Why I don't contribute to Desaster-Stricken Pakistan

[karan.1970]

But US didn't divert all their defence resources to Katrina, did they? That's the point I am trying to make.

They didnt need to. They had enough money to do both.

India I believe is around 3% - 3.5% so not that big a difference. US is 4 or 4.5%. 4% is bare minimum required for Pakistan.

India is 2.5%. Pakistan needs to decide what minimum required. Just saying that comparitively, 4% is not a low number going by the world standard

Well, many people put things very simple but this does not speak for all the west.

Thats true. But its a pov that is quite prevalant.

 

[SMC]

They didnt need to. They had enough money to do both.

Well their response wasn't great which suggests more resources from the military could have been diverted.

Anyway, that was just an aside comment. Pakistan has reduced F-16 numbers as much as it could. I think these kind of people can only be satisfied if Pakistan spends 0 cent on the military. Their way of thinking is way too simplistic for the real world.

India is 2.5%. Pakistan needs to decide what minimum required. Just saying that comparitively, 4% is not a low number going by the world standard

4% is global average so Pakistan is doing pretty good.

Actually check this out.

SIPRI Publications

This website is used as a source for military expenditure A LOT. It says Pakistan used 2.6% of its GDP for military.

Thats true. But its a pov that is quite prevalant.

Well it can be true for any country that spends quite a bit on the military. I mean if a similar flood were to come in India, you could make the argument that India should slash the MRCA deal, etc. The argument is way too simplistic and I don't think it should go beyond being posted on a blog.

I made a point earlier and I believe people should use it to look at things in perspective. Nobody will spend money on defence just for the hell of it. It all depends on their defence needs.

 

[softtec]

I mean if a similar flood were to come in India, you could make the argument that India should slash the MRCA deal, etc.

Sorry for jumping in. Yes in that case We could ask for squashing MRCA deal if
a. India would start begging all over the world for aids of its effected ppl.
b.After getting billions dollar public and private foreign aid, we would need billions to spend for them.
c. After getting all also, if we had strong grievance why don't others help more and more like they did for the poorest countries.

But last I heard that Pakistan's defense budget getting increased more.While getting aid, you will compare urself with poorest countries, but in other places you want compare with other big countries.Shouldn't had to be your responsibility to divert all the resources foremost to bail out these effected ppl from their misery?

 

[fast and furious]

I am sure you've never studied the media and press in any level. Media does a lot of "filtering", i.e. it shows things that it considers to be its own interests.





First off, the whole world is an incorrect assumption. Way too many indians believe that the whole world (the correct word is western world because I know that is what you mean. The western world is not the whole world. Does China, Japan, Caribbean, South American, Africa, Middle East not count in the whole world? You don't even know how Pakistan is viewed in those parts of the world. So use the correct term next time -- western world) looks at Pakistan in the way they (i.e. the Indians) look at Pakistan. That is completely false actually. If you were to talk to westerners both online and in real life, you'd get a very different picture.



Secondly, it's not that certain people want to see Pakistan in this way, it's that the media wants them to believe in these things. Take for instance the ground zero islamic center controversy. 70% Americans believe it shouldn't be built, yet the media by in large is supportive of it.

So Media shows what is in their interests.By Interest do you mean TRPs or circulation in case of print media.
Or is there any other bigger political,corporate or both conspiracy
that unites the whole media who otherwise is busy in one upmanship game(read grabbing TRPs to maximize their profits).
It will take just one channel /newspaper to show ground reality if it is any different from the so called propoganda by all and deliver the much damned 'breaking News' and revenue.
You mean not one mind in the so called hostile media towards Pakistan thinks business or reality is different than what you percieve.



Sir please check the post I was responding to and the context was AID given to Pakistan or the lack of it.
It is not me that was stereotyping pakistan but the post that reverse stereotyped the Western Media.As far as rest of the world and the countries you quoted,barring China are at best ambivalent to Pakistan
or cant provide much AID or lobbying for any country if US(western nation) wont allow them.



Now that is an opinion the media has and not reporting ground realities.
Besides that is my point as well.
I will read it as Religious tolerance (media's stand) against Religious stereotyping(Citizen's stand) though I am not sure about the percentage.

 

[Developereo]

The media (News and the oprahs of the world),do they operate in oblivion in the sense that the people watching them have a say in what they show or not?

As you are no doubt aware, each media outlet tends to cater to a specific demographic niche, e.g. Fox News, MSNBC, PBS/NPR in the US, or TOI, NDTV, The Hindu in India.

If they do sir.
Pray explain why the whole world wants to see anti-pakistani(not anti-muslim in this case as the floods are affectin pakistan) propoganda?

Hope its not due to the nukes.

The fact of the matter is that almost the entirety of mainstream Western media is owned by a handful of (six) companies, and all of them are heavily dominated by people who share a certain agenda on Israel and the Middle East. Support for Israel, and demonization of its enemies, is a non-negotiable pillar of faith for these people. As simplistic as it may sound it is, in fact, verifiably true and, being the only competent Muslim military power (other than Turkey), Pakistan has been in their cross-hairs for a while. Of course, 9/11 and Pakistan's support for the Taliban didn't exactly help.

 

[fast and furious]

As you are no doubt aware, each media outlet tends to cater to a specific demographic niche, e.g. Fox News, MSNBC, PBS/NPR in the US, or TOI, NDTV, The Hindu in India.



The fact of the matter is that almost the entirety of mainstream Western media is owned by a handful of (six) companies, and all of them are heavily dominated by people who share a certain agenda on Israel and the Middle East. Support for Israel, and demonization of its enemies, is a non-negotiable pillar of faith for these people. As simplistic as it may sound it is, in fact, verifiably true and, being the only competent Muslim military power (other than Turkey), Pakistan has been in their cross-hairs for a while. Of course, 9/11 and Pakistan's support for the Taliban didn't exactly help.

Sir I will disagree here .I have not heard or read foreign media much.But I can assure you that when it comes to Indian media only the packaging of news is different but not the actual news.
E.g. There is a dispute between Maharashtra and Karnatka over the border city of Belgaum.Now the same National Channel cannot show different versions of news in two different states.
However,the local newspaper can show different views depending upon the demography they are circulating within but cant change the complete facts because there is a national channel beaming the same news 24*7.


Sir your second point is taken with the exception that if the western media is taking a pro israeli stand for example.Should not there be more Arab Bashing than Pakistani.Iran is a foregone conclusion as they are eye to eye with Israel(and US).But you are shoulder to shoulder with US.

My only point is that it cannot be pure propoganda to fool the well informed western world.There has to be problem within as you candidly admitted in the last sentence of your post.
I personally am not subsrcibing to the view that Pakistan should not get AID cos a crisis is a crisis.There are real innocent people suffering and the world's apathy is not helping.
The big question is how much is Pakistan responsible for this ?

 

[Developereo]

Sir I will disagree here .I have not heard or read foreign media much.But I can assure you that when it comes to Indian media only the packaging of news is different but not the actual news.

Well, I am not an expert on Indian news media but many Indians on this forum have said that the Hindu tends to be more balanced and moderate as compared to TOI or NDTV.

News media betray their bias in many ways -- by the choice of words used, by omission of opposing views, or by disproportionate focus on crimes by certain groups.

E.g. There is a dispute between Maharashtra and Karnatka over the border city of Belgaum.Now the same National Channel cannot show different versions of news in two different states.
However,the local newspaper can show different views depending upon the demography they are circulating within but cant change the complete facts because there is a national channel beaming the same news 24*7.

Domestic issues tend to get more balanced coverage compared to foreign policy issues because, in the domestic case, both sides may have substantial representation to complain of bias, whereas, in foreign policy matters, the misrepresented party has no recourse to redress the bias.

Sir your second point is taken with the exception that if the western media is taking a pro israeli stand for example.Should not there be more Arab Bashing than Pakistani.

The Arab governments are the laughing stock of the world (discreetly because they are rich). Their utter incompetence and ruthlessness in domestic matters is surpassed only by their ineptitude in foreign affairs.

The big question is how much is Pakistan responsible for this ?

Certainly, the Pakistan government bears much of the blame -- both for the corruption and bad policy decisions. But it is unfair of the Western media to paint the entire country in a negative way.

 

[fast and furious]

Well, I am not an expert on Indian news media but many Indians on this forum have said that the Hindu tends to be more balanced and moderate as compared to TOI or NDTV.

News media betray their bias in many ways -- by the choice of words used, by omission of opposing views, or by disproportionate focus on crimes by certain groups.



Domestic issues tend to get more balanced coverage compared to foreign policy issues because, in the domestic case, both sides may have substantial representation to complain of bias, whereas, in foreign policy matters, the misrepresented party has no recourse to redress the bias.



The Arab governments are the laughing stock of the world (discreetly because they are rich). Their utter incompetence and ruthlessness in domestic matters is surpassed only by their ineptitude in foreign affairs.



Certainly, the Pakistan government bears much of the blame -- both for the corruption and bad policy decisions. But it is unfair of the Western media to paint the entire country in a negative way.

Sir I think 'The leaders of the country are as good or as bad as the people of the country'.

Leader,politician and Government bashing is liking having breakfast but only the people of the country including the leaders can only take a nation forward.No leaders of any country if left alone will do it for you.
My two cents.
Applies to us as well.

 

[SMC]

Sorry for jumping in. Yes in that case We could ask for squashing MRCA deal if
a. India would start begging all over the world for aids of its effected ppl.
b.After getting billions dollar public and private foreign aid, we would need billions to spend for them.
c. After getting all also, if we had strong grievance why don't others help more and more like they did for the poorest countries.

But last I heard that Pakistan's defense budget getting increased more.While getting aid, you will compare urself with poorest countries, but in other places you want compare with other big countries.Shouldn't had to be your responsibility to divert all the resources foremost to bail out these effected ppl from their misery?

You have essentially rehashed the argument that is stated by the author of the blog into different words. So what has already been discussed can answer what you said. Your response to my point about the MRCA deal being cancelled is flawed since you're assuming that the MRCA deal would be cancelled if your premises happen to be true. I personally highly doubt that it would be cancelled even if your premises are true.

 

[SMC]

So Media shows what is in their interests.By Interest do you mean TRPs or circulation in case of print media.
Or is there any other bigger political,corporate or both conspiracy
that unites the whole media who otherwise is busy in one upmanship game(read grabbing TRPs to maximize their profits).

It's all about what they (the media) want people to believe. Why do you think that despite US being so politically diverse, that US media is by in large liberal?

It will take just one channel /newspaper to show ground reality if it is any different from the so called propoganda by all and deliver the much damned 'breaking News' and revenue.
You mean not one mind in the so called hostile media towards Pakistan thinks business or reality is different than what you percieve.

I will tell you what to start off. You're making this sound very simple - i.e. making it sound almost like a case of black and white.

Why do you think western media only mentions the bad things about the arab states, despite some being very prosperous? Why do you think their reporting on Iran, North Korea, Venezuela is always the same?

Iran and Venezuela, for instance, are prosperous countries and Iran in particular has achieved great things in the last 30 years. Yet all is discussed is one thing.

Sir please check the post I was responding to and the context was AID given to Pakistan or the lack of it.
It is not me that was stereotyping pakistan but the post that reverse stereotyped the Western Media.As far as rest of the world and the countries you quoted,barring China are at best ambivalent to Pakistan
or cant provide much AID or lobbying for any country if US(western nation) wont allow them.

Now that is an opinion the media has and not reporting ground realities.
Besides that is my point as well.
I will read it as Religious tolerance (media's stand) against Religious stereotyping(Citizen's stand) though I am not sure about the percentage.

You're a classical case of one who uses flawed arguments that since media portrays a country in a certain way or that since many people in the west believe certain things, that those certain things must be true.

Here's something to consider:

argumentum ad populum

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will give you a good example. Iraq war. Look at the media and western public beliefs before the war started. Classical case of your personal flawed, simplistic, black and white type of logic being false. I personally don't have much to say about your flawed reasoning than what I just said above.

 

[fast and furious]

It's all about what they (the media) want people to believe. Why do you think that despite US being so politically diverse, that US media is by in large liberal?



I will tell you what to start off. You're making this sound very simple - i.e. making it sound almost like a case of black and white.

Why do you think western media only mentions the bad things about the arab states, despite some being very prosperous? Why do you think their reporting on Iran, North Korea, Venezuela is always the same?

Iran and Venezuela, for instance, are prosperous countries and Iran in particular has achieved great things in the last 30 years. Yet all is discussed is one thing.



You're a classical case of one who uses flawed arguments that since media portrays a country in a certain way or that since many people in the west believe certain things, that those certain things must be true.

Here's something to consider:

argumentum ad populum

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will give you a good example. Iraq war. Look at the media and western public beliefs before the war started. Classical case of your personal flawed, simplistic, black and white type of logic being false. I personally don't have much to say about your flawed reasoning than what I just said above.[/Q


SMC, bro I can reply to each and every point.
From your post it seems that you seem to know something that the rest of us dont.Probably you were their at the annual meet where in the US president releases the list of nations to the media CEOs to target.
I know that you will never answer a question but

1)Question the reasoning ability of the person you are debating with ?
2) 'It is not that simple but much more complicated than you think it is' is a standard line.

 

[rsingh]

Excellent article karan.1970 Sir

Simplistic. One has to be naive to assume, that just because Pakistan won't buy F-16s, it won't be under the threat of invasion.

Pakistan has a seriously powerful enemy and has to maintain minimum deterrence to well, deter an invasion.

Pakistan has not built an arsenal to fulfill ambitions of invading foreign lands across the oceans, its 20 F-16s, deter an even more appalling reality - the total destruction of Pakistan.

These 20 are bought to strategically offset the purchase of 100 possibly more advanced F-16s by its chief enemy.

Budgets always have to be allocated and are there for some very real purposes, numbers can't be moved around without taking into account ground realities. It's simple, 20Mn affected vs 170Mn affected.

.

Sir
U attack a country four times and u openly wage a proxy war against it . And now u say u have a serious powerful enemy.

We need not buy the teens to ensure -the total destruction of Pakistan.
Your Bad Karma is doing our dirty work.

 

[Spring Onion]

I dint bother to read the trash but while some morons made a dud attempt the world keeps going


United States donates $16 million to FAO for flood-hit Pakistan farmers

Islamabad/Rome, 23 September 2010

 

[somebozo]

Why dont you learn how to spell right first?

 

[RollingStones]

Why dont you learn how to spell right first?

I think I posted in some other thread. The average American today has a negative image of Pakistan (especially after the Times Square incident) and now we have the Pakistani scientist convicted. Americans wont support a nation or its people that they think are out to get them. Pakistanis arent doing anything anyways to improve their image. Yes, we Americans have a problem with Pakistan and its people.