If the goal of Radical Islam is?

[Pangloss]

If there's one thing I'm clearly not, it's a "blind ideologue". (chuckle)

[Rebiu]

If there's one thing I'm clearly not, it's a "blind ideologue". (chuckle)

I agree. However you statement was clearly unrealistic.

[Rebiu]

Where do you get your information?

That is much more than simply stating that the CIA funded foreign fighters. (Incidentially the CIA never funded the Taliban anyway.)

I said foreign fighters not the Taliban. Former CIA director Robert Gates admitted memoirs that aid to the rebels in Afghanistan began in June 1979. President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul on July 3, 1979

[Rebiu]

For the entirety of Pakistans existence the USA has ben allied to Pakistan. It has favoured Pakistan in its disputes with India and provided military and economic assistance. The sanctions imposed on Pakistan after it exploded a nuclear bomb were less than the sanctions imposed on India when it did the same.

 

Where is this discrimination against Pakistan? You are simply wrong on this point.

The Pakistani I knew in college expressed great anger that the US had sanctioned Pakistan for the nuclear weapons program when India already had one. I do not know you sources of information but mine say there was a great deal of resentment for this perceived bias towards India. Perhaps you feel that presenting the situation out of context strengthens you position. The United States punished Pakistan for trying to gain parity with a far superior military of India.

[Aardvark]

I said foreign fighters not the Taliban. Former CIA director Robert Gates admitted memoirs that aid to the rebels in Afghanistan began in June 1979.

 

Which is exactly what i posted. That is why i mentioned the Taliban as an 'incidental' point.

 

You still haven't answered my original objection to your bizarre claim that it was the actions of the USA that destabilised the region and allowed the Taliban to take over.

[Aardvark]

The Pakistani I knew in college expressed great anger that the US had sanctioned Pakistan for the nuclear weapons program when India already had one.

 

You base your opinion on Pakistani-USA relations on the

basis of one Pakistani you meet in college?!?! Please tell me you are joking.

 

I do not know you sources of information but mine say there was a great deal of resentment for this perceived bias towards India.

 

Check the facts. Ever since the creation of Pakistan the USA has been a supportive ally of Pakistan. In conflicts with India the USA has been sympathetic to Pakistan rather than India. Those are facts. The USA has consistently been biased TOWARD Pakistan and against India.

 

 

Perhaps you feel that presenting the situation out of context strengthens you position.

 

I am the one putting this situation into context. The context of Pakistan-US relations since 1947. Over which time the USA has been consistently supportive of Pakistan.

 

 

The United States punished Pakistan for trying to gain parity with a far superior military of India.

 

The USA briefly applied minor sanctions against Pakistan when it exploded a nuclear bomb in violation of its agreements and promises. Those minor sanctions were rapidly lifted. When India exploded a nuclear bomb the USA applied harsher sanctions.

 

As you can see if you bother to check the facts, the USA has been consistently biased in favour of Pakistan.

 

If you are going to be making statements to the contary on the basis of what some random Pakistani you meet in college told you then please don't bother. Go and check the actual facts, then you might have something of value to add to this discussion.

[Rebiu]

You base your opinion on Pakistani-USA relations on the

basis of one Pakistani you meet in college?!?! Please tell me you are joking.

How many Pakistani did you talk to?

Check the facts. Ever since the creation of Pakistan the USA has been a supportive ally of Pakistan. In conflicts with India the USA has been sympathetic to Pakistan rather than India. Those are facts. The USA has consistently been biased TOWARD Pakistan and against India.

I can tell by the way they have let Bin Laden go Bin Laden goes free.

I am the one putting this situation into context. The context of Pakistan-US relations since 1947. Over which time the USA has been consistently supportive of Pakistan.

Not from the perspective of how the Pakistani feel about the US actions.

The USA briefly applied minor sanctions against Pakistan when it exploded a nuclear bomb in violation of its agreements and promises. Those minor sanctions were rapidly lifted. When India exploded a nuclear bomb the USA applied harsher sanctions.

Yes the US punished India' date=' who was working with the enemy, while their benefactor helped them develop the bomb. The US not only does not help Pakistan with nuclear technology they sanction there ally in the contest for dominance of the region.

As you can see if you bother to check the facts, the USA has been consistently biased in favour of Pakistan.

You should treat you allies better. The US treated Pakistan worse then their benefactors treated them by far. Like I said "no context"

 

If you are going to be making statements to the contary on the basis of what some random Pakistani you meet in college told you then please don't bother. Go and check the actual facts' date=' then you might have something of value to add to this discussion.[/quote']I am waiting for you superior sources.

[Aardvark]

How many Pakistani did you talk to?

 

Funnily enough i base my opinions about international affairs on more than conversations with random people i meet.

 

I can tell by the way they have let Bin Laden go Bin Laden goes free.[/url']

 

Well done. A completely irrelevant aside than does nothing to refute my point.

 

Not from the perspective of how the Pakistani feel about the US actions.

 

How about the perspective of FACTS. How about the perspective of the actual actions made by the USA. How about the perspective of history?

 

Or don't those perspectives fit convientently with your opinion formed by talking to one random Pakistani?

 

Yes the US punished India, who was working with the enemy,

 

Enemy? What are you talking about now?

 

while their benefactor helped them develop the bomb. ,

 

What benefactor? India developed the bomb on its own.

 

I'm starting to get the impression that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

The US not only does not help Pakistan with nuclear technology

 

Because the USA is a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation pact. And also, presumably because the USA doesn't approve of the idea of a nuclear war breaking out on the Indian sub continent. Weird huh?

 

they sanction there ally in the contest for dominance of the region.You should treat you allies better.

 

You really think that the USA should encourage all of its allies to develop nuclear weapons? You honestly think that is a good idea?

 

 

The US treated Pakistan worse then their benefactors treated them by far.

 

That sentence appears to have no meaning. What 'benefactors'? Who are you talking about. And in what way does decades of economic and military assistance count as treating Pakistan badly?

 

Could you actually put forward some real facts and evidence to support your contentions?

 

Like I said "no context"

 

Other than the context of history? Or the context of USA-Pakistan relations since 1947?

 

Or perhaps you don't actually understand what the word 'context' means? It dosn't seem like you do.

 

I am waiting for you superior sources.

 

I'm putting forward facts which are in the public domain. If you can contradict a single assertion of mine then please do. So far all you have been able to state is that a Pakistani you meet in college thought the USA was bias against Pakistan. That's pretty pathetic.

[Rebiu]

Funnily enough i base my opinions about international affairs on more than conversations with random people i meet.

I will take that to mean none

[Aardvark]

I will take that to mean none

 

And if you do you are wrong.

 

And i note that you haven't attempted to refute any of my statements. I will take that to mean that you can't.

[Rebiu]

And if you do you are wrong.

 

And i note that you haven't attempted to refute any of my statements. I will take that to mean that you can't.

Enemy? What are you talking about now?

Try this

Nuclear Sub

 

And this

Missiles

 

And this

Power plants

 

and this

Arms supplies.

 

And this

Balistic Missiles

 

and this

Powerplants and arms shipments.

 

India was supported by Russia in its endeavors to develope and deploy nuclear weapons. Get it yet.

[mooeypoo]

Yaknow, you've already answered a question, and even filled it with research and links, and you just had to finish with a cynical innapropriate patronization.

 

You should learn to debate, friend.

 

~moo

[Rebiu]

Check the facts. Ever since the creation of Pakistan the USA has been a supportive ally of Pakistan. In conflicts with India the USA has been sympathetic to Pakistan rather than India. Those are facts. The USA has consistently been biased TOWARD Pakistan and against India.

 

 

 

If you are going to be making statements to the contary on the basis of what some random Pakistani you meet in college told you then please don't bother. Go and check the actual facts' date=' then you might have something of value to add to this discussion.[/quote']"During the ‘60s, the United States and Canada provided India the CIRUS research reactor, but they did so

under weak controls. Later, India misused the facility to produce plutonium for its 1974 nuclear test."U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. You call that treating Pakistan better.

[Aardvark]

India was supported by Russia in its endeavors to develope and deploy nuclear weapons.

 

As i had stated myself. So what?

 

Get it yet.

 

Still haven't refuted any of my points regarding the USA bias toward Pakistan, when you have been asserting the opposite.

 

Is that because you can't? Perhaps you should stop skirting around the issue with irrelevant asides and diversions and actually engage in debate.

 

Or perhaps you don't get it?

[Aardvark]

"During the ‘60s' date=' the United States and Canada provided India the CIRUS research reactor, but they did so

under weak controls. Later, India misused the facility to produce plutonium for its 1974 nuclear test."U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. You call that treating Pakistan better.

 

Yes.

 

Providing a civilian reactor under the 'Atoms for Peace' project, to India hardly counts as being unfriendly to Pakistan.

 

What was that about context you mentioned? Raising random points without any context seems to be your speciality.

 

Still waiting for you to attempt to refute any of my points.

 

Still waiting.

[Rebiu]

Yes.

 

Providing a civilian reactor under the 'Atoms for Peace' project' date=' to India hardly counts as being unfriendly to Pakistan.

 

What was that about context you mentioned? Raising random points without any context seems to be your speciality.

 

Still waiting for you to attempt to refute any of my points.

 

Still waiting.[/quote']So the criteria changes from not giving preferential treatment to not being unfriendly. Please the US facilitated Indias nuclear developement and left Pakistan in the cold. Conclusive proof provided. You may delude yourself but the Pakistani people know the truth and hate the US for it.

[Aardvark]

So the criteria changes from not giving preferential treatment to not being unfriendly.

 

Nope, no criteria change. The USA has consistently been biased toward Pakistan and given it preferential treatment. As you would know if you based your opinions on facts rather than conversations with random people.

 

 

Please the US facilitated Indias nuclear developement and left Pakistan in the cold. Conclusive proof provided.

 

Providing assistance under the 'Atoms for Peace' Programme to India in the 1960's hardly counts as 'leaving Pakistan in the cold'. That programme was deliberately designed to encourage PEACEFUL uses of nuclear technology. When India started to develop a nuclear bomb the USA cut off assistance and then applied sanctions. Again, hardly leaving Pakistan 'in the cold'. The USA also increased military assistance to Pakistan. Again, hardly leaving Pakistan 'in the cold'.

 

You may delude yourself but the Pakistani people know the truth and hate the US for it.

 

The facts clearly show that the USA has consistently been supportive of Pakistan. If you persist in insisting otherwise it is clear that you are the deluded one. You are simply wrong on this matter. Accept it, get over it, move on.