Fareed Zakaria hypocrisy by CNN??

[Spitfighter]

here's a small clip from youtube about Pakistan's ongoing operations in the Swat valley,around a month old, it'll only take 3 minutes of your time, care to tell me how any of what he said constitutes disinformation or 'Zionist propaganda'?

 

[Al-zakir]

is he a Palestinian or even an Arab?

He is an Indian born naturalized American. He born in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India (Fareed Zakaria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

by the way, where do you get this extra-territorial loyalty from? what does Bangladesh do for Palestine? because I can tell you that India does a lot more.

Bangladesh doesn't not recognize occupied territory of pelistine
by Zionist as a nation for the love of Palestinians unlike you .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

here's a small clip from youtube about Pakistan's ongoing operations in the Swat valley,around a month old, it'll only take 3 minutes of your time, care to tell me how any of what he said constitutes disinformation or 'Zionist propaganda'?

His description of the Pakistani efforts in Swat in answer to the first question posed to him is incorrect - yes there has been massive displacement, but the assertions of 'massive civilian casualties' and damage to infrastructure have so far been shown to be over the top.

Secondly - Pakistan is not supporting certain sections of the Taliban just so they can 'destabilize India and Afghanistan' - he leaves out a key part of the equation when he does not point out that Pakistan believes India is destabilizing Pakistan, and has done so historically, as has Afghanistan. By not addressing the entirety of the issue (and in my view deliberately leaving out Pakistani concerns) he skews the discussion negatively against Pakistan.

He also ignores the fact that Afghanistan as of now has nothing that would allow a central government to exercise its writ across the entire nation. Local warlords, mafias and militias still hold tremendous power, and it is very likely that a US withdrawal relatively soon will lead to the same chain of events we saw post-Soviet withdrawal. A civil war, rampant crime and violence, and an exodus of Afghan refugees into Pakistan once more.

The cost of such a situation would be enormous on Pakistan, as we have borne it for decades already. Having options in Afghanistan in terms of supporting a party that might bring stability to Afghanistan then becomes essential. It is up to the US to convince Pakistan that it plans on staying the course and not abandoning Afghanistan, and by extension Pakistan, once more.

 

[wtf]

Hi Guys,

By watching news, I suspect that his words is NOT exactly his words, it came from CNN or Zionists. For instance, he kept pointing fingers at other countries (Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc). He also made opposite statements, we don't agree with him. You can mention that he is not even telling the truth.

Why would he work for CNN or being hired by Zionists?

I am sorry if you already discussed with this other forum, please leave quote or link. Thank you.

He does not work for CNN - atleast that is not his main role. He is the editor of Newsweek magazine. And he does not need to express other people's views, as an editor of Newsweek he can say what he wants.

 

[idune]

Fareed Zakaria rose by sucking up to zion media empire during the early days of crusade launched by neo cons. We all know how india and indians took advantage and associated US-Zion propaganda war. They needed a Muslim face to speread their propaganda so illusion of trust can be created. And western countries reward people like Fareed for being propaganda messanger. Salman Rushdie (although writer) got rewarded the same way. Incidently, both Salman and Fareed came from Mumbai area. Had Mumbai become hotbed for for recruitment for Indo-US-Zion propaganda factory?

But Mush in recent interview with Fareed few days back exposed how Fareed was taking queue from western propaganda. Fareed was charging that Pakistan was given $10 billion aid. When Mush gave the break down that 3/4 of money was not aid but cost US had to pay for using Pakistani service, Fareed just went quiet.

Best way to expose these people is to have good interviewer like Ahmed Quershi and take them to cleaner.

 

[Spitfighter]

His description of the Pakistani efforts in Swat in answer to the first question posed to him is incorrect - yes there has been massive displacement, but the assertions of 'massive civilian casualties' and damage to infrastructure have so far been shown to be over the top.

Secondly - Pakistan is not supporting certain sections of the Taliban just so they can 'destabilize India and Afghanistan' - he leaves out a key part of the equation when he does not point out that Pakistan believes India is destabilizing Pakistan, and has done so historically, as has Afghanistan. By not addressing the entirety of the issue (and in my view deliberately leaving out Pakistani concerns) he skews the discussion negatively against Pakistan.

He also ignores the fact that Afghanistan as of now has nothing that would allow a central government to exercise its writ across the entire nation. Local warlords, mafias and militias still hold tremendous power, and it is very likely that a US withdrawal relatively soon will lead to the same chain of events we saw post-Soviet withdrawal. A civil war, rampant crime and violence, and an exodus of Afghan refugees into Pakistan once more.

The cost of such a situation would be enormous on Pakistan, as we have borne it for decades already. Having options in Afghanistan in terms of supporting a party that might bring stability to Afghanistan then becomes essential. It is up to the US to convince Pakistan that it plans on staying the course and not abandoning Afghanistan, and by extension Pakistan, once more.

This guy is an American analyst so his views are typically American. 'Massive casualties' is a matter of relativity, what they consider massive may seem minuscule to you. (exaggeration, but you get the point) So I don't think he's deliberately trying to skew the discussion in any direction with that statement.

Given what you said, it is fair to conclude that pakistan is keeping its 'options open', i.e, there still exists a distinction between the various factions that now come under the common umbrella of the 'taliban'. From an American angle then, Pakistan is an ambiguous ally, I think he did address Pakistan's concern's about India gaining more influence and Afghanistan turning into a client state. He can't really get into the depth of things in 3 minutes, but nonetheless he did mention Pakistan's concerns, Pakistan isn't doing this to "wipe Israel off the map" (i.e crazy) its doing it because it has certain concerns (India)

the situation in afghanistan is rather circular IMO, there is a lot of mistrust between all the parties involved, Pakistan has not cracked down on these 'militants' as hard as it can because it feels the US will fail in Afghanistan and leave it in the cold again, so it does the bare minimum with the militants opposed to the coalition forces and targets only those that are hostile to it, which leaves the insurgents with just enough breathing room to stay alive and thus risks making failure in afghanistan a self fulfilling prophecy. This is probably why the US had to take matters into its own hands and expand drone strikes in FATA and Waziristan, thereby alienating more Pakistanis from its cause and making it even harder for the GoP to take serious action against the militants targeting NATO.

The US is therefore pressuring Pakistan to jump on the bandwagon, Pakistan is still sitting on the fence, its leaning towards the US, but I don't think its there just as yet, the stakes are higher for you guys, so the decision is harder, but I think Pakistan will eventually give into US pressure, for a price of course, the US has more options and Pakistan has a pressure point (India) so I think America will get the sweeter end of the stick. Also Pakistan seems to have lost a lot of credibility, India seems relentless in that aspect, so you'll have a tough time making you're point. But ultimately at the end of the day, you're either with them or you're not. That's one hell of a bargaining chip. We'll have to see how things play out in these coming months.

but coming back to Zakaria, his perspective is different so there is always an inherent bias, but I don't think we're dealing with a Jewish puppet bent upon maligning Pakistan. I think he's doing a decent job.

(If anything hes an Indian puppet, give RAW some credit! )

 

[Spitfighter]

He is an Indian born naturalized American. He born in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India (Fareed Zakaria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Bangladesh doesn't not recognize occupied territory of pelistine
by Zionist as a nation for the love of Palestinians unlike you .

Yeah thanks, I knew that already, it was a rhetorical question.

Bangladesh neither recognizes the 'occupied territory of Palestine' nor does anything to help their Palestinian 'brothers'. Spare me the moral high horse BS, what tangible things has Bangladesh done? (besides talk to win points with the Arabs) you don't feed hungry people with words.

and how do you feel about your brothers in India? any sympathy for them? the ones with no food or homes, the ones suffering from the cyclone that hit recently? or is that reserved only for Palestinians and who ever else Arabs sympathize with?

 

[Durran3]

Just because some reporter expresses his/her concerns differently than what you'd expect doesn't mean that person is on a Zionist payroll. Fareed Zakaria is an intelligent person but he obviously doesn't know everything or clearly understands the complex situation Pakistan is involved in. Musharaf clearly told him what he needed to know but nonetheless he still has his own opinions and is free to express them what ever way he likes in a free media.

This kind of garbage thinking that Zionists are paying him to spew bullshit is for the ignorant masses to sway away votes. I bet half the people on these boards would still think that the Americans never landed on the moon. You would think with the internet revolution some people would be more open to news instead you have garbage consipiracies like 911 was an inside job flying around

 

[Nemesis]

He's a US national of Indian Origin. If he supports ISrael he becomes a bad Muslim? What rubbish. He was/is the foreign editor of Newsweek and has far more credibility than any of you can hope to achieve.

 

[Joshi]

If by sanity you mean disinformation and distortions when it comes to Pakistan (which is primarily when I have listened to him or read him) then yes, he brings a lot of it to the table.

From sanity I meant proper information and facts when it comes to anything. He is an American. That is what is being premised. Some people here thought that because of his muslim background, he should be backing Pakistan and Iran. Only thing some Indians pointed here was that he is too American for that. Is there disinformation and distortions in that?? Or are there disinformation and distortions in Pakistani view when it comes to America??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This guy is an American analyst so his views are typically American. 'Massive casualties' is a matter of relativity, what they consider massive may seem minuscule to you. (exaggeration, but you get the point) So I don't think he's deliberately trying to skew the discussion in any direction with that statement.

I don't think it is a matter of 'relativity'. It would be accurate to say that at this point only the Army is aware of the extent of civilian casualties, and on that count see my post here:

Zakaria cannot have better information than Pakistani journalists on the ground (or as close as they can get), and most Pakistani and Western journalists taken on tours of Swat recently have expressed surprise at the lack of damage (my guess is they were expecting something along the lines of what Zakaria is blabbing about).

Zakaria is therefore playing armchair general without any idea of what the facts on the ground are, an insted of admitting that he really has no clue as to the extent of civilian casualties and damage, he chose to 'guesstimate' and bash Pakistani tactics.

This puts his credibility in doubt IMO.

Given what you said, it is fair to conclude that pakistan is keeping its 'options open', i.e, there still exists a distinction between the various factions that now come under the common umbrella of the 'taliban'. From an American angle then, Pakistan is an ambiguous ally, I think he did address Pakistan's concern's about India gaining more influence and Afghanistan turning into a client state. He can't really get into the depth of things in 3 minutes, but nonetheless he did mention Pakistan's concerns, Pakistan isn't doing this to "wipe Israel off the map" (i.e crazy) its doing it because it has certain concerns (India)

the situation in afghanistan is rather circular IMO, there is a lot of mistrust between all the parties involved, Pakistan has not cracked down on these 'militants' as hard as it can because it feels the US will fail in Afghanistan and leave it in the cold again, so it does the bare minimum with the militants opposed to the coalition forces and targets only those that are hostile to it, which leaves the insurgents with just enough breathing room to stay alive and thus risks making failure in afghanistan a self fulfilling prophecy. This is probably why the US had to take matters into its own hands and expand drone strikes in FATA and Waziristan, thereby alienating more Pakistanis from its cause and making it even harder for the GoP to take serious action against the militants targeting NATO.

The US is therefore pressuring Pakistan to jump on the bandwagon, Pakistan is still sitting on the fence, its leaning towards the US, but I don't think its there just as yet, the stakes are higher for you guys, so the decision is harder, but I think Pakistan will eventually give into US pressure, for a price of course, the US has more options and Pakistan has a pressure point (India) so I think America will get the sweeter end of the stick. Also Pakistan seems to have lost a lot of credibility, India seems relentless in that aspect, so you'll have a tough time making you're point. But ultimately at the end of the day, you're either with them or you're not. That's one hell of a bargaining chip. We'll have to see how things play out in these coming months.

but coming back to Zakaria, his perspective is different so there is always an inherent bias, but I don't think we're dealing with a Jewish puppet bent upon maligning Pakistan. I think he's doing a decent job.

(If anything hes an Indian puppet, give RAW some credit! )

That's a good analysis of the quandary faced by Pakistan - IMO Pakistan wants to see a long term US commitment to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and some of its other security concerns vis a vis India addressed before moving completely into the US camp.

The 'with us or against us' is moot at this point - if it could have been used it would have been. If the US plans on abandoning Afghanistan then it does not matter. However if the US wants to stay in the region to ensure that no safe havens for AQ remain, then it is stuck with working with Pakistan. The US cannot invade or attack Pakistan because that would seriously destabilize the country, and end up strengthening the Taliban and AQ, which is exactly what it wants to avoid. Pakistan is also not about to say 'we are not with the US', but it has been saying 'we are partially with the US' for a while now. The US is therefore essentially stuck with working with Pakistan and attempting to convince it to go from 'partially support' to 'completely support' through a mixture of economic incentives and addressing Pakistani security concerns with back channel negotiations with the GoI, GoA, and GoP.

You are correct that Zakaria did attempt to address Pakistani concerns by suggesting that Pakistan was worried over Afghanistan becoming a client State of India, but that is a far cry from pointing out that Pakistan is concerned about India destabilizing Pakistan through support for proxy groups.

Without addressing those concerns specifically, he trivializes Pakistani concerns, and in addition by referring to Pakistan 'using militants to destabilize Afghanistan and India' he really skews the discourse against Pakistan, since even India's attempt at making Afghanistan a 'client state' would now be interpreted as a reaction to 'Pakistan using militants to destabilize Afghanistan and India'.

This is not the only occasion he has been deceitful - a few days after Musharraf's interview when he clearly debunked the $10 billion aid myth (pointing out that more than half was in the form of reimbursements), he was on Anderson Cooper talking about the Swat Operation, and he laughed about how 'money was fungible' and implied that the Pakistani argument was not valid because its all too complicated or some such thing.

He blatantly avoided specifically addressing the argument raised by Pakistanis over the $10 billion aid, in order to perpetuate the prevalent distorted view.

Sorry, but the few times I have watched him on Pakistan, he has been less than honest. That does not make him a 'zionist mouthpiece', but it does make him a poor analyst and commentator.

 

[Guba]

Whats wrong with being a highly paid parrot?
He just wants the dough, pay his mortgage, drive a porsche?

 

[Mujahid91]

he said that Hamid Gul Ex DG ISI is an idiot.Freed Zakaria is a pure dark skin zionist.

 

[jeypore]

he said that Hamid Gul Ex DG ISI is an idiot

And why should he not!!!

Your great Hamid Gul had the audacitiy to say that 911 was an inside job!! When such figure head speak like this, of course people will say he has a loose nut!!

 

[Always Neutral]

Hi Guys,

I changed channel to watch any updated news, however there is a guy named Fareed Zakaria, brown skin after Sanjay Gupta. By watching news, I suspect that his words is NOT exactly his words, it came from CNN or Zionists. For instance, he kept pointing fingers at other countries (Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc). He also made opposite statements, we don't agree with him. You can mention that he is not even telling the truth.

Why would he work for CNN or being hired by Zionists?

I am sorry if you already discussed with this other forum, please leave quote or link. Thank you.

A muslim working for Zionist and not Allah ?

Its a matter of time a bolt of lightening will strike him down.

Till then relax and hear him and learn from him. Allah is wise so be patient for him to strike Zakaria down.

Regards