AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Yes, but as I pointed out, this is akin to arguing that since nuclear work is done in Pakistan, any attack in Pakistan is therefore an attack on Pakistan's nuclear weapons complex.
I think it has been clearly pointed out that Wah is a massive complex, and to suggest that a suicide bomber detonating himself at one set of gates at the complex when workers were leaving (ostensibly to maximize casualties), is somehow an attack on whatever aspect of the nuclear program occurs in some small part of the complex, is just a poor argument, poor journalism and fear mongering.
The methodology of the attack itself, a lone suicide bomber detonating at the gates at shift change (ostensibly to maximize casualties) is itself indicative of the fact that the tactics were rudimentary and without any sort of specific strategic goal in mind other than large numbers of casualties.
Now, had this attack been along the lines of the one carried out in Peshawar http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/28138-terrorists-target-peshawar-corp-commander.html, where the target was apparently the Corp commander, and the attack was multi-staged in order to increase the chances of getting at the target, Gregory's argument might be understandable - but that was not the case in this attack.
In addition, investigators in the KRL bus attack have suggested that the bus was a target of opportunity (the bomber looking for a government vehicle to attack), rather than a predetermined attack on KRL.
On the issues he has been called out on, it is clear that he has taken liberties with the facts, as pointed out already. He has not offered conclusive justification for the positions he has taken.
Is he basing that on any tangible evidence or 'perceptions'?
Even 'credible and informed authors' need to base their assertions on some semblance of evidence and provide some justification - I offered a source stating that the proportion of Punjabis in the Army was down to 57% in 2007. What exactly are Gregory and Malik basing their assertions on?
It is not enough to just claim 'authority' and bandy about figures conjured out of 'perceptions' and/or thin air to support ones argument. I am interested in seeing what they, and you, use as support for the argument that the Punjabis are disproportionately represented in the Army and SFC.
I think first you have to establish beyond doubt that the PRP does screen bias - conjecture by authors does not count. Only once that is established can the questions of 'why', 'how much' and 'what impact' be answered.
Gregory's rationale is speculation in the absence of tangible evidence supporting his rationale.
Some of Gregory's arguments have been taken apart quite extensively - I have not seen the justification behind his contention that the bombing at Wah was specifically directed at whatever aspect of the nuclear program is carried out there. No evidence supporting his contention on disproportionate Punjabi domination. No evidence supporting an anti-Pashtun bias in the PRP.
It is also viable to suggest that the US establishment is inherently racist, and the continuing suffering of Blacks in the US (lagging in almost all socio-economic indicators) is part of a secret policy in the US establishment to suppress blacks.
Without evidence that contention is just as much baloney as Gregory's.
Sorry - but enough holes have been poked in Gregory's arguments. Since he made the original assertions, it is his (and yours if you so strongly feel about defending them) prerogative to provide justification for them.
It is not our prerogative to prove a negative.
As the crow flies or per navigable roads/terrain?
You can defer, but Gregory's assertions still require justification. As of now they are poor speculation, poor journalism and fear mongering - not a surprise since right now any sort of dooms day scenario related to Pakistani nukes sells like hot cakes in the West.
Approaching Gregory is your prerogative, not mine and not Mian Asad's. Gregory's arguments have had sufficient holes poked into them. Please contact him to find out how he justifies them and refutes the criticism directed at him.
And you are right about the money - as I pointed out above, it is big business in the West right now to deal in fear mongering related to Pakistan's nuclear program.
Just because a lot of money is spent does not mean that the output of that expense is accurate, nor does it indicate that accuracy is even a goal.
Certainly an evolving situation requires continuous analysis, but at the same time one has to offer some substantiation and evidence supporting ones contentions - I see that substantiation woefully lacking in aspects of Gregory's argument that have been criticized here.
I am more than happy to debunk what passes for pseudo journalism in the West nowadays, so ignoring such articles is not really an option. And this is not the first piece of speculative rubbish out of the West either.
Please, do try and contact Mr. Gregory to see how he justifies the arguments that have been criticized here. As of now, what passes as informed analysis in your circles is a very poor reflection on how 'informed' your decision making is. Or perhaps that is the precisely the point, to create a deeply flawed narrative to advance particular interests and goals.
Look forward to reading Mr. Gregory's justifications, if he has any.
Last edited:
)
)
