Pakistan to use its own drones

string said:
Mod Notes: Ice, we're not playing at this. If you want to contribute, do so.
Click to expand...
Well, I thought I had. I mean, if the standard here is to list some books and claim they support assertions, without even making the assertions directly relevant, that's not too high a bar.
string said:
I implore ANYBODY to show credible evidence that the CIA is currently engaging in a campaign to destabilize Pakistan.
Click to expand...
None such likely to be visible, we move to the question at hand: is the US currently destabilizing Pakistan, for any reason.

So: are we agreed that increasing US involvement in Pakistan has been correlated, in time and space, with increasing instability?

Are we agreed that describing alleged intentions does not answer claims of actual deeds? That the US might be sometimes - I know it's difficult to believe - in over its head, or doing wrong for high-sounding reasons, or even covering ass while playing thug for Chevron? That minion's opinions are not the last word in what is going on, and physical reality is a useful matter to contemplate?

Or do I have to list some books I've read, to make that all match some "scientific method" of response?
 
iceaura said:
Well, I thought I had. I mean, if the standard here is to list some books and claim they support assertions, without even making the assertions directly relevant, that's not too high a bar, is it?
Click to expand...

No. The standard is that if you make wild claims, you are required to support them with solid evidence. I made none. I did support my belief with the fact that I have done some digging into the matter. I stated no other claims than that.

In the case of Straw, he did accuse the USA of intentionally destabilizing Pakistan and inferred that the USA was somehow involved in Bhutto's assassination. Such claims require proof.

If you say, "Look, I think that the USA is guilty of this... that... and the other." Fine. No need for proof. But if you're going to say, "The USA does this... that... and the other." You are required to back it up.

iceaura said:
So: are we agreed that increasing US involvement in Pakistan has been correlated, in time and space, with increasing instability?
Click to expand...

One: Pakistan has been politically unstable since it seceded from India, and even before that.

Two: Yes, Pakistan is more unstable today, and in part because of American actions in the neighborhood. We aren't discussing that. I asked for evidence that the USA is intentionally destabilizing Pakistan by direct action. Yeah, Afghanistan, Iran and a host of other nations have empowered radical elements because of their hatred of the USA. Increased US presence in the area will obviously give fuel to these people. But that wasn't the discussion. The discussion was that somehow the USA is secretly meddling in Pakistani affairs with the end goal of creating instability, that the USA secretly had Bhutto killed. I asked for proof of those claims. Books. Articles. Studies. I don't give a fuck where they are from, but they are required.

iceaura said:
Or do I have to list some books I've read, to make that all match some "scientific method" of response?
Click to expand...

Yes. Ice, I know it hurts you to hear this, but you too are required to support your extraordinary claims with extraordinary proof.

~String
 
Last edited:
superstring01 said:
In the case of "The Looming Tower" and "Ghost Wars" I can state specific pages and quotes that are referenced.
Click to expand...


ok
state them whenever you are ready
thanks
 
Last edited:
string said:
The discussion was that somehow the USA is secretly meddling in Pakistani affairs with the end goal of creating instability, that the USA secretly had Bhutto killed.
Click to expand...
That seems more or less a strawman. Having instability as an end goal makes no sense, and any discussion of that ends quickly.

But some more reasonable approach - say, that as it happens the US backed interests in the area are opposed by the same forces that would contribute to stability in Pakistan, such as representative government in the tribal regions or the like - might lead further.

So that the US destabilizes Pakistan more or less in pursuit of other goals, in establishing desired alliances in power and attempting to expel inconvenient factions from the power centers. What the US is backing, in other words, is inherently unstable. And in the process the US is doing a lot of secret meddling in Pakistan's affairs - which is hardly an extraordinary claim.
 
iceaura said:
That seems more or less a strawman. Having instability as an end goal makes no sense, and any discussion of that ends quickly.
Click to expand...

Since I would never make such a claim, I would agree. Members in this thread, however, have repeatedly made the claim that the US has destabilized the region (i.e. through the actions of the CIA, involvement in Bhutto's assassination, etc.) and failed to back it up with anything even approaching evidence. We've gotten opinion pieces. We've gotten pay-to-view articles. We've gotten a book that apparently wasn't even read. But heretofore, nothing supporting those claims.

The standard is: Claims have to be supported with something more than, ". . . because I say so, and I'm saying the claims aren't extraordinary."

iceaura said:
But some more reasonable approach - say, that as it happens the US backed interests in the area are opposed by the same forces that would contribute to stability in Pakistan, such as representative government in the tribal regions or the like - might lead further.
Click to expand...

Which interests are those? I would also be interested in knowing how the same US forces have worked against representative democracy in tribal regions of Pakistan?

iceaura said:
So that the US destabilizes Pakistan more or less in pursuit of other goals
Click to expand...

Okay. What goals are those, and how has it destabilized the region. This is, yet again, a statement supported by nothing other than your observations.

iceaura said:
And in the process the US is doing a lot of secret meddling in Pakistan's affairs - which is hardly an extraordinary claim.
Click to expand...

It is an extraordinary claim, and you just made it, then supported it with little more than finely spun rhetoric.

~String
 
The idea of the US intentionally destabilizing Pakistan does not match up with facts or what we see in reality. On top of all that, it's anti-intuitive. Why would the US destabilize a key alley, one with nukes and one that could make a very big mess in the international neighborhood?

The greatest thing about our favorite conspiratorial Leftists, like Ice and Straw, is that they get to run around and posit all kinds of theories and ideas, claim they seem reasonable, then force everyone to disprove them (IE prove a negative). In the case of something that is almost impossible to prove or disprove with any authority (what the CIA is up to now), they claim victory in our shared ignorance. It's ridiculous,
 
Last edited:
count said:
And, when confronted, it kills threads. They go silent, like they did here...
Click to expand...

Confronted with this:
string said:
Two: Yes, Pakistan is more unstable today, and in part because of American actions in the neighborhood. We aren't discussing that.
- - -
"So that the US destabilizes Pakistan more or less in pursuit of other goals ”

Okay. What goals are those, and how has it destabilized the region. This is, yet again, a statement supported by nothing other than your observations.
- - - -
"That seems more or less a strawman. Having instability as an end goal makes no sense, and any discussion of that ends quickly. ”

Since I would never make such a claim, I would agree. Members in this thread, however, have repeatedly made the claim that the US has destabilized the region
Click to expand...

string said:
The idea of the US intentionally destabilizing Pakistan does not match up with facts or what we see in reality. On top of all that, it's anti-intuitive. Why would the US destabilize a key alley, one with nukes and one that could make a very big mess in the international neighborhood?
Click to expand...
what's wrong with silence?

Apparently, we are to regard the significant US role in the destabilization of Pakistan as not part of reality, because 1) the US in Pakistan has no other goals than stability, so it's "unintuitive" that destabilizing actions would be taken by the US, and/or 2) the US does not intend, as an end goal, to destabilize Pakistan, and therefore it is not destabilizing Pakistan except as collateral damage or tactical move, which doesn't count.

Faced with that - ornamented as always with personal attack, but we have learned that is just some folk's personal style, and therefore unremarkable - silence seems as good as, say, this post.
 
ja, as far as the apologetics are concerned, ignorance is always an excuse

/sneer

but, but....we didn't mean to do it!
 
iceaura said:
Apparently, we are to regard the significant US role in the destabilization of Pakistan as not part of reality, because 1) the US in Pakistan has no other goals than stability, so it's "unintuitive" that destabilizing actions would be taken by the US, and/or 2) the US does not intend, as an end goal, to destabilize Pakistan, and therefore it is not destabilizing Pakistan except as collateral damage or tactical move, which doesn't count.

Faced with that - ornamented as always with personal attack, but we have learned that is just some folk's personal style, and therefore unremarkable - silence seems as good as, say, this post.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, does that muddled post even begin to substantiate any of your claims?

Or the original claim, which was, I believe, that the US is secretly and intentionally destabilizing Pakistan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top