Why is the American government funding Pakistan? Why are our true-blue allies, Saudi Arabia and those sheikdoms (the U.A.E., Kuwait, Qatar, et al.), who are dripping in gold, not paying everything they can to keep Pakistan free from "extremism" by relieving its "poverty"? Why is this apparently, always and everywhere, in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Jordan, and among the Gazan Arabs and the "West Bank" Arabs, a task not for Muslims but for Infidels? Should it not be taken care of by the fabulously rich beneficiaries of the most fantastic transfer of wealth in human history, the Arab and Muslim members of OPEC? After all, is there not supposed to be loyalty, and sharing, among the members of the Umma, the Community of Believers, worldwide?
Where's that Muslim sharing? Where's that Muslim caring? Why should the American taxpayers, whose government now has obligations (see Peter Peterson's Committee) amounting to more than fifty trillion dollars, have to pay to keep Muslims in Pakistan or Iraq or Afghanistan sufficiently "prosperous" so that, in the view of the innocents who presume to protect and instruct us, they will not give rise to those "extremists" who, some devoutly believe, are the only ones we need worry about, in that colossally misleading "war on terror" we hear so much about?
Why does it have to be our money? Why does it have to be Infidel money? Why not some of the more than ten trillion dollars that the Saudis and other Muslim oil states, most of those tiny sheikdoms with populations of less than a million, have raked in without the slightest effort on their part since 1973 alone? Where's that Umma fellow-feeling? Where’s that supranational Islamic solidarity? Or is it only a loyalty to members of the Umma when they are fighting against, or perceived to be fighting against, Infidels?
Why has the American government not moved heaven and earth to make the Saudis pay and pay and pay?
In Afghanistan, as in Pakistan, as in the world, there is no end to this. One can either grasp this, and act to exploit the weaknesses in the enemy camp -- the Camp of Islam and Jihad -- or one can continue to pretend that the problem is finite. Even those self-consciously somber predictions of a "long war" or a "war that will last thirty years" still are not long enough. There is no end to Jihad; there is only containment, reducing the threat to manageable, endurable, proportions. One may continue to pretend that it is not about Islam but about a presumed (never explained) "perversion" of Islam, and that somehow, if Infidels only apply enough force and distribute enough money, all manner of things shall be well.
Nonsense.
The only way to deal with this problem is never to allow a triumph of Islam, never to think that Muslim appetites can be sated (they can, however, if demands are met here or there, be whetted), and to work to make Islam less attractive. It should be made less attractive both to the pool of would-be converts in the West, and outside the West, as in sub-Saharan Africa, and to those already born into Islam, but who have other identities to cultivate and cling to. This is the case with the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arab, and who therefore may in some cases be open to the argument -- one which happens to be true -- that Islam has always been, and always will be, a vehicle for Arab supremacism.
There is so much that could be done, and it could be done at such little cost. But it would require imagination, intelligence, knowledge -- and how much easier it is, for those lacking in these, to repair to those bombs and "boots on the ground" and the handing out of tens of billions. All that is so much easier than studying a matter, and using one’s brains in a different way than they are employed in moving tens or hundreds of thousands of troops, or stacking neatly the piles of hundred-dollar bills that are to be handed out like confetti to {Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghanis, your favorite Muslim country to be rescued here}.
Like the kid waving his hand frantically in class, I have the answer - because the administrations don't want to look at the facts, have no leadership, and are generally so self absorbed that they border on stupidity. And I am not pointing fingers at the current administration, but Republicans and Democrats, indeed all professional politicians share the same characteristics.
Sorry if anyone finds that offensive, but we have the same problem in Canada.
OolongChung,
The problem is the same all over the world.
Why you ask?
Why should they pay for anything except their madrassas...as long as the dhimmi Americans pay for everything?
The US should cut Pakistan off--pronto...and get out of Afghanistan while we're at it! Let the Russians quell the violence and rebuild the roads, etc..
Why? check out this organization as revealed by the National Interest: "NATO's New Rival" by J. Peter Pham.
onlinehttp://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=19600
The SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization)[is composed of]:
"...China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Mongolia joined
as an observer in 2004, while India, Iran
and Pakistan were accorded the same status
in 2005. Iran and Pakistan are currently
petitioning for full membership, although
the status of the latter’s interest is
unclear in the wake President Pervez
Musharraf’s resignation. As a bloc, the
SCO has formidable potential. The combined
populations of its member states alone
account for about one-fourth of the global
total. The six countries possess 8 percent
of the world’s proven petroleum reserves
and 31 percent of known natural-gas reserves
(the figures will jump to 18 percent and
37 percent if Iran gains full membership).
The Chinese and Russian armed forces are the
largest and fourth-largest active-duty
militaries in the world, with combined
defense budgets estimated to equal at least
10 percent of total global military
expenditures.
Despite occasional denials by senior
officials, political and military
coordination is becoming a hallmark of the
organization..."
I think the US should pay much more attention to Latin America; where Shiite cells and "charities" are making headway in the slums.
Georgia, Pakistan, etc. should not be our "problem." Let the Chinese and the Russians worry about Muslim extremists on their borders. The EU should step up to the plate; instead of taking a free ride on America's dime!
If the Americans were to come to their senses ans leave Afghanistan, and that country naturally sought its own level, and returned to the warlordism and constant infighting of yore, and if, further, the Russians finally decided to paid to all of it, to invade again, and this time to install a thoroughly secular pro-Russian regime in order to ensure that Islam's contagion did not spread northward, a regime that might be, like the last one the Russians put in, might well be one of so-called "Marxists" (such a Russian choice that might seem at first blush to be anachronistic but the KGB men who rule Russia would hardly mind), would the Americans or other Westerners again supply weaponry, including Stinger missiles, to the locals, in order to prevent the Russians from subduing those opposed to them as Infidels?
I hope not. I would prefer to think not.
"Why does it have to be our money"?
My answer is that infidels are utterly stupid. They think they can fix all problems of the ummah, or they think they can buy off terrorism, or they think they can buy goodwill, or they think they can remake these people in their own image with all that money. After 1400 years of such obviously wrongheaded thinking infidels STILL haven't learned and I venture to say that they never will learn.
And that's why Koranism has lasted this long with no end in sight.
It also doesn't help that today's politicians feel they owe more loyalty to the ummah via their lobbyists than to those of us who voted them into office either.
Why has the American government not moved heaven and earth to make the Saudis pay and pay and pay?
The Saud's are paying. It costs a lot of money to live in all that opulence. The trips to Vegas, the gambling, the hookers. The hotel bill...And at home, gold plumbing...Why should they pay more? They are already paying their share...let the Americans pay the rest...
"Why is the American government funding Pakistan?"
The answer to this question is fairly obvious: Pakistani nuclear weapons.
It is a critical for the U.S. to know (given the hostile and volatile attitude of Islamic society generally to the West) 1) exactly how many nuclear weapons Pakistan has and 2) where, exactly, they are located. If we have to try to figure this out via remote spying against a closed society (as we have to now with North Korea, and as we used to have to do with the Soviet Union), our defense problems are seriously complicated. Should an isolated Pakistan start freely distributing their nukes to the worldwide Umma, we would be less likely to detect this proliferation in time to stop it. And when and if any shooting should start, we would not know where in Pakistan to attack and with what force in order to neutralize the nuclear threat. That is a serious targeting problem--the same one we have now with Iran's nuclear project today.
I am not sure that our current "engagement approach" is the best. But even if we were somehow to successfully remove all of Pakistan's nuclear weapons before completely disengaging from that benighted country, the inherently hostile Russians and Chinese would probably be happy to restock them immediately with all manner of nasty weaponry.
It looks to me that the available choices in this matter are all supremely ugly. That ugliness, of course, springs from the deep well of hostility inherent in the fascist cult called Islam--the cult that controls the destiny of Pakistan.
I think that the US government does not have the priorities of Jihadwatch.
Their priority was and is above all,the other great powers ,mainly Russia and China.
Muslim states are separated not according to their islamic fever but according to their alliances.
Those who cling towards Russia are considered enemies (Syria,Iran,Saddam's Iraq)and those who cling towards the West in the sense that they are hostile to Russia (Saudi Arabia,Pakistan,Egypt)
allies.
Pakistan was always considered an ally and was supported.It was crucial in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.The situation changed after 11/9 but not very much.
pukistan would be easy to destroy by non military means.
An economic & financial boycott.
A total stop to flights into the west.
Deportation of all paks/pak origin people.
Encouragement of the breakup of pak through independence for sindh and baluchistan. If that happened the chinese would also lose their port on the pak coast near iran.
However we need politicians with guts.
UK politicians are desperate for moslem votes and will not rock the boat.
OK. Like I, nabi ZK (pbum), do wish to remind about the supply lines to troops in Afghanistan. Like that is one of the reasons we are forking bread in their direction. Possibly. Plus we are paying them to send the mighty Pak Army into the tribal areas to chase around with attendant losses. Really they are a bunch of corrupt @#$@#% and so that $ is down a rathole, but still that's why we send the $. Covers overhead and stuff...hmmm...plus 10% of course...wink wink nod nod...
nabi ZK (pbum)
...believe it this time dudes...this time it's spot on...
Fakeistan is a two-faced "friend" just like Sowdi Arabia and they figure as long as they pretend they are "allies" of the United States and the west in general they can carry on slow jihad this is their best strategy. And the west is too stupid and trusting and don't understand tactics such as taqiyya and kitman their slow jihad will work just perfectly along with demographic conquest.
Stupid, stupid, naive, naive fools, western governmnents, do not wiwsh to learn that just because they believe in honouring contracts that everyone else wilol too that everything will be okay. IDIOTS.
Looks like the 1962 era friendship between Pakistan and China may be a thing of the past
35 'suspicious' Games spectators from Pak detained
The closing paragraph in the article:
It's one thing for Pakistan to be backing jihadi groups against India. But when they can't make Pakistan off limits to even Uighur jihadis, it's obvious that they've - for whatever reason - chosen to risk the wrath of their traditional ally China, rather than tell any portion of al Qaeda that they are unwelcome.Also shows what they think of gratitude towards Infidels - even those infidels (China) who are allied against other infidels (India). If it ever does come to a shooting match between Pakistan and China, it would be fascinating to watch.