Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pakistan"

Latest revision as of 03:36, June 9, 2020

Relations with US

In light of the Osama bin Laden situation, and the military strikes throughout the Obama administration and late in the second term of the Bush administration, the parts of the article pertaining to the US/Pakistani relationship need to be updated. I added some information on the bin Laden raid, but the article could use a bigger rewrite. KingHanksley 14:53, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

discuss

Bytemsu: Could you please discuss why you have chosen to remove and modify verified entries, and replaced them with what could be considered contentious and mostly opinionated statements in your recent editing? - RepublicanRichard.

RepublicanRichard, it seems that your version it trying to paint the Pakistanis as victims, which is rather disingenuous. I know some of the civilians are just stuck in this situation, but the majority do not seem to be so passive in the matter. You also are removing sourced material with your version, for no particular reason I see. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 14:39, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

Also, I'm seeing a lot of plagiarism on this page. Some of it was here already, but copy-and-pasted text is not acceptable. For example, almost 75% of the History section was copied from https://2009-2017.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/pakistan/144985.htm and https://1997-2001.state.gov/background_notes/pakistan_0300_bgn.html I know this predates both of your respective versions, but it still needs to be cleaned up. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 14:50, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

DavidB4, I am not a fan of the Pakistani government and security services myself. Yet I have traveled to this region on an assignment and that doesn't prevent me from having insights of the country. It also doesn't mean we should lose our objectivity while reporting on it. You want to write more about the Pakistanis' double game, be my guest, but also make sure it's not tainted by a foreign imposed view which I'm observing. I read the policy of this site which says articles are written from the conservative point of view. I tried to do that by expanding on the past history of the United State's relations with this country, particularly from the Republican perspective, and the current foreign policy of Trump in Af-Pak. Yet when I see this editor's edits, I see anything but the American conservative view. They are actually writing it from the Indian conservative view, and it's obvious in most cases. I thought this site was based on the American conservative view, not what India or Pakistan think? If I see someone not sticking to that POV, I have the right to raise the issue. RepublicanRichard (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2020 (EDT)

• Pakistani government and security services

This is a pretty broad statement, and our readership can view it as misleading and deceptive. The Pakistani Prime Minister and parliament are not even in control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Benizer Bhutto, upon election, didn't even know who in Pakistan had the authority to launch a nuclear strike until an outside intelligence agency, the CIA , told her.

My point is phrases such as "Pakistani government" are deceptive idioms targeting a Western or American readership. It should be pretty obvious Pakistan's parliamentary system is window dressing and powerless, it's existence moreless a bone tossed to reformers and the masses. These are the issues this page should focus on without using leftist commie agitprop and idioms targeting the stereotypical naivete of American readers.

Please don't view my criticism as harsh or rebuking; we very much need editors to write on the ISI. RobS^{Live Free or Die} 17:43, 21 May 2020 (EDT)

I agree with what you said Rob. The Pakistani ISI and Army are the real ones controlling Pakistan and directing the politics. Therefore, I changed the article to mention the ISI.Bytemsbu (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2020 (EDT)

That's right. And it's not as if the nation states with diplomatic ties to Pakistan don't know that the Pakistani parliamentary system is a bone tossed to the dog to give the illusion of (1) democracy and (2) that Pakistan has embraced modern Western notions of governance and has rejected Koranic notions of law. RobS^{Live Free or Die} 18:32, 21 May 2020 (EDT)

Th Pakistani parliament is a bloated Health and Human Services, Children, Youth and Families department focused on issues of interest to women. It has no power over national security and survival of the nation. It's foreign ministry has links to the ISI (which the ISI dominates, obliterating the notion of civilian control over military) as a conduit between the ISI and foreign powers, but that's about it.

So if we use phrases such as Pakistani government, what exactly are we talking about? RobS^{Live Free or Die} 18:45, 21 May 2020 (EDT)

Conservapedia is written from the perspective of CP:CPOV. India is an ally against radical Islam and so if you want to have facts unfavorable to Pakistan, you can do that. After all, Pakistan harbored Osama Bin Laden. We do not support any kind of persecution against Christians and if Christians are being persecuted in either country, that can be documented as long as it's cited.Conservative (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2020 (EDT)

That's water under the bridge. The focus now is on the anti-Christian CCP and its alliance with Pakistan. RobS^{Live Free or Die} 23:36, 8 June 2020 (EDT)