Pakistani PM hails China as his country's 'best friend'

[huzihaidao12]

From historical perspective, that is why I said Turkey is on the right track of development and Pakistan is not. Pakistan used to be on the right track under Ali Bhutto but was side-tracked since Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's state's islamization of Pakistan, sharia laws and etc. Even after his death in 1988, nobody dare to challenge his policy since nobody wanted to be classified as anti-islam.



---------- Post added at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 PM ----------

How many current terrorists in Pakistan are actually from India???

1, yes, you got the right to blame, you meet? or you blame Pakistan is not in Europe or the U.S. neighbor? trouble you get some magic to change it, can you?

2, not the problem, but a game can bring just another game.

 

[Obambam]

Is that a joke??? Your "west" is for directional purpose??? how hilarious!

It all depends on the perspectives. Nothing wrong with that. Care to explain why they are in all the European football leagues?

You still failed to come up with anything substantial about the history of Al Qaeda. Using them as an example to voice your arguments against Pakistan is absurd to say the least. It only highlights your lack of understanding and your bias towards western media.

 

[roadrunner]

I don't really see Zia's drive to Islamization as an economic barrier. It was a social one perhaps. The main difference between Turkey and Pakistan are because of each respective history, not anything to do with religion.

Turkey emerged from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire in approximately 1920. It was a superpower at the time and had all the infrastructure necessary to be a successful state. I will say literacy of the Turkish state in 1920 was probably around 100%.

Pakistan's recent history was quite different. It emerged from the ruins of the British Empire with a literacy of around 7%. So of course Turkey would have always had an infrastructure advantage over Pakistan so it's no surprise Turkey seems more progressive than Pakistan.

The drive towards Islamization in the 1980s didn't really stop Pakistan's economic growth, in fact it grew quite well in the 1980s, and also in the mid 2000s there was good growth. It seems mismanagement and warfare have been the problems that hampered investment.

Once the war in Afghanistan ends and stability in Asia is created, I see Pakistan's growth potential as huge.

 

[ephone]

I know that. I know your former premier minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. I know you have provincial governors being assassinated. I know you have judges, polices and civilians being victims of terrorist activities. For Musharraf, I know he has been target for assassination several times and one time he was quite close being assassinated for a road-side bomb due to a last second change of car.

As I have said, there is no denying that Pakistan has suffered greatly during WOT. However, simply saying No higher rank officers from either Army or ISI have any involvement with OBL and Taliban is simply too hard to believe for outsiders, especially for OBL case.

@Ephone,
But did you know that senior most Army generals have been targeted by the militants inside the places of workship? Did you know that the Corps Cmdr. of Karachi (or was it some senior Naval officer) was targeted in Karachi a few years ago? Did you know that President Musharraf himself was targeted at least twice by these militants? Did you know that the militants have declared Pakistan has 'enemy #1' after OBL death? Did you know that ISI buildings and officials have been targeted by these militants?
All these simply not make the case that senior officials in ISI are involved. I will not deny the possibility that some jihadis are out there doing their stupid business. Just like the bodyguard of Gov. Salman Taseer who killed Taseer.
Anyway, much of the media war/aggression against Pakistani security agencies is coming because of the OBL raid and most of the narrative has been formed by the corporate American media about Pakistan. Statements like from Rumsfeld and Gates are played down intentionally to corner Pakistan.

 

[ephone]

If you can, would you please let me know what is the growth rate for Pakistan before and after Zia's state's islamization policy??? What is the improvement of literacy before and after that for Pakistani people?

As I have recalled, there are no major wars for Pakistan after 1975.

As for education level, I thought India was in a much better shape than China when both got their independence during the 40s. India had a larger English spoken population, close to the west and better infrastructure. Moreover, it got independence earlier without a civil war damage while China got its independence later after bloody 5-year civil wars and then korean war. China has been sanctioned by the west also for such a long time. In addition, it endured the stupid great leap forward and culture revolution, while none of such wars or great damaging activities happened in India then.

How about today??? So you see you can not put your blame on those.

I don't really see Zia's drive to Islamization as an economic barrier. It was a social one perhaps. The main difference between Turkey and Pakistan are because of each respective history, not anything to do with religion.

Turkey emerged from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire in approximately 1920. It was a superpower at the time and had all the infrastructure necessary to be a successful state. I will say literacy of the Turkish state in 1920 was probably around 100%.

Pakistan's recent history was quite different. It emerged from the ruins of the British Empire with a literacy of around 7%. So of course Turkey would have always had an infrastructure advantage over Pakistan so it's no surprise Turkey seems more progressive than Pakistan.

The drive towards Islamization in the 1980s didn't really stop Pakistan's economic growth, in fact it grew quite well in the 1980s, and also in the mid 2000s there was good growth. It seems mismanagement and warfare have been the problems that hampered investment.

 

[ephone]

What part of AQ I do not understand?

Why don't you voice your opinion publicly whether you think Al Qaeda and Taliban are terrorist organizations???

If you think otherwise, why don't you go out at any street of U.K. to voice your opinion and see whether U.K. police respects your freedom of speech???

BTW, do not put those stupid directional "perspective" explanation for West here. Putting those laughable tricks over words is just way too ridiculous.

It all depends on the perspectives. Nothing wrong with that. Care to explain why they are in all the European football leagues?

You still failed to come up with anything substantial about the history of Al Qaeda. Using them as an example to voice your arguments against Pakistan is absurd to say the least. It only highlights your lack of understanding and your bias towards western media.

 

[integra]

seems Roadrunner has reached his 1000th thanks, congrats.

 

[Obambam]

If you can, would you please let me know what is the growth rate for Pakistan before and after Zia's state's islamization policy??? What is the improvement of literacy before and after that for Pakistani people?

As I have recalled, there are no major wars for Pakistan after 1975.

That is like saying the growth rate was at 5% 30 years ago with the old economic and education capacity is better than the growth rate of 2% based on the current capacity. You have to allow space for calculation of the modernizations which took place inbetween.

Also, it cannot be assumed that major wars will always hurt the economy more. How about on going wars as well as social issues can hurt just as much if not more?

 

[roadrunner]

You can find graphs for the literacy rate. But it's increased quite a lot. I don't think it means much except that people can read. It's an improvement though.

The 1980s average GDP increase was 6.5%.

Early 1990s were good, but sanctions were imposed in the late 90s, along with economic mismanagement.

Growth rate in 2000s was fairly good. In 2005 it was around 8% or 9%.

War in Afghanistan has caused investment to go away recently, but it will come back.

It's usually instability in security/politics or sanctions that stop Pakistan's economic growth.

 

[53fd]

If you can, would you please let me know what is the growth rate for Pakistan before and after Zia's state's islamization policy??? What is the improvement of literacy before and after that for Pakistani people?

Let me tell you, there is a difference between Islamization & Islamic extremism. I hope you understand the difference. Pakistan has been the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" since 1956, when it was incorporated into Pakistan's constitution, & that is what is referred to as 'Islamization'. The purpose of 'Islamization' was to help bind the 5 basic ethnic groups that had nothing in common with each other (Punjabis, Sindhis, Pakhtuns, Balochis, Bengalis): the language, cultures, even the historical leaders (kings & rulers in the past) were different. Religion served as a unifying force, a binding force that helped Pakistan overcome separatist movements from Sindh (Sindudesh), Pakhtuns (Pakhtunistan), Balochis (various groups), Bengalis (Mukti Bahini, but this eventually failed in 1971 as the geographical challenges/huge distances over enemy territory were a huge problem that could not be curtailed). Islamization does not refer to Islamic extremism, but to use moderate Islam as a unifying force to hold the ethnicities together & overcome separatist movements & lingual/cultural 'deficiencies'.

Islamic extremism basically took place after the Soviet war, but listening to the international media, what you probably don't realize is that the core of the Pakistani society abstain from extremism (which is why an Islamist party has never been brought into power by the people), because the foundations of the nation & its people are strong, & will continue to be strong. This is the resilience of the Pakistani nations, & if most countries were facing what Pakistan is facing right now, would have totally collapsed. They wouldn't be able to take it. Even in these difficult times, Pakistan's economy grew at 2.4% last year (mainly due to the floods), & will grow at 4% this year. As the WOT comes to a close, expect to see this figure to go higher. In 2007, Pakistan grew at 7%. Pakistan has seen far worse times in 1971 than it does today. At the time, Pakistan's defenses were weak, & there was a high chance after Bangladesh became independent that Pakistan would no longer remain. Today however, despite big challenges, there is more reason for optimism in Pakistan.

 

[roadrunner]

seems Roadrunner has reached his 1000th thanks, congrats.

time to celebrate this great milestone

 

[ephone]

Are you on drugs?

1, yes, you got the right to blame, you meet? or you blame Pakistan is not in Europe or the U.S. neighbor? trouble you get some magic to change it, can you?

2, not the problem, but a game can bring just another game.

 

[huzihaidao12]

In fact, in almost the same starting point for Pakistan and Turkey, whether material or spiritual, Pakistan is full of confidence and morale in the '60s, but why such a big difference. that there are some subjective reasons for the leaders. However, objectively speaking, Turkey are protected by Europe and NATO, the protection of Pakistan is the United States, it is a big difference. because Turkey is a European neighborhood, you can not choose your neighbors, if Turkey is confused, it will directly undermine regional security and interests in Europe. But the U.S. is not Pakistan's neighbors, there is no long-term interests, come and go is the immediate need, can not always provide a guarantee. a few years later, the peace and stability in Turkey can be more concerned about their own internal affairs, and the development of Pakistan Always interrupted by something. can not concentrate on the improvement in the own internal affairs. This is the reason for the huge difference in Turkey and Pakistan. So your neighbor you always have long-term interests, this is the reason why there is a large regional cooperation Development in the past ten years.

 

[ephone]

That is not Zia's islamization. What Ali Bhutto did was dramatically different from what Zia did.

BTW, I in NOwhere said islamization and islamic extremism are equal. So do not put those hat on my head.

Let me tell you, there is a difference between Islamization & Islamic extremism. I hope you understand the difference. Pakistan has been the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" since 1956, when it was incorporated into Pakistan's constitution, & that is what is referred to as 'Islamization'. The purpose of 'Islamization' was to help bind the 5 basic ethnic groups that had nothing in common with each other (Punjabis, Sindhis, Pakhtuns, Balochis, Bengalis): the language, cultures, even the historical leaders (kings & rulers in the past) were different. Religion served as a unifying force, a binding force that helped Pakistan overcome separatist movements from Sindh (Sindudesh), Pakhtuns (Pakhtunistan), Balochis (various groups), Bengalis (Mukti Bahini, but this eventually failed in 1971 as the geographical challenges/huge distances over enemy territory were a huge problem that could not be curtailed). Islamization does not refer to Islamic extremism, but to use moderate Islam as a unifying force to hold the ethnicities together & overcome separatist movements & lingual/cultural 'deficiencies'.

Islamic extremism basically took place after the Soviet war, but listening to the international media, what you probably don't realize is that the core of the Pakistani society abstain from extremism (which is why an Islamist party has never been brought into power by the people), because the foundations of the nation & its people are strong, & will continue to be strong. Pakistan has seen far worse times in 1971 than it does today. At the time, Pakistan's defenses were weak, & there was a high chance after Bangladesh became independent that Pakistan would no longer remain. Today however, despite big challenges, there is more reason for optimism in Pakistan.

 

[53fd]

That is not Zia's islamization. What Ali Bhutto did was dramatically different from what Zia did.

Please read my complete post, I have made a few changes to my post. Thanks