don’t know, and silence or dissembling by those who do.
Obfuscating on how intelligence was developed and on the specifics of how an operation was carried out is an essential part of covert operations. The precise process must be distorted to confuse opponents regarding how things actually played out; otherwise, the enemy learns lessons and adjusts. Ideally, the enemy learns the wrong lessons, and its adjustments wind up further weakening it. Operational disinformation is the final, critical phase of covert operations. So as interesting as it is to speculate on just how the United States located bin Laden and on exactly how the attack took place, it is ultimately not a fruitful discussion. Moreover, it does not focus on the truly important question, namely, the future of U.S.-Pakistani relations.
Posturing Versus a Genuine Breach
It is not inconceivable that Pakistan aided the United States in identifying and capturing Osama bin Laden, but it is unlikely. This is because the operation saw the already-tremendous tensions between the two countries worsen rather than improve. The Obama administration let it be known that it saw Pakistan as either incompetent or duplicitous and that it deliberately withheld plans for the operation from the Pakistanis. For their part, the Pakistanis made it clear that further operations of this sort on Pakistani territory could see an irreconcilable breach between the two countries. The attitudes of the governments profoundly affected the views of politicians and the public, attitudes that will be difficult to erase.
Posturing designed to hide Pakistani cooperation would be designed to cover operational details, not to lead to significant breaches between countries. The relationship between the United States and Pakistan ultimately is far more important than the details of how Osama bin Laden was captured, but both sides have created a tense atmosphere that they will find difficult to contain. One would not sacrifice strategic relationships for the sake of operational security. Therefore, we have to assume that the tension is real and revolves around the different goals of Pakistan and the United States.
A break between the United States and Pakistan holds significance for both sides. For Pakistan, it means the loss of an ally that could help Pakistan fend off its much larger neighbor to the east, India. For the United States, it means the loss of an ally in the war in Afghanistan. Whether the rupture ultimately occurs, of course, depends on how deep the tension goes. And that depends on what the tension is over, i.e., whether the tension ultimately merits the strategic rift. It also is a question of which side is sacrificing the most. It is therefore important to understand the geopolitics of U.S.-Pakistani relations beyond the question of who knew what about bin Laden.
From Cold to Jihadist War
U.S. strategy in the Cold War included a religious component, namely, using religion to generate tension within the Communist bloc. This could be seen in the Jewish resistance in the Soviet Union, in Roman Catholic resistance in Poland and, of course, in Muslim resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, it took the form of using religious Islamist militias to wage a guerrilla war against Soviet occupation. A three-part alliance involving the Saudis, the Americans and the Pakistanis fought the Soviets. The Pakistanis had the closest relationships with the Afghan resistance due to ethnic and historical bonds, and the Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), had built close ties with the Afghans.
As frequently happens, the lines of influence ran both ways. The ISI did not simply control Islamist militants, but instead many within the ISI came under the influence of radical Islamist ideology. This reached the extent that the ISI became a center of radical Islamism, not so much on an institutional level as on a personal level: The case officers, as the phrase goes, went native. As long as the U.S. strategy remained to align with radical Islamism against the Soviets, this did not pose a major problem. However, when the Soviet Union collapsed and the United States lost interest in the future of Afghanistan, managing the conclusion of the war fell to the Afghans and to the Pakistanis through the ISI. In the civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the United States played a trivial role. It was the ISI in alliance with the Taliban — a coalition of Afghan and international Islamist fighters who had been supported by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan — that shaped the future of Afghanistan.
The U.S.-Islamist relationship was an alliance of convenience for both sides. It was temporary, and when the Soviets collapsed, Islamist ideology focused on new enemies, the United States chief among them. Anti-Soviet sentiment among radical Islamists soon morphed into anti-American sentiment. This was particularly true after the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm. The Islamists perceived the U.S. occupation and violation of Saudi territorial integrity as a religious breach. Therefore, at least some elements of international Islamism focused on the United States; al Qaeda was central among these elements. Al Qaeda needed a base of operations after being expelled from Sudan, and Afghanistan provided the most congenial home. In moving to Afghanistan and allying with the Taliban, al Qaeda inevitably was able to greatly expand its links with Pakistan’s ISI, which was itself deeply involved with the Taliban.
After 9/11, Washington demanded that the Pakistanis aid the United States in its war against al Qaeda and the Taliban. For Pakistan, this represented a profound crisis. On the one hand, Pakistan badly needed the United States to support it against what it saw as its existential enemy, India. On the other hand, Islamabad found it difficult to rupture or control the intimate relationships, ideological and personal, that had developed between the ISI and the Taliban, and by extension with al Qaeda to some extent. In Pakistani thinking, breaking with the United States could lead to strategic disaster with India. However, accommodating the United States could lead to unrest, potential civil war and even collapse by energizing elements of the ISI and supporters of Taliban and radical Islamism in Pakistan.
The Pakistani Solution
The Pakistani solution was to appear to be doing everything possible to support the United States in Afghanistan, with a quiet limit on what that support would entail. That limit on support set by Islamabad was largely defined as avoiding actions that would trigger a major uprising in Pakistan that could threaten the regime. Pakistanis were prepared to accept a degree of unrest in supporting the war but not to push things to the point of endangering the regime.
The Pakistanis thus walked a tightrope between demands they provide intelligence on al Qaeda and Taliban activities and permit U.S. operations in Pakistan on one side and the internal consequences of doing so on the other. The Pakistanis’ policy was to accept a degree of unrest to keep the Americans supporting Pakistan against India, but only to a point. So, for example, the government purged the ISI of its overt supporters of radial Islamism, but it did not purge the ISI wholesale nor did it end informal relations between purged intelligence officers and the ISI. Pakistan thus pursued a policy that did everything to appear to be cooperative while not really meeting American demands.
The Americans were, of course, completely aware of the Pakistani limits and did not ultimately object to this arrangement. The United States did not want a coup in Islamabad, nor did it want massive civil unrest. The United States needed Pakistan on whatever terms the Pakistanis could provide help. It needed the supply line through Pakistan from Karachi to the Khyber Pass. And while it might not get complete intelligence from Pakistan, the intelligence it did get was invaluable. Moreover, while the Pakistanis could not close the Afghan Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan, they could limit them and control their operation to some extent. The Americans were as aware as the Pakistanis that the choice was between full and limited cooperation, but could well be between limited and no cooperation, because the government might well not survive full cooperation. The Americans thus took what they could get.
Obviously, this relationship created friction. The Pakistani position was that the United States had helped create this reality in the 1980s and 1990s. The American position was that after 9/11, the price of U.S. support involved the Pakistanis changing their policies. The Pakistanis said there were limits. The Americans agreed, so the fight was about defining the limits.
The Americans felt that the limit was support for al Qaeda. They felt that whatever Pakistan’s relationship with the Afghan Taliban was, support in suppressing al Qaeda, a separate organization, had to be absolute. The Pakistanis agreed in principle but understood that the intelligence on al Qaeda flowed most heavily from those most deeply involved with radical Islamism. In others words, the very people who posed the most substantial danger to Pakistani stability were also the ones with the best intelligence on al Qaeda — and therefore, fulfilling the U.S. demand in principle was desirable. In practice, it proved difficult for Pakistan to carry out.
The Breakpoint and the U.S. Exit From Afghanistan
This proved the breakpoint between the two sides. The Americans accepted the principle of Pakistani duplicity, but drew a line at al Qaeda. The Pakistanis understood American sensibilities but didn’t want to incur the domestic risks of going too far. This psychological breakpoint cracked open on Osama bin Laden, the Holy Grail of American strategy and the third rail of Pakistani policy.
Under normal circumstances, this level of tension of institutionalized duplicity should have blown the U.S.-Pakistani relationship apart, with the United States simply breaking with Pakistan. It did not, and likely will not for a simple geopolitical reason, one that goes back to the 1990s. In the 1990s, when the United States no longer needed to support an intensive covert campaign in Afghanistan, it depended on Pakistan to manage Afghanistan. Pakistan would have done this anyway because it had no choice: Afghanistan was Pakistan’s backdoor, and given tensions with India, Pakistan could not risk instability in its rear. The United States thus did not have to ask Pakistan to take responsibility for Afghanistan.
The United States is now looking for an exit from Afghanistan. Its goal, the creation of a democratic, pro-American Afghanistan able to suppress radical Islamism in its own territory, is unattainable with current forces — and probably unattainable with far larger forces. Gen. David Petraeus, the architect of the Afghan strategy, has been nominated to become the head of the CIA. With Petraeus departing from the Afghan theater, the door is open to a redefinition of Afghan strategy. Despite Pentagon doctrines of long wars, the United States is not going to be in a position to engage in endless combat in Afghanistan. There are other issues in the world that must be addressed. With bin Laden’s death, a plausible (if not wholly convincing) argument can be made that the mission in AfPak, as the Pentagon refers to the theater, has been accomplished, and therefore the United States can withdraw.
No withdrawal strategy is conceivable without a viable Pakistan. Ideally, Pakistan would be willing to send forces into Afghanistan to carry out U.S. strategy. This is unlikely, as the Pakistanis don’t share the American concern for Afghan democracy, nor are they prepared to try directly to impose solutions in Afghanistan. At the same time, Pakistan can’t simply ignore Afghanistan because of its own national security issues, and therefore it will move to stabilize it.
The United States could break with Pakistan and try to handle things on its own in Afghanistan, but the supply line fueling Afghan fighting runs through Pakistan. The alternatives either would see the United States become dependent on Russia — an equally uncertain line of supply — or on the Caspian route, which is insufficient to supply forces. Afghanistan is war at the end of the Earth for the United States, and to fight it, Washington must have Pakistani supply routes.
The United States also needs Pakistan to contain, at least to some extent, Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan. The United States is stretched to the limit doing what it is doing in Afghanistan. Opening a new front in Pakistan, a country of 180 million people, is well beyond the capabilities of either forces in Afghanistan or forces in the U.S. reserves. Therefore, a U.S. break with Pakistan threatens the logistical foundation of the war in Afghanistan and poses strategic challenges U.S. forces cannot cope with.
The American option might be to support a major crisis between Pakistan and India to compel Pakistan to cooperate with the United States. However, it is not clear that India is prepared to play another round in the U.S. game with Pakistan. Moreover, creating a genuine crisis between India and Pakistan could have two outcomes. The first involves the collapse of Pakistan, which would create an India more powerful than the United States might want. The second and more likely outcome would see the creation of a unity government in Pakistan in which distinctions between secularists, moderate Islamists and radical Islamists would be buried under anti-Indian feeling. Doing all of this to deal with Afghan withdrawal would be excessive, even if India played along, and could well prove disastrous for Washington.
Ultimately, the United States cannot change its policy of the last 10 years. During that time, it has come to accept what support the Pakistanis could give and tolerated what was withheld. U.S. dependence on Pakistan so long as Washington is fighting in Afghanistan is significant; the United States has lived with Pakistan’s multitiered policy for a decade because it had to. Nothing in the killing of bin Laden changes the geopolitical realities. So long as the United States wants to wage — or end — a war in Afghanistan, it must have the support of Pakistan to the extent that Pakistan is prepared to provide it. The option of breaking with Pakistan because on some level it is acting in opposition to American interests does not exist.
This is the ultimate contradiction in U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and even the so-called war on terror as a whole. The United States has an absolute opposition to terrorism and has waged a war in Afghanistan on the questionable premise that the tactic of terrorism can be defeated, regardless of source or ideology. Broadly fighting terrorism requires the cooperation of the Muslim world, as U.S. intelligence and power is inherently limited. The Muslim world has an interest in containing terrorism, but not the absolute concern the United States has. Muslim countries are not prepared to destabilize their countries in service to the American imperative. This creates deeper tensions between the United States and the Muslim world and increases the American difficulty in dealing with terrorism — or with Afghanistan.
The United States must either develop the force and intelligence to wage war without any assistance, which is difficult to imagine given the size of the Muslim world and the size of the U.S. military, or it will have to accept half-hearted support and duplicity. Alternatively, it could accept that it will not win in Afghanistan and will not be able simply to eliminate terrorism. These are difficult choices, but the reality of Pakistan drives home that these, in fact, are the choices.
Of course, Dilbert will say it's shit. Which means it's probably spot on.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The foundations of the modern global market were made somewhere in the 16th-17th century Shahter. Countries that don't want to participate in it generally don't 'get fucked', as long as they're staying true to being isolationist - like China was for a very long time (didn't help them though).
In the past century though there was a split in the world between western and communist societies, both of which were interested in 'controlling the world'. The latter simply turned out to be the losing one.
In the past century though there was a split in the world between western and communist societies, both of which were interested in 'controlling the world'. The latter simply turned out to be the losing one.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-05-12 03:50:02)
inane little opines
north korea, cuba, venezuela, iraq, iran, lybia - none of them got fucked. none at all.Shocking wrote:
The foundations of the modern global market were made somewhere in the 16th-17th century Shahter. Countries that don't want to participate in it generally don't 'get fucked', as long as they're staying true to being isolationist - like China was for a very long time (didn't help them though).
In the past century though there was a split in the world between western and communist societies, both of which were interested in 'controlling the world'. The latter simply turned out to be the losing one.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
They weren't isolationist at all. Actively participating in the power struggle, sometimes being used for that (Iran/Iraq) by the, at that time, dominant powers - USSR & the west (mainly US).Shahter wrote:
north korea, cuba, venezuela, iraq, iran, lybia - none of them got fucked. none at all.Shocking wrote:
The foundations of the modern global market were made somewhere in the 16th-17th century Shahter. Countries that don't want to participate in it generally don't 'get fucked', as long as they're staying true to being isolationist - like China was for a very long time (didn't help them though).
In the past century though there was a split in the world between western and communist societies, both of which were interested in 'controlling the world'. The latter simply turned out to be the losing one.
inane little opines
A bit of a misstatement here. Now you're getting into a superpowers/small powers discussion and the use of those small powers to fight out the battles between the superpowers. In the case of the Cold War, that would have been the US and USSR. In which case, both parties have dirt on their hands when it comes to "using" others. It's just a matter of which ends you agree with.Shocking wrote:
They weren't isolationist at all. Actively participating in the power struggle, sometimes being used for that (Iran/Iraq) by the, at that time, dominant powers - USSR & the west (mainly US).Shahter wrote:
north korea, cuba, venezuela, iraq, iran, lybia - none of them got fucked. none at all.Shocking wrote:
The foundations of the modern global market were made somewhere in the 16th-17th century Shahter. Countries that don't want to participate in it generally don't 'get fucked', as long as they're staying true to being isolationist - like China was for a very long time (didn't help them though).
In the past century though there was a split in the world between western and communist societies, both of which were interested in 'controlling the world'. The latter simply turned out to be the losing one.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Yeah that'sort of my point.
inane little opines
I've already read that!FEOS wrote:
Since you mentioned that, and to tweak Dilbert:Spark wrote:
because this thread was about the us-pakistani relationship and its future, and about why/how bin laden was in pakistan etc. etc. etc.
instead it's become like how many other threads on "is islam evil?" - nothing to do with the actual topic at hand. that osama bin laden was killed about ten blocks from a major pakistani military base.Puts bin Laden's death, the US-Pakistan relationship, Petraeus' departure, and the overall US antiterrorism strategy into perspective.www.STRATFOR.com wrote:
~snip~
Of course, Dilbert will say it's shit. Which means it's probably spot on.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
you keep bringing "isolationism" into this, but the matter of a fact - one doesn't really need to be isolationist to be fucked up by usa & co, one only needs to actually try to decide what extent does one want to be integrated into that "global market"-crap to and to actually control ones own resources, industry, finance etc. when someone does that he's labelled "dictatorship" and eventually gets fucked.Shocking wrote:
They weren't isolationist at all. Actively participating in the power struggle, sometimes being used for that (Iran/Iraq) by the, at that time, dominant powers - USSR & the west (mainly US).Shahter wrote:
north korea, cuba, venezuela, iraq, iran, lybia - none of them got fucked. none at all.Shocking wrote:
The foundations of the modern global market were made somewhere in the 16th-17th century Shahter. Countries that don't want to participate in it generally don't 'get fucked', as long as they're staying true to being isolationist - like China was for a very long time (didn't help them though).
In the past century though there was a split in the world between western and communist societies, both of which were interested in 'controlling the world'. The latter simply turned out to be the losing one.
i agree with you on usa/ussr power struggle, but it's been very long time since ussr wasn't there as a counter-balance. now "freedom and democracy" gets forced down the throat of everybody with virtually no opposition. it's assume the form we want you to, install democracy so that we can buy you out and, eventually, relinquish control - or get branded "opressive regime" and have democracy delivered to you by means of tomahawk missiles.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
There's a lot of political reasons as to why the west intervenes in certain countries. Most of Asia has largely been left alone in the past 40 years, and that's not because the entire continent is at our whims.
inane little opines
finally! it's political reasons now, not "just apprising against oppressive regimes". halle-fucking-luia!Shocking wrote:
There's a lot of political reasons as to why the west intervenes in certain countries.
mostly it is. you don't really need to assume direct control as long as they dance to your tune - and they do, because the alternative have been demonstrated many times and very clearly to them.Shocking wrote:
Most of Asia has largely been left alone in the past 40 years, and that's not because the entire continent is at our whims.
Last edited by Shahter (2011-05-12 05:53:51)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.