yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
I'm not taking anything personally, would have put a gun in my mouth years ago if I took P&N seriously. I'm not misjudging your bias, which is demonstrably pro-India in the past. I'm not saying it to be insulting, but it's fairly obvious that your views on Pakistan are practically predetermined.Originally posted by: athithi
Why are you taking this so personally? My post clearly indicates this is just my opinion. You are (mis)judging my motives, instead of my opinions.
I implied nothing of the sort, and that doesn't really say much for your reading comprehension. I said the religious right, aka the fundamentalists, threaten the nation's stability. It's all well and good to tar everyone with the same brush, but in reality there's a significant difference between Musharraf in charge, and some mullah who rides a wave of popular sentiment into power with promise to stop bowing down to the West. Sure, I'd rather have the army in charge given those choices. But to get that out of what I did say is a remarkable feat of the imagination.Politics and Army are indistinguishable in Pakistan. That he has never been political means absolutely nothing in the context of Pakistan. He has always been army. The fundamentalists, the ISI and Pakistani Army ALL threaten not just Pakistan's stability, but that of the entire region. It's sad to see you imply that somehow having the Army in charge of Pakistan has been a 'good idea as believed by people in their right minds'. It's not.
Okay, so speak it - elements of the ISI and the army are radicals themselves. Decades of sham democracy put Pakistan on the brink of bankruptcy in 1999, care of the duly elected kleptocrats. What do you wish to see done? Speak it, and let's see how practical your ideas are.Good job, Don Quixote. I did not ask Musharraf to dismantle the ISI. If anything, I claimed a distinction between the position of the President of Pakistan and Musharraf the individual. That Musharraf does not have the power to control the ISI is only a stark reminder of how the current role of the President of Pakistan is indeed NOT the right way for the country to go (you are really good at debates...with yourself!)
I don't know how you can debate that which is easily independently verified, but okay. Point is, you're wholly incorrect that Musharraf is "prolonging the war between the West and the fundamentalists until a day comes when the fundamentalists can take on the full-force of the West on their own". You don't combat poverty and illiteracy, try to move the populace towards recognizing Israel, try to raise the status of women and deploy tens of thousands of troops into active campaigns against your own people because he "actually believes in backing the fundamentalists".Woo Hoo! Linkfest! Sorry, I'm not playing that game. We'll just end up debating how biased the sources themselves are :roll: But just on the content though, why are you trying to prove that Musharraf is not pure evil? I never claimed he was
The American line of thought is to "spread democracy". Musharraf's very position as "El Presidente and Grandoise Dictator for Life" of Pakistan fighting for the American line of though is a paradox.
As I've said before,
You've got proof otherwise, I'd honestly like to see it.