5 ms·
...and the US government does and always has supported the right wingers in Pakistan who are bemoaned in this article. Who do you think the US supported - the
by firstOrder 13y ago
...and the US government does and always has supported the right wingers in Pakistan who are bemoaned in this article. Who do you think the US supported - the PPP and the Bhuttos? The PPP, whose founding manifesto was written by the self-described communist Jalaludin Abdur Rahim? These right wing ISI generals and military establishment with ties to religious fundamentalism have always been who the US backed - going back to the 1960s and up to today.
Also, speaking of the boogeyman of Osama bin Laden, Pakistan never could have afforded to back bin Laden and the nascent Taliban and Al Qaeda. It's the US who bankrolled the mujahideen's war against Afghanistan's PDPA government, and sent billions of dollars to flow through ISI's hands into the madrassas in an attempt to oust the secular PDPA government from Afghanistan.
Nothing has changed either. The US government still backs, as it has always backed, governments like Saudi Arabia, a country where women can't drive, and opposed secular, vaguely pan-Arab socialist Nasserite governments like Libya, Iraq and Syria.
It's a strange news article that points fingers at the people running Pakistan, as if they could successfully defy the United States. They're exactly who the US wants in there, to oppose the PPP, cause friction with India etc.
It's strange how Americans don't know that via the ISI the U.S. armed and bankrolled Osama bin Laden to help overthrow Afghanistan's secular government. Then I guess Americans were shocked to learn that bin Laden didn't appreciate the US militarily occupying his country for a decade. One well planned suicide mission solved that problem for him, when 9/11 happened, Bush withdrew troops from Saudi Arabia almost as fast as Reagan pulled troops out of Lebanon.
- tptacek 13y agoWhat does this have to do with anything? The US does not bankroll the ISI. The US is in an undeclared war with the ISI. My guess is 100% of HN readers know about the US's role in bankrolling the Afghan insurgency, using a terrible Pakastani dictator as a vector. There are no good guys in that story: the Soviet occupation was horrifically violent and repressive, and there was never any chance that the Afghani warlords who replaced them would form a just and stable government. The state of Pakistan is one of the most paranoid and aggressive in the world, owing to a longstanding and seemingly permanent conflict between their giant neighbor to the east; not least because the state of Pakistan was in part a reaction to genocidal violence against Muslim Indians. There are no good guys in the history of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now what? Prior to World War 2, the US forcibly annexed territory and orchestrated the mass murder of Native Americans. How does this factor into your consideration of Nazi Germany? If you're looking for good guys in any of these stories, you're thinking wrong.
- wdvh 13y agoPlease, Pakistan is warlike and aggressive because they have been manipulated by the US into believing they can take on India (with US support). > genocidal violence against Muslim Indians. What's this about? Partition killed as many Hindus and Sikhs as Muslims and pre-Independence India had little communal violence that wasn't explicitly fomented by the British in order to serve their own ends. If you're so well read in south asian history, you should also know that there are more muslims in India than in Pakistan and that pretty much none of them would like to switch places with their Pakistani siblings.
- tptacek 13y agoSorry, I was wrong. The government of Pakistan are the good guys.
- rrrazdan 13y agoUmm yes you are. The genocidal violence was not a one sided affair. Numerous sources say that it was instigated by the Muslim League to further their case for a separate nation. In any case, the 15 odd percent Muslims in India are proof enough that the word genocidal is not appropriate here.
- tptacek 13y agoYou can call it whatever you want. No part of my point hinges on me litigating the distinction you're trying to make.
- svenkatesh 13y agoI'm a bit lost. What genocidal violence was it, that caused the formation of the state of Pakistan?
- tptacek 13y agoYou know what, if we want to attribute the state of Pakistan and its conflict with India to the British occupation, I'm fine with that too. I'm not spoiling for an argument over this.