Pakistan: An Enemy Regime


Pages: 1 2

What would you call a country that employs terrorism as part of its foreign policy, that allows its intelligence agencies to coordinate attacks on U.S. forces, that purposely outs CIA agents operating in its territory, that provides support to groups that wage bloody attacks on its neighbors, that participates and even bankrolls attacks on U.S. embassies and U.S. bases, that allows its army to ambush U.S. troops, that cedes its territory to America’s enemies, that knowingly, even willfully, provides safe haven to the most-wanted, most-notorious terrorist in history?

Most people would call that country an enemy, and they would be right. This enemy regime is better known as Pakistan, and it receives some $2 billion in American aid annually.

For a while, in the early days of the post-9/11 campaign against terror, Pakistan changed its ways and behaved like an ally. It wasn’t easy. After all, Islamabad had helped spawn the Taliban in Afghanistan. But an enraged superpower can be very persuasive. Hours after the 9/11 attacks, Washington warned Pakistan to get on board, get out of the way or “be prepared to be bombed…be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.”

The government of Pervez Musharraf got the message and sided with the United States—for a while.

Then came phase two of Pakistan’s post-9/11 relationship with the United States. This second phase—call it the “frenemy phase”—was marked by cooperation in some areas and duplicity in others. For instance, hundreds of Pakistani troops died fighting the Taliban and its al Qaeda partners, and a high percentage of NATO’s equipment in Afghanistan was carried into the landlocked country via Pakistan. But all the while, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) was hatching plots against the post-Taliban government of Afghanistan, arming people who wanted to kill American troops, and providing training to groups with designs on destabilizing India and Afghanistan.

In this frenemy phase, Pakistan was not a black-and-white problem, but rather a gray area.

If the frenemy phase of the relationship didn’t end on May 1—when SEAL Team 6 found Osama bin Laden “hiding” in a mansion just outside Pakistan’s capital, in a city that serves as host to the Pakistani military academy—then it certainly is over now.

Today, we know that “with ISI support,” in the words of Adm. Michael Mullen, Haqqani operatives in Afghanistan have planned and conducted truck bomb attacks on U.S. and NATO bases, assaults on the U.S. embassy, and deadly attacks on commercial and government facilities in Kabul. The ISI-backed Haqqani network is responsible for the 2009 attack on a CIA base in Afghanistan, which killed seven CIA operatives. According to The International Herald Tribune, ISI’s “S Wing” is helping coordinate Taliban operations in southern Afghanistan.
In other words, Pakistan has now come full circle. It supported terrorist groups in Afghanistan before 9/11 in pursuit of its own craven interests, and it has returned to what it knows best.

Pages: 1 2

  • Chezwick_mac

    I recently proposed cutting aid to Pakistan and selling arms to India…and was told by one rabid interlocutor that my recommendations were "ludicrous". This is the kind of hyperbole that makes rational discourse impossible.

    I'd certainly understand an adjective like ludicrous if I'd advocated nuking Pakistan, for example. But I didn't. I proposed modest, rational steps.

    Rome wasn't built in a day folks. My recommendations were/are based upon the political realities of our age,…upon what is possible, particularly considering the mindset of who occupies the White House.

    The possibility that this Administration would invade Pakistan and destroy its nuclear arsenal is virtually nil. Such expectations reside only in the wet dreams of someone with a teetering grasp on reality. But Obama has already briefly suspended some aid to Pakistan and further aid cuts are a very real possibility.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      I recently proposed cutting aid to Pakistan and selling arms to India…and was told by one rabid interlocutor that my recommendations were "ludicrous". This is the kind of hyperbole that makes rational discourse impossible.

      I'd certainly understand an adjective like ludicrous if I'd advocated nuking Pakistan, for example. But I didn't. I proposed modest, rational steps.

      Once a leftist always a delusional leftist, as you leftists don't have an intellectually honest bone in your unhinged bodies. Not only that, but you leftists also can't rationalize without resorting to emoting or hyperbole.

      In any event, your modest, rational steps amounted to continuing to deny reality in order to continue deluding ourselves that Pakistan, an Islamic state, can be our friend and ally, and that idea is indeed ludicrous because it is based off of the ludicrous and demonstrably false assumption that Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. If you want to continue to believe in that ludicrous and demonstrably false assumption and to be a ludicrous useful idiot forever at the same time, then by all means more power to you.

      The possibility that this Administration would invade Pakistan and destroy its nuclear arsenal is virtually nil. Such expectations reside only in the wet dreams of someone with a teetering grasp on reality. But Obama has already briefly suspended some aid to Pakistan and further aid cuts are a very real possibility.

      Here's my teetering grasp to reality: the truth is if the Islamic state of Pakistan is allowed to continue to retain its nuclear weapons arsenal and nuclear program with impunity, as you senselessly and naively advocate, it will not only proliferate nuclear weapons to Iran as it already did, but also throughout the Islamic world as well.

      Hence, the issue couldn't be more black and white or cut and dried, ether we dispense with Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal and nuclear programs, are otherwise prepare to live in a world whereby the Islamic world becomes armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, making WWIII, which will make WWII seem like a pleasant picnic in the park, inevitable in the not too distant future.

  • StephenD

    Staying with the practical approach as recommended by Chezwick_mac, may I point out the international working relationships America has with India all ready. There are multiple American firms working in India. We share a common problem with terrorists that, truly, Pahk -ee-stahn (as Obama would pronounce it) does not. It is obvious that we should be cajoling India rather than Pakistan. India, joined with America and Israel may well be the best neutralizer in the upcoming "Arab Winter" which will be when the M.B. steps out from the shadows in its bid to dominate all these countries in revolt.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    In this frenemy phase, Pakistan was not a black-and-white problem, but rather a gray area.

    Maybe for you, but for people not blinded by political correctness, Pakistan has always been a perfectly black and white problem. It is an Islamic state and therefore like all Islamic states it is our enemy and the enemy of all non-Muslim unbelievers. Indeed, it doesn't get anymore black and white or cut and dried than that.

    We are also not gullible enough to believe that the Islamic world can be democratized, because unlike neo-cons and delusional leftists we understand what Islam really is, which is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology diametrically opposed to democracy and freedom.

    In light of all of Pakistan's perfidy and betrayals that must not go unavenged, my question is why aren't we already invading Pakistan and hitting them where it hurts the most, that is by destroying their nuclear weapons arsenal and all their nuclear facilities as well? Indeed, if we don't, mark my word, we will live to regret it.

    With respect to Pakistan's government being dysfunctional, the government has never been dysfunctional. Instead, it is successfully exploiting the false politically correct myths that pervades America's foreign policy to dupe gullible and incompetent American officials and military officers.

    undermining an independent, democratic, civilized Afghanistan.

    In the face of reality, the writer needs to explain how he can consider an Islamic Sharia state that routinely executes blasphemers and apostates to death to be independent, democratic, and civilized? It's not and because it is a Sharia state, it is also our eternal enemy even as we stupidly prop it up. What I would like to know is if the writer of this garbage is really that mentally incompetent or is he deliberately trying to cover up for those responsible for getting us in this fiasco?

    After ten years of trying, it’s clear that America cannot change Pakistan.

    Wow…it is just becoming clear to you now? Damn…all we had to do was follow the first rule of war, which is to know our enemies as well as we know ourselves and this entire fiasco would have been avoided altogether.

  • maturin20

    To answer your first paragraph, I call that country "the USA."

  • ObamaYoMoma

    You're a snake-oil salesman (Saddam Hussein would save the world from Jihad)

    Had the first Bush administration not been an enormous Islamopanderer exactly as the second Bush administration was also as well, it would have conveniently used a secular Saddam as an expedient proxy to unwittingly seriously cripple the perpetual global jihad by green lighting Saddam's invasion of Saudi Arabia instead of ousting him from Kuwait like a gullible useful idiot.

    Indeed, had Bush taken that course of action instead, not only would the 9/11 jihad attacks not have ever occurred, but the threat emanating from the global jihad today, which is astronomically far greater than any threat that could have ever emanated from Saddam, would be practically nil. If that is snake oil and too hard and complicated for your delusional leftist mind to grasp, then I can't help the fact that you are mentally incompetent.

    You're a liar (You got the idea from Robert Spencer)

    No, you are a liar. I already clarified that the idea came from his website as the issue was thoroughly debated and discussed in a thread on his website. Not only that, but the preponderance of the participants far and away agreed with the prospect of green lighting Saddam's invasion of Saudi Arabia as opposed to ousting Saddam out of Kuwait. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. Nevertheless, unlike you, most of the participants were right thinking conservatives not addicted to emoting the same way you leftist are.

    You're a coward (You'd rather Obama be re-elected than a Republican because you don't have the stomach for a protracted fight and you prefer a "quick death")

    Again, you are lying. I said I would not hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils only so a leftwing Republican could win, because that is exactly how the left managed to hijack and co-opt the Republican Party and turn it into the second coming of the Dhimmicrat Party. Which is exactly why the Dhimmicrats won both houses of Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008 in what was a conservative backlash against the Republican Party.

    Indeed, I'm a conservative first and foremost and I will not ever hold my nose and compromise my values to vote for any candidate unless that candidate meets my personal litmus test, and if you don't like it, then sue me. In fact, I didn't vote for McCain in 2008 and if another leftwing Republican wins the party nomination again this time around, guess what, I won't vote again. Sue me!

    The funniest thing is, – with all this stupidity, you think you're some kind of guru.

    Not believing fantasy based assumptions and demonstrably false political correct myths about Islam doesn't make one a guru. It just makes me exponentially more rational than you.

  • Chezwick_mac

    Anatomy of a blatant lie…

    CHEZWICK: By all means, advance your theory [about supporting Saddam's conquest of the Gulf states] to ROBERT SPENCER. See what he says about it." (Notice folks, I didn't write "Jihad watch", I wrote ROBERT SPENCER)

    YOMAMA: "Where do you think I got it."

    Now, the man claims he never referred to Robert Spencer at all. This is a blatant lie.

    No doubt, if I got Robert to openly repudiate his bizarre theory, he'd insist that ROBERT is a delusional, PC, leftist!
    ——————————————————————————

    Ramblings of a coward who prefers Obama because he doesn't want a long, hard slog and would prefer a quick death for our country…

    YOMAMA: "Actually, I'm MORE APPALLED AT THE HIJACKING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BY THE LEFT THAN I AM OBAMA."

    and….

    YOMAMA: "America is going to die either way. A fast and quick death is more appealing to me."

    So there you have it folks. Granted, the Republican Party has some pronounced defects,, but this fool actually prefers Obama….in his own words.

    And he thinks he's the smartest kid on the block.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    If you are not a delusional leftist still addicted to emoting, then why do you always abandon the topic of conversation and instead attempt to divert attention by always falsely accusing me of lying?

    Anatomy of a blatant lie…

    CHEZWICK: By all means, advance your theory [about supporting Saddam's conquest of the Gulf states] to ROBERT SPENCER. See what he says about it." (Notice folks, I didn't write "Jihad watch", I wrote ROBERT SPENCER)

    YOMAMA: "Where do you think I got it."

    Now, the man claims he never referred to Robert Spencer at all. This is a blatant lie.

    You deliberately left out the post where I warned you not to put words in my mouth. Indeed, I never said I got it from Robert's advocacy, but instead from his website. You are the one that said I got it from Robert's advocacy. Not me, I never said that and warned you not to put words in my mouth that I never uttered.

    No doubt, if I got Robert to openly repudiate his bizarre theory, he'd insist that ROBERT is a delusional, PC, leftist!

    Fat chance! Robert Spencer is a true conservative unlike you. Hence, he is not addicted to emoting the same way you are. As a matter of fact, unlike you he doesn't continue believing fantasy based assumptions and demonstrably false political correct myths about Islam in the face of overwhelming evidence. Instead, he exposes those fantasy based assumptions and demonstrably false political correct myths that you continue to cling to like a loon to the light of day via his many books, numerous articles, and his website.

    Perhaps if you spent more of your time on Spencer's jihadwatch.org website and far less time over here emoting and making a fool out of yourself like a loon, you would learn something about Islam instead of continuing to cling to absurd fantasy based assumptions and demonstrably false political correct myths like an unhinged leftwing moonbat.

    Anyway, do you still insist that a secular Saddam with his 1950s era Soviet military and untrained Shi'a conscript army that hated Saddam's guts far worse than they hated Saddam's enemies would still represent an existential threat exponentially far greater than the global jihad does today?

    Finally, what does falsely accusing me of lying have to do with my response to your unhinged posts other than demonstrating again your addiction to emoting? Indeed, once a leftist, always a leftist.

    Ramblings of a coward who prefers Obama because he doesn't want a long, hard slog and would prefer a quick death for our country…

    YOMAMA: "Actually, I'm MORE APPALLED AT THE HIJACKING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BY THE LEFT THAN I AM OBAMA."

    and….

    YOMAMA: "America is going to die either way. A fast and quick death is more appealing to me."

    So there you have it folks. Granted, the Republican Party has some pronounced defects,, but this fool actually prefers Obama….in his own words.

    With respect to the first quote, I still stand by it, and it was in response to one of your absurd assertions in any event. Regarding the second quote, it was in response to your comment with respect to the large amount of debt accumulated under GWB relative to the large amount of debt accumulated by Obama, as either way, they are both bankrupting the country, only Obama is doing it slightly faster than GWB. To which I responded that a fast and quick death is more appealing to me than a slow and lingering death.

    Indeed, you were trying to convince me to compromise my values by holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils for the sake of electing a Republican, even if that Republican was a delusional leftist like you, but nonetheless that is something I absolutely refuse to do.

    So how is that a lie again?

    And he thinks he's the smartest kid on the block.

    Obviously, I'm much smarter than you simply because I'm not addicted to emoting. Indeed, once a leftist, always a leftist.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    It's a terrible thing being held accountable for your own words. How you squirm and prevaricate…no one put words in your mouth. I said "Robert Spencer"…

    You can't even hold yourself accountable, much less hold me accountable. Don't humor yourself.

    You couldn't, so you changed your tune and claimed you never said it in the first place….because you're not man enough to say "I made a mistake"

    Not because I couldn't but instead because I wouldn't. There is a difference, and where did I claim I never said it in the first place? You must be smoking crack! Indeed, you left out the best part where you became so consumed with emoting that you inadvertently conceded the debate. Then you asked me to document it, but it was too late, you had already conceded the debate. Thus, like an adolescent you have been repeatedly attempting to goad me into documenting it ever since, but I'd rather keep you frustrated and pissed off instead, because I get a kick out of getting under your skin since you make it so easy.

    It's a terrible thing being held accountable for your own words. How you squirm and prevaricate…no one put words in your mouth. I said "Robert Spencer"…

    You can't even hold yourself accountable, much less hold me accountable. Don't humor yourself.

    You couldn't, so you changed your tune and claimed you never said it in the first place….because you're not man enough to say "I made a mistake"

    Not because I couldn't but instead because I wouldn't. There is a difference, and where did I claim I never said it in the first place? You must be smoking crack! Indeed, you left out the best part where you became so consumed with emoting that you inadvertently conceded the debate. Then you asked me to document it, but it was too late, you had already conceded the debate. Thus, like an adolescent you have been repeatedly attempting to goad me into documenting it ever since, but I'd rather keep you frustrated and pissed off instead, because I get a kick out of getting under your skin since you make it so easy.

    As for the second quote, I didn't call a liar then, I called you a coward…eager to lay down instead of fighting to the bitter end. You've just reconfirmed your cowardice.

    Okay, a coward rather than a liar. You must forgive me, your post are so childish and immature that I refuse to read them anymore than I have to in order to avoid brain damage.

    Meanwhile, if refusing to compromise my values by refusing to hold my nose in order to vote for the lesser of two evils just so a leftwing Republican can win, then you can call me a coward everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

    I'll make a deal with you,…let's get Robert's opinion on your Saddam theory…if he sides with you, I will apologize in abject humility. If he shoots your theory down, admit that you don't know a thing about geo-politics.

    So according to you Robert is going to agree with you because like you he still clings to the same absurd political correct myths you do, such as Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists? Don't humor yourself, he is one of the biggest voices in the world declaring that canard to be a political correct myth. Like I said, you should spin far more of your time on his jihadwatch.org website, instead of repeatedly making a fool out of yourself over here. Maybe you would learn something.

    iAs for the second quote, I didn't call a liar then, I called you a coward…eager to lay down instead of fighting to the bitter end. You've just reconfirmed your cowardice.

    Okay, a coward rather than a liar. You must forgive me, your post are so childish and immature that I refuse to read them anymore than I have to in order to avoid brain damage.

    Meanwhile, if refusing to compromise my values by refusing to hold my nose in order to vote for the lesser of two evils just so a leftwing Republican can win, then you can call me a coward everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

    I'll make a deal with you,…let's get Robert's opinion on your Saddam theory…if he sides with you, I will apologize in abject humility. If he shoots your theory down, admit that you don't know a thing about geo-politics.

    So according to you Robert is going to agree with you because like you he still clings to the same absurd political correct myths you do, such as Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists? Don't humor yourself, he is one of the biggest voices in the world declaring that canard to be a political correct myth. Like I said, you should spin far more of your time on his jihadwatch.org website, instead of repeatedly making a fool out of yourself over here. Maybe you would learn something.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    You're an idiot. When did I EVER say "Islam is a religion of peace"? I've always maintained Islam is theologically and historically a violent faith. Totally straw man argument.

    Wow…watch those leftist emotions. They are getting the better of you as always. Of course, I never said you said it. Nonetheless, whether you realize it or not, you insinuate and imply it all the time. For instance, you continue to hold on to the notion that Muslims can be neatly packaged into so-called moderate camps and so-called radical camps, which is a corollary paradigm based off of the same Islam is a Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists canard, which is a demonstrably false political correct myth.

    Indeed, if you don't believe me, then read your own stupid and idiotic posts with respect to Pakistan's government, as they strongly indicate that you are blinded by political correctness. Not to mention that in other posts as well you have also upheld the notion that Muslims can be moderates, which is totally absurd since Islam unlike true faith-based religions forbids the freedom of conscience and thus any Muslim that rejects the holy obligation to fight jihad in the cause of Allah against unbelievers to make Islam supreme, whether by violent or non-violent jihad, is not a moderate Muslim or even a Muslim at all as you ignorantly surmise, but instead a blasphemous apostate that per the dictates of Islam must be executed. Now, this is not to say that all blasphemous apostates get executed, as fortunately most of them are smart enough to keep their mouths shut and to act like they are devout Muslims.

    Your mistake as I have already pointed out to you to no avail is you continue to ignorantly view Islam as being a faith. However, Islam is antithetical to faith as it requires total, complete, and unconditional submission to the will Allah. Indeed, the word Islam in Arabic means “to submit” and the word Muslim in Arabic means “one who submits.” Thus, in stark contrast to faith-based religions where adherents are perfectly free to question and even challenge the texts and tenets of their respective religions and to even leave their respective religions or convert to another religion altogether if they so desire, in Islam, on the other hand, because the freedom of conscience is forbidden, those same actions, blasphemy in the first instance and apostasy in the second, are both capital offenses.

    Hence, you can call it a straw man argument all you want, but nevertheless your posts are self-evident. Indeed, read them yourself.

    Additionally, I'm sorry but Islam is not a faith. It's a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology more than it is anything else. So learn to stop equating Islam with true faith-based religions because it is an invalid comparison. Hell, you would do far better to equate it with other similar totalitarian ideologies such as Communism that also seeks world domination. As a matter of fact, the end result of both Communism and Islam is the same: totalitarianism.

    But I know something about state-craft and geo-politics. And I know you divide and conquer your enemy, you don't unite him on top of a sea of oil on the technicality that a megalomaniac is a "secularist".

    Dude, you lost that argument already. Get over it. Indeed, because you are addicted to emoting, you emoted and inadvertently conceded that debate. Get over it and grow up. In addition, I hate to rain on your idiotic parade, but you don't know crap about geopolitics. Hell, you don't even know how to spell it.

    You see, you're a simpleton. You think "secularist, goooood"…"fundamentalist, baaaaad"….violating your own axiom that there are no moderate Muslims.

    Actually, only a simpleton could write something so ambiguous. Hell, the above is so ambiguous that no one and certainly not me can even decipher what it is you are trying to say, imply, or insinuate.

    The House of Saud is fundamentalist, but it is corrupt, innately cautious, and diffused. It's trillions are squandered on supporting the lavish lifestyles of thousands of princelings. But you want to take ALL THE WEALTH of the Arabian peninusula, unite it with Iraq, and put it under the control of a single autocrat with megalomaniacal ambitions.

    Again, I'm sorry but you already conceded that old and tired debate. Get over it. And you are no authority on the House of Saud in any event, so don't delude yourself!

    You're very deep.

    Thanks for the compliment, but nevertheless you are the one that childishly keeps rehashing tired and old debates that you already lost and you are the one that can't stop emoting by falsely accusing me of lying because you apparently can't deal with being challenged and losing debates.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Sorry dude, claiming victory after being routed time and again is just one more of your adolescent proclivities. I feel a bit guilty every time I beat up on you…but you always come back for more.

    Don't humor yourself. Anyone can go back and easily see what an enormous fool you made out of yourself each and every time you lost a debate to me. Also your leftwing proclivity for emoting as opposed to rationalizing is also extremely apparent as well.

    For instance, look how fast you abandoned the original topic of this debate and reverted to rehashing old debates that you had already lost or in inadvertently conceded like a fool. Indeed, please explain again why should we continue to delude ourselves that the Islamic state of Pakistan can be a loyal friend and ally to the USA? In fact, via US foreign aid to Pakistan we have already been funding the jihad they have been waging against us for the past 10 years, yet you still can't figure it out.

    Meanwhile, at the same time they have also increased their nuclear stockpile enormously and they have far and away more nuclear weapons than what is necessary to destroy India many times over, indicating that they have ulterior motives.

    Not to mention that they face absolutely no threat from India whatsoever, as India is a Westernized democracy that doesn't threaten its neighbors. Now, on the other hand, similar to the jihad being waged permanently against the Jewish unbelievers in Israel by the Islamic world, the Hindu unbelievers in India are also facing a permanent jihad being waged perpetually against them as well mainly via Pakistani based Muslim jihadists. Hence, Pakistan's nukes aren't for defensive purposes but instead for offensive purposes. Indeed, you could take away all of Pakistan's nukes today and it still would not face a threat emanating from India.

    As for making assertions, being asked asked to back them up, and then claiming you never made them, it's really something you need to work on.

    Okay, put your money where your mouth is, exactly where did I say that you said Islam is a Religion of
    Peace™?

    I hope you've benefited from this experience. Perhaps you've now learned that you have to actually know what you're talking about in order to convey a convincing argument.

    Are you delusional? Take your meds.

    Hopefully, you'll figure out in time that rigid formulas are not a viable means for extrapolating effective policy (e.g., Saddam would save the world from Jihad on the technicality that he was a secularist).

    As for as rehashing that old and tired debate in which you stupidly and inadvertently conceded because you let your emotions get the best of you after I deliberately goaded you, sorry Bud but like I keep having to remind you, you already lost that debate. Hence you can whine and cry about it all you want, but it won't change the facts.

    Also, learn a little humility, amigo….you're not the smartest kid on the block. Once you grasp that, you'll be a better human being.

    I never claimed to be. However, fortunately I'm not addicted to emoting like you. Indeed, once a leftist, always a leftist.