Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

Personally speaking, I don't think that Pakistan itself poses a real threat to the US.

Any extremists who are there do pose a threat...but not the country or government as a whole.

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

The Pakistani government needs as much support that the US can offer it to root out that danger, of course.

But even joint military excercises there between the US and Pakistan might be quite harmful to the Pakistani government.

So, logistical support including resources, I think, is the best thing that the US can do to help Pakistan fight these elements.

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

(Besides, there is the possibility that OBL isn't even in Pakistan or even Afganistan. I'm actually betting that he is in Iran...being that there is evidence that suggests Iran's limited involvement in 9/11. With all of Iran's previous actions, I wouldn't be suprised if Al Qaeda and the regime in Iran has reached an agreement, so to speak.)

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

Absolutely.. These extremists are a bigger hazard to the health and wellbeing of the indigenous people.

I agree again.. Unconditional financial support may not be the best way ( seeing as our corrupt officials are likely to pocket large sums themselves) however socio-economic development, good education and a thorough knowledge of citizen's rights is the terrorists greatest enemy. Lift the common man out of the feeling of inpotence and frustration, allow him the "pursuit of happiness", safeguard his civil rights, offer him the opportunity to work and thrive, and do NOT make his religion his IDENTITY.. well then you have a nation that will not be ruled by extremists.

Of course most of these things are to be implemented by the government itself ( which might dally in doing so since our current class of politicians are crooks one-and-all). IN ANY CASE , these developments can only take place as long as the mullahs don't have an external enemy to wage war against. If the US stays out of local politics, if it shows it is NOT a threat to our sovereignty and if it allows the indigenous culture to integrate democracy at ITS OWN PACE, then we're talkin...!

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

Well it is unlikely that Iran would be harboring OBL. Seeing as he is a fundamentalist Wahabi ( Sunni ) and Iran is Shia, the sectarian differences are in all likelinhood too great. Saudi Arabia for sintance cannot abide the thought of Iran having a nuke. They cannot accept the "SHiite Nuke". By the edicts of Sunni Islam, SHias are "apostates" and "heretics". THough their political goals ( the reduction and elimination of US hegemony) coincide, i believe their ideological differences are too great for the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" concept to take hold.

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

Some good points.

Personally, I think there exists hope for Pakistan.

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

But, is this schism so great that they hate each other more so than they hate the US?

And, if Al Qaeda isn't "on reasonable terms" with the regime in Iran, then why are there so many intelligence reports that link Al Qaeda with Iran's proxy, Hezbolla?

And, why wouldn't Iran see an agreement between themselves and Al Qeada as being at least temporarily advantageous since Al Qaeda could be just another proxy for Iran...in fact, a much more elusive and deniable proxy?

They could just as well put aside their differences while they try to force the US out of the Middle East.

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

Without a doubt. Whatever Pakistan is, it isn't in a full-blown state of war. Obviously a warzo e is less preferable.

Of course i also feel safer that you would presumably simply because this is home. I can see and undestand the nuances of behavior, and i can communicate in the local language. That goes a long way in ensuring my safety.

Well that is a function of cultural and geographical environment as well as the socio-economic status of the person concerned.

The hub of extremism in Pakistan lies in the western provinces. these provinces are primarily inhabited by the Pushtuns and Balochis. Both cultures are very patriarchal and are cultures that have developed in an environment of scarcity. Both provinces have scarce resources, little arable land, water shortages and overall less wealth than the eastern provinces.

It is a known sociological phenomenon that regions of scarcity tend to be more obsessed with lineage and inheritance rights. This is the reason for their subjugation of women. Heredity must be beyond question.

A region with scarcity also tends to breed a more fierce culture. A very good friend of mine comes from a rural background, and has in fact been shot once in an armed battle with a neighboring tribe. The men of these tribes accept the risk as a part of their life. They clearly accept that their life may be taken violently at any point in time.

However as a result of increased federal involvement, as a result of increased commerce and the slow implementation of Rule of Law, we find many young men who would be warriors for their tribe ( and make their lives accordingly) are no longer required. Yet they still have a need to battle for something. Combine this innate need for an enemy to combat with often lousy socio-economic conditions and you have a jihadi warrior.

Essentially the self-proclaimed "guardians of faith" exploit the innate tendencies of the local culture to train and develop fighters.

Even the weakest intellect, however, can see the futility of such actions. These actions make them unpopular not only abroad, but also locally. As i have stated many times, i am in more danger of dying from a suicide attack that any US citizen is. This risk factor shows int he population that is slowly but surely beginning to condemn these ideologies.

So no i have never had the opportunity to actually discuss such actions with a person who supports them. They are generally shy of the media and they find themselves incapable of dealing with questions ( often reacting violently even to verbal arguments ).

Well sectarian strife has been a constant companion through the 1400 odd years of Islam. what started essentially as a POLITICAL divide ( The Shias supported one caliph after Ali and the Sunnis another) has later developed into an ideological divide. Of course an ideological divide created social separation and the sectarian strife is essentially tribal in nature.


thanks for the welcome, but i been on this forum more than a year now