Most dangerous nation in the world

Not open for further replies.

I do agree to Pakistan being a dangerous nation ................It is i think one of the More Powerful Islamic States that if gone into Rough hands can spell Devastation.

and it has been very clever in auguring best of both worlds...................on one side got China and other side America...............America needs it so they have overlooked most of it's..................and because it possesses american equipment and technology it is of great interest to the mean time it has acurid a lot of military hardware and technology.

It's Unconvetional tactica are succesful in kashmir ..............but one has to remember they were defeted in Punjab with similar tactics..........on reason i think is public support and backing .........and time is of essance .................if it streaches long people get tired and loose these tactics are succeful to a extent but if the a superior power can plan it's strikes effectivelly they can effectively control them

-=Good Luck=-


WASHINGTON: Pakistan's intelligence officials knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks, a well-known American analyst has said, based on a "stunning document" that he claims was given by a Pakistani source to the 9/11 Commission on the eve of the publication of its report.

The document, from a high-level, but anonymous Pakistani source, also claims that Osama bin Laden has been receiving periodic dialysis in a military hospital in Peshawar, says Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor-at-large of the news agency UPI.

"The imprints of every major act of international Islamist terrorism invariably passes through Pakistan, right from 9/11 - where virtually all the participants had trained, resided or met in, coordinated with, or received funding from or through Pakistan," Borchgrave cites the confidential document as saying.

But one does not have to go to Borchgrave's unnamed sources to find Pakistan’s involvement in terrorist activity leading to 9/11. The 9/11 commission report itself nails Pakistan in chapter after chapter, revealing that the Pakistani intelligence was in cahoots with the Taliban and al Qaeda, far more than Iran and Iraq ever were.

Among the inquiry commission's observations, quoted verbatim here
"Pakistan's intelligence service is in bed with bin Laden and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign" quoting Richard Clarke

"Islamabad was behaving like a rogue state in two areas backing Taliban/bin Laden terror and provoking war with India" - quoting NSC Bruce Riedel

Pakistani intelligence officers reportedly introduced bin Laden to Taliban leaders in Kandahar - Commission's own observation.

Pakistan's military intelligence service, known as the ISID (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate), was the Taliban's primary patron - Commission's observation.

Pakistan helped nurture the Taliban. The Pakistani army and intelligence services, especially below the top ranks, have long been ambivalent about confronting Islamist extremists. Many in the government have sympathized with or provided support to the extremists - Commission's observation.

Elsewhere, even as the Bush administration made a big to-do about ten hijackers passing through Iran and tried to implicate Teheran on that grounds, the 9/11 report shows that several hijackers who rammed the planes into American targets used Karachi as a base and trained there for weeks on end.

In fact, the report paints Karachi as the gateway to terrorism, drawing an elaborate picture of the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed using the port city to plan the attack, gather the hijackers there, and put them through their paces. ''Much of his (KSM's) activity in mid-1999 had revolved around the collection of training and informational materials for the participants in the planes operation,''the 9/11 report says. ''For instance, he collected Western aviation magazines; telephone directories for American cities such as San Diego and Long Beach, California (from Karachi flea markets); brochures for schools; and airline timetables, and he conducted Internet searches on US flight schools.''

"He also purchased flight simulator software and a few movies depicting hijackings. To house his students, KSM rented a safehouse in Karachi with money provided by bin Laden," the report adds. But all this is not good enough for the American media, which has almost completely ignored Pakistan’s role in 9/11 while going on a feeding frenzy over a few speculative morsels tossed out by the Bush administration about the involvement of Iran and Iraq.

Not a single US TV channel or newspaper collated, let alone reported or highlighted, the multiple indictment of Pakistan contained in the report. Even a cursory key word search would have shown more than 200 references to Pakistan, many of them damning. There are less than 100 references to Iran and Iraq combined. While the commission report repeatedly implicates Pakistan and its intelligence agency ISI in terrorist activity, it too appears to have failed to record some well-chronicled events that might have pointed to the impending catastrophe.

For instance, the report does not contain any reference to Niaz Khan, a Pakistani waiter in Britain who walked into an FBI office in New Jersey nearly a year before 9/11 and alerted them about a plot to fly planes into buildings. Nor does it go into reports that terrorist mastermind Mohammed Atta received a wire transfer of funds from a source in Karachi connected to the ISI. Despite this, Pakistan finds itself incriminated in the report far more than Iran or Iraq. The commission itself is frequently censorious of Pakistan's role, but in the end it recommends more carrots as a means of bringing back what it suggests is a failed state from the brink.

Pakistani officials have issued their pro forma denials about Islamabad's involvement, clutching instead at a few paras in the report that recommend a sustained (and conditional) US engagement with the military dictatorship.

Xion, actually they are still on topic, debating whether the USA is the most dangerous nation on earth. Seeing things from different angle is good and fun.

Oops! I responded before I had finished reading the rest. Hehe, but anyway, I'll leave there.
It's all a game, who were talkin bout the USA ? I didn't get you....... I want ya'll to read what I posted a post above.
Outside View: U.S. amnesia on Pakistan

Published 11/22/2004 6:05 PM

ATLANTA, Nov. 22 (UPI) -- Even as Pakistan's leadership was expressing its unrestrained glee with President George W. Bush's thumping re-election, the new Bush administration wasted no time in making its first big move to reward Pakistan with advanced weaponry.

On Nov. 16, the Defense Security and Cooperation Agency sent notifications to Congress of a $1.3 billion arms package for Pakistan, a major non-NATO ally of America. The deal includes eight P-3C Orion naval reconnaissance planes possibly with anti-ship and anti-submarine missiles, 2,000 TOW-2A heavy anti-armor guided missiles and the deadly PHALANX Close-In Weapon Systems for ships. Ostensibly, these sales are to enable Pakistan to fight the war on terror. What's even better for Pakistan is that the money for this sale is likely to come from the $1.5 billion over five years that the U.S has promised Pakistan in military aid, making it a veritable freebie.

Not to forget that what is still on the table is the deal for the F-16 fighter jets that Pakistan has been dying to get. Even though there is no official word on the F-16s, there have been many reports that the deal is all but done and the Bush administration is waiting for an opportune time to announce it, perhaps when Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf next visits Washington.

Now, if one takes this new Orion/TOW/Phalanx giveaway deal at face value, it seems like a reasonable proposition. After all, if the United States expects Pakistan to fight terrorists, it behooves it to support its ally as much as possible, right? Not quite.

The problem is that these systems are unlikely to be used in Pakistan's much-vaunted operations in the tribal areas, which a senior U.S official recently described to Time magazine as "7,000 to 10,000 Pakistani troops courageously battling 200 al-Qaida guys to a standstill."

The Pakistan army, for instance, could theoretically use the TOW missile against militant hideouts in the tribal areas. But one needs to look at the specific version that Pakistan is seeking to see the fallacy of this claim.

The DSCA statement clearly states that the TOW variant that Pakistan wants is the "TOW-2A Anti-Armor Guided Missile." This missile's unique feature is the "tandem" warhead that is specifically designed to be used against tanks with Explosive Reactive Armor. It is hard to imagine the tribal militants in possession of ERA armored vehicles, but everyone knows who has such systems in Pakistan's neighborhood.

On the other side of Pakistan, the Indian army is busy inducting the Russian made T-90S tanks with the Kontakt-5 ERA, just the type of armor the TOW-2A is designed to penetrate. It is unlikely to see Pakistan wasting its supply of TOW-2As when its huge supply of cheap Chinese anti-tank missiles could do the trick against the mud structures of the tribal militants. As they say, it doesn't make sense to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

Similarly, the P-3C planes have only one likely purpose -- to fight against India's large fleet of submarines and battleships. Indeed there is very little that the Pakistan Navy could do in terms of tracking terrorist ships that the U.S. and NATO fleets in and around Pakistan cannot do. Besides, is the United States ever going to rely on the Pakistanis to track their coastline, when that area holds the biggest risk of a nuclear-weapon-laden container being sent to American ports? Even the DSCA's press release on the P-3C sale says that the P-3C "will enhance the capabilities of the Pakistani Navy and support its regional influence."

Similarly, the PHALANX system is meant to defend ships against fast incoming missiles and aircrafts, which terrorists are unlikely to have. Pakistan is likely to employ them on ships conducting operations against India.

And we are not even talking about the F-16s. If press reports from Washington are to be believed, Pakistan is likely to get 18 to 20 F-16 C/D variants, possibly with AMRAAM air-to-air missiles and precision-guided bombs. It is hard to see how AMRAAM long range air-to-air missiles help fight terrorists unless they are intended to bring down Osama Bin Laden's flying carpet.

All this makes one wonder if the United States has learned anything from history.

In the 1980s, Pakistan was a frontline ally of the U.S in the effort to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. During that time, supporters of Pakistan in Capitol Hill and the Pentagon argued for giving that nation advanced arms, including the F-16 fighters as well as billions in military aid. The F-16s were justified with an argument that a conventionally strong Pakistan is unlikely to develop nuclear weapons.

As it turned out later, Pakistan actually accelerated its nuclear program during the same period with the American taxpayer funding its conventional defenses to the tune of $5 billion, thereby freeing up funds for its nuclear program. Former Senate official Leonard Weiss revealed in 2002 that Pakistan had in fact diverted two-thirds of the weaponry acquired from the United States ostensibly to protect against the Soviet threat to the Indian border.

Washington Post Managing Editor Steve Coll wrote in his recent book "Ghost Wars" that Pakistan's intelligence services transferred weapons obtained from the CIA, such as advanced sniper rifles, to the Islamist groups fighting against Indian troops in Kashmir. The Pakistan army even used the famous Stinger missiles in its 1999 aggression into the Indian-held Kargil heights in Kashmir.

Apologists for Pakistan in Washington point out that given the big imbalance between India and Pakistan militarily, the United States must step in to address the disparity for the sake of "stability." One could write a book on the hollowness of this argument, but two big holes in this hypothesis stand out.

Firstly, Pakistan is already close to max-out levels in its defense spending. Its current defense budget for 2004-2005 is officially 194 billion rupees. But that doesn't include grants, pensions and other expenses, which increase the actual number to 300 billion rupees or approximately $5 billion. If one adds to that the $600 million that Pakistan is getting in terms of free weaponry from the United States, it comes to $3.6 billion or a whopping 8 percent of its 2003 gross domestic product. India, on the other hand, spends between 2 percent and 3 percent of its GDP for defense.

The fact is that there is never going to be an equality between Pakistan and India in conventional arms, just like India can never equal China's numbers and China in turn can never match up to America's. Besides, aren't Pakistan's nuclear weapons supposed to obviate the need for Pakistan to match India weapon for weapon?

The other argument is the one that is usually spouted by retired Pakistani military officials who frequent American think tanks. For instance, retired Pakistan Army Brig. Feroz Hassan Khan is a visiting professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterrey, Calif. Khan says that the United States needs to "realize" that India is Pakistan's main threat and must seek to alleviate this specific concern of Pakistan.

In fact, this argument is also without merit. The reality is that in terms of South Asian stability, India is a status quo power, which seeks to wait out issues, much like China does with respect to Taiwan.

But what the Pakistani military establishment clearly wants is a license to try to change the status quo through the use of sub-state actors, such as the jihadi groups its uses in Kashmir supplemented by a U.S.-provided safety net when its ill thought-out military adventures backfire, like they usually do.

Now it is quite true that the military dominated Pakistani establishment has always viewed India as an aggressor and a mortal threat. But that does not mean that the world should buy into this theory. In fact, most experts in Washington and elsewhere point out that Pakistan's main threat is an internal one from homegrown Islamist groups and the radicalization of the Pakistani society in general and the army in particular. In fact, the unsaid fear factor is America's post 9/11 policy towards Pakistan has been the prospect of a radical Islamist regime taking control of Pakistan's already leaky nuclear weapons complex.

It is therefore in the American interest to focus aid to Pakistan toward efforts to thwart the internal dangers, rather than buttressing the Pakistani establishment's paranoia about the Indian "threat." Former State Department official and South Asia expert Teresita Schaffer pointed out in her July 14, 2004 testimony to the Senate that Pakistan has not abandoned its proclivity towards starting reckless military adventures and continues to support Islamist militants in Kashmir who could provoke a war with India with one big attack. She recommended against the sale of major weapons systems to Pakistan in that context.

The Musharraf regime is already in a state of euphoria over the Bush re-election. They see Bush's win as something that would guarantee the continuation of benefits that Pakistan enjoyed over the last four years -- lavish economic support, daily diplomatic encomiums, little pressure for democratic reforms, coddling of Pakistani jihadi groups and a free pass on the A.Q. Khan deal and more cover up of Pakistani state involvement in nuclear proliferation.

In this milieu, it is hard to see the latest American military largesse to Pakistan as having anything but a negative effect on the region's stability. This could only serve to embolden the hard-line elements in Pakistan's military to get aggressive with India again. If the Kashmir talks soon hit a dead end with Pakistan realizing that it cannot gain any territory from India on the negotiating table, we may possibly see another "tactically brilliant" but strategically harebrained military adventure by Pakistan within the next four-years.

Like Yogi Berra once said -- "It's déjà vu all over again"
I live in Malaysia and there I have some Indian friends as well. They also said the Pakistan r a very distubing Nation.

No Offends in my comment, I think if this world is without Islam, It's going to be better. Most of the unpeace eactivities and incident to day were come from Islamic world.

Cachnya (Not sure, but I remember most of the people there were Muslims isn't it?), Middle East, Indonesia-Malaysia-Thai-Philipine Islamic Extremist.

Anyway, my country is also a Islamic country(lucky not like Middle east that one,my country is open minded), hahahaha.
Pakistan going it alone vs India poises itself on the brink of complete disaster. They would have to see a lot of help from outside themselves to survive a conflict with India. They are probably the biggest hotspot for terrorism on the planet, most if directed against India.

Anyone think that Bangladesh would help out in any way if Pakistan needed them? As far as I know, Bangladesh is thoroughly happy to be rid of Pakistani rule.
I lived in Malaysia for 2 years and it is the most moderate muslim country in the world. Probably largely in part for two major reasons:
1) Mahatir
2) Large Chinese population who are not Muslim.

Ezechiel said:
I live in Malaysia and there I have some Indian friends as well. They also said the Pakistan r a very distubing Nation.

No Offends in my comment, I think if this world is without Islam, It's going to be better. Most of the unpeace eactivities and incident to day were come from Islamic world.

Cachnya (Not sure, but I remember most of the people there were Muslims isn't it?), Middle East, Indonesia-Malaysia-Thai-Philipine Islamic Extremist.

Anyway, my country is also a Islamic country(lucky not like Middle east that one,my country is open minded), hahahaha.

Despite what the UN literally describes as genocide committed against erstwhile East Pakistan (Bangladesh) by West Pakistan (Pakistan), resulting in the deaths of millions of civilians at the hands of the West Pakistani military in 1971 (and thus prompting India's intervention and liberation of Bangladesh), the political structure is sharply divided between the liberal, India-friendly Awami League party, which is formed from the various groups and parties that won Bangladesh's independence, and the right-wing Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which, allied to the radical Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami parties, has strong control over the country. The BNP has a rather Islamist outlook as it is, but its pandering to the JeI has created an extremely dangerous situation.

The Bangladeshi economy is only limping along while population growth remains unchecked. This plus the literal yearly flooding of the entire Ganga/Brahmaputra delta upon which Bangladesh rests has retarded progress considerably. These and overcrowding pressures have forced millions of Bangladeshis illegally into India's West Bengal and Northeastern states, displacing entire native Indian populations, creating incredible ethnic and political tension in these areas. This, plus the extreme Islamist radicalization of these Bangladeshi illegals and the Bangladeshi population as a whole has led to the rise of tribal militants who commit dreadful atrocities against the Indian government itself, who rightfully see as soft on the issue of illegal immigration. I fear for the fate of the Hindu and Buddhist minorities in the hill areas of Bangladesh, who comprise 10% and rapidly dwindling of the population.

Circumstances make for strange bedfellows, and these terrorists now find safe haven in Bangladesh under whose, and Pakistani intelligence's protection and funding commit wanton terrorism against civilian targets in the Northeast.

Recently, the tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan conducted an almost medieval-like war (with modern weapons) against the Bangladesh/Pakistan-backed terrorist groups who had vast jungle bases on their territory. Currently, Bhutan, India and now Burma, with a surprising newfound awe and friendship for India, are conducting joint action against these terrorist groups.

Hope this answers your question sufficiantly

I realized I haven't really even answered your question!

Even if Bangladesh wanted to come to Pakistan's aid, there is no way it could. The Bangladeshi military is hardly much of a threat, and even then, they depend on Indian training and aid. If worst comes to worst, India will steamroll over that country in a matter of hours, instead of days like 197 1. But except to perhaps redraw borders, who the heck would want to inherit the problems of that mess of a country…
Mostly interested in whether Bangladesh would try to jump in if Pakistan was neeing help. It would be stupid, but I'm not sure you can expect logic to completely enter into the equation. They would be sacrificing themselves with little or no chance of having much of an impact ... in a conventional war that is.

What I was mostly curious about is if Bangladesh still hates Pakistan too much to consider cooperation?

FlyingFrog said:
Bangladesh is interesting, it is a very big country in fact. I believe it was part of India before right?
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were once the same nation. When they split, Pakistan was formed as East Pakistan (Bangladesh) and West Pakistan. East Pakistan, through the intervention of India, gained their independence from West Pakistan, and is now Bangladesh.

I believe it was part of India before right?

Yes when Pakistan too ws a part of india at that time ..............when the country was divided in 1945 it went to Pakistan ...........also called the easten pakistan.

it is a very big country in fact

BIG ............. :shock: :D ............Didn't expeact that form a chinese to call bangladesh big

Locate it here

the small yellow thing betwee Myanmar and India is bangladesh..............i wouldn't call it big.

Memo to self : Increase you Typing Speed ........godofthunder9010's post wasent there when i started typing mine

Bangladesh wouldn't even be free now if it weren't for India, who freed them from the Pakistani rule.But forgetting all that they are now targeting India itself by nurturing terrorist camps in their country.Theres also no stop to the Bangladeshi infiltration into India, there are about 10,000 bangladeshis living illegaly in the city which I am from.The authorities here pack them up and send them back to their country but the level of infiltration is so huge that they keep comin back.This tiny country has a population greater than Russia, how many of ya'll fainted ? for the bangla authorities its good the more ppl they get rid of from their country.
Btw Bangladesh is not a vey big country, area of about approx. 1.5 lakh surrounded by three sides from India wouldn't take much time to occupy in case of a war with Pakistan , with Bangladeshis supporting them.

godofthunder9010 said:
What I was mostly curious about is if Bangladesh still hates Pakistan too much to consider cooperation
I know its weird but they still do like pakistan, thats how muslim brotherhood is,also they will support any country which is anti-India.And its not even too many years they got independence, just about in 1972...and now they are challenging India itself without whom they wouldn't even exist in the first place.
Thanks SwordFish_13 too.

You were indeed slower than thunder :D

Well I mean BIG I mean their population.
But I NEVER realized the country is soo small compared to India, must be a very high population density.
FlyingFrog said:
Thanks godofthunder9010.

I bet Bangladesh is not muslim, right?
You don't seem to fully understand why Pakistan was setup to begin with. East and West Pakistan were supposed to be havens for Muslims to gather to. India was supposed to be for the Hindus to gather to.

It didn't work out very well IMO.

If there is any place in the world population doomsayers could point to in favor of their scenarios, that place would be Bangladesh. The most densely populated nation state on the planet as of 1993, Bangladesh somehow squeezes 115 million people into a mere 55,126 square miles (about the size of Wisconsin.) As one writer on Bangladesh puts it, to achieve that level of population density in the United States would require that the entire world’s population live within the continental United States.
Not open for further replies.