"The U.S. is openly accusing the Pakistani military of collaborating with Islamic terrorists, particularly the Haqqani Network, which has long enjoyed sanctuary in North Waziristan. The U.S. publicly agrees with many Pakistanis that the Pakistani military of being out-of-control and a threat to Pakistani democracy. Pakistanis who express these beliefs openly in Pakistan can get arrested or killed."
At least the western countries don't build and finance terror networks to attack neighbours. And so on.
It is a pity for the country, the economy should go like India or China if the place was better managed. I hope the article is correct in its optimism.
(I read that site for fun and to get the opposite perspective from my local Swedish media, which aren't that dependable.)
Why was Bin Laden was in Pakistan?
Several Pakistanis regions bordering Afghanistan live in a legally or de-facto quasi-autonomy. They are tribal by nature (be it their name or not) and since the war in Afghanistan started, they are facing deep changes in their power structure due to waves of migrants and militants. Such areas have also been steeply radicalising (remember the Swat war?).
So, if Pakistanis officials are trying to keep a sense of unity, and perhaps reinforce Pakistani feeling, by collaborating with what the West sees as terror networks, so be it.
They must ensure that these areas don't radicalise more and that it doesn't spread.
Now, the US is totally biased in the situation. It's literally been trying to dictate decisions to the Pakistani officials (military or political) for years.
> At least the western countries don't build and finance terror networks to attack neighbours. And so on.
I'm unsure whether this is a joke or not. It has to be a joke, right?
Regarding the freedom of speech, I'll ask you if you think it matters. Because if you think it matters there are a couple of things you might consider:
You could stop buying Japanese cars and hard-drives as Thai people end up in jail for expressing opinions that go against the monarchy (google lèse-majesté law in Thailand).
You could stop buying French cars and wine as migrants are put in "jails" and drugged against their will to keep them quiet and sometimes denied lawyers and assistance.
You could stop buying IT equipment because of the situation in China.
etc...
What I do know about Pakistan is that the government was deeply criticized for their handling of the floods in 2009. I also do know for reading from there that freedom of speech in the press is not a vain thing (being French, living in Thailand, I've actually found their critics very open).
I'm not very hopeful regarding the freedom of speech in general. In France nobody talks about those migrant centres that I called "jails" above. Nobody cares. In Thailand people think it's fine to have such a law (of course, except those who have something to say). I think there's a threshold under which a problem isn't a problem for enough people to reach a critical mass that could lead to a change.
I hear that Bin Laden died in Abbottabad. I'm no Pakistan expert, but on my map that is not in FATA. It is a short commute from the capital of the country. The house was right next to a top military academy.
If openly supporting the perpetrators of 9/11 is what Pakistan needs to do in order to 'ensure that these areas don't radicalise more' then I wonder for whose benefit Pakistan is doing this wonderful thing. Certainly not New York's... probably just the government of Pakistan, actually. What do I care, if that government also would like me to die, whether it considers some villagers to be radical?
Lese-majeste sucks, but seriously - buying Thai parts through Japanese companies is hardly comparable to harboring and feeding intelligence to the perpetrators of 9/11 in order to maintain the upper hand in the conflict with India.
It is easy to infiltrate the militarised border to go into Indian Kashmir for the terrorists? The Pakistani military REALLY tries to stop the infiltrators...? :-)
And so on.
I'm not an expert, but I need good references or I'll think you're a troll or writing propaganda.
Are you serious?
"In Nicaragua, the National Guard was a militia and a gendarmerie created during the occupation of that country by the United States from 1909 to 1933. It became notorious for human rights abuses and corruption under the regime of the Somoza family."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(Nicaragua)
"The United States' Joint Special Operations Command (JSOT) conducted training for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group listed by the US as a terrorist organization, journalist Seymour Hersh claims."
http://www.rt.com/news/us-terrorist-mek-intelligence-747/
"Washington, fearing the spread of Soviet influence (and worse the new government's radical example) to its allies in Pakistan, Iran and the Gulf states, immediately offered support to the Afghan mujaheddin, as the "contra" force was known."
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a86operationc...
I'm sure you're aware that the mujahheddin became Al-Quaeda.
This is just the US, because that's where the majority of the posters on this site are from. You can easily find examples of the UK & France doing the same thing. "The western countries" hands are not clean.
Also, if a country is the biggest terror sponsor on the planet, like Iran, I don't exactly feel sorry as long as civilians aren't targeted.
Edit: To be obvious, terror is worse for western governments, since they need to win elections. The idea with terrorism is to scare civilians -- it is just a place where those governments don't want to go.
Ahmadinejad has Fuck-You-Power (as in Fuck-You-Money) and he uses it. He doesn't need any Western government and doesn't care putting up with international sanctions. Whether he is doing good any good to his own country is another matter entirely.
I don't subscribe to the Western theory that Iran as a whole is a threat to anything. They see nuclear technology as both a mean to assert their military supremacy and as a way to overcome their energy issues so they go for it regardless of what other countries think of it. Right now, Nuclear weapons are still used by "strong" countries to impose their supremacy.
Look at Israel. That problem is unmanageable. I strongly believe that if Iran had Nuclear power, Israel would play much lower profile in the region and discuss equitably how to settle the issues over there.
A couple of things I wish to add: the balance of power must shift. Nobody likes living in a world that is biased toward a small group of "leading" countries. Nuclear power is like the instant disruption factor in the balance of power. An alternative is a slow and painful fight between countries such as what happens between Israel and their neighbouring countries.
