When reading such things, we should try to imagine what Pakistan is facing in its remote areas. The coalition forces messed things up in the area.
Why was Bin Laden was in Pakistan?
Several Pakistanis regions bordering Afghanistan live in a legally or de-facto quasi-autonomy. They are tribal by nature (be it their name or not) and since the war in Afghanistan started, they are facing deep changes in their power structure due to waves of migrants and militants. Such areas have also been steeply radicalising (remember the Swat war?).
So, if Pakistanis officials are trying to keep a sense of unity, and perhaps reinforce Pakistani feeling, by collaborating with what the West sees as terror networks, so be it.
They must ensure that these areas don't radicalise more and that it doesn't spread.
Now, the US is totally biased in the situation. It's literally been trying to dictate decisions to the Pakistani officials (military or political) for years.
> At least the western countries don't build and finance terror networks to attack neighbours. And so on.
I'm unsure whether this is a joke or not. It has to be a joke, right?
Regarding the freedom of speech, I'll ask you if you think it matters. Because if you think it matters there are a couple of things you might consider:
You could stop buying Japanese cars and hard-drives as Thai people end up in jail for expressing opinions that go against the monarchy (google lèse-majesté law in Thailand).
You could stop buying French cars and wine as migrants are put in "jails" and drugged against their will to keep them quiet and sometimes denied lawyers and assistance.
You could stop buying IT equipment because of the situation in China.
etc...
What I do know about Pakistan is that the government was deeply criticized for their handling of the floods in 2009. I also do know for reading from there that freedom of speech in the press is not a vain thing (being French, living in Thailand, I've actually found their critics very open).
I'm not very hopeful regarding the freedom of speech in general. In France nobody talks about those migrant centres that I called "jails" above. Nobody cares. In Thailand people think it's fine to have such a law (of course, except those who have something to say). I think there's a threshold under which a problem isn't a problem for enough people to reach a critical mass that could lead to a change.
The claim that the perpetrators of 9/11 were only "what the West sees as terror networks" is breathtakingly disingenuous.
I hear that Bin Laden died in Abbottabad. I'm no Pakistan expert, but on my map that is not in FATA. It is a short commute from the capital of the country. The house was right next to a top military academy.
If openly supporting the perpetrators of 9/11 is what Pakistan needs to do in order to 'ensure that these areas don't radicalise more' then I wonder for whose benefit Pakistan is doing this wonderful thing. Certainly not New York's... probably just the government of Pakistan, actually. What do I care, if that government also would like me to die, whether it considers some villagers to be radical?
Lese-majeste sucks, but seriously - buying Thai parts through Japanese companies is hardly comparable to harboring and feeding intelligence to the perpetrators of 9/11 in order to maintain the upper hand in the conflict with India.
Do you have any supporting references for thinking it is just funny that ISI et al support terror groups, mainly for use against India?
It is easy to infiltrate the militarised border to go into Indian Kashmir for the terrorists? The Pakistani military REALLY tries to stop the infiltrators...? :-)
And so on.
I'm not an expert, but I need good references or I'll think you're a troll or writing propaganda.
Why was Bin Laden was in Pakistan?
Several Pakistanis regions bordering Afghanistan live in a legally or de-facto quasi-autonomy. They are tribal by nature (be it their name or not) and since the war in Afghanistan started, they are facing deep changes in their power structure due to waves of migrants and militants. Such areas have also been steeply radicalising (remember the Swat war?).
So, if Pakistanis officials are trying to keep a sense of unity, and perhaps reinforce Pakistani feeling, by collaborating with what the West sees as terror networks, so be it.
They must ensure that these areas don't radicalise more and that it doesn't spread.
Now, the US is totally biased in the situation. It's literally been trying to dictate decisions to the Pakistani officials (military or political) for years.
> At least the western countries don't build and finance terror networks to attack neighbours. And so on.
I'm unsure whether this is a joke or not. It has to be a joke, right?
Regarding the freedom of speech, I'll ask you if you think it matters. Because if you think it matters there are a couple of things you might consider:
You could stop buying Japanese cars and hard-drives as Thai people end up in jail for expressing opinions that go against the monarchy (google lèse-majesté law in Thailand).
You could stop buying French cars and wine as migrants are put in "jails" and drugged against their will to keep them quiet and sometimes denied lawyers and assistance.
You could stop buying IT equipment because of the situation in China.
etc...
What I do know about Pakistan is that the government was deeply criticized for their handling of the floods in 2009. I also do know for reading from there that freedom of speech in the press is not a vain thing (being French, living in Thailand, I've actually found their critics very open).
I'm not very hopeful regarding the freedom of speech in general. In France nobody talks about those migrant centres that I called "jails" above. Nobody cares. In Thailand people think it's fine to have such a law (of course, except those who have something to say). I think there's a threshold under which a problem isn't a problem for enough people to reach a critical mass that could lead to a change.