Posted on 10/30/2012 9:17:08 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
Ties between Saudi Arabia and India have grown closer in recent months, a development that has implications for Pakistan. In its latest move to boost relations, Saudi Arabia handed over an alleged member of the militant Indian Mujahideen wanted for attacks in Indian cities. This follows a trend of two other incidents in which Saudi Arabia extradited alleged militants linked to terrorist acts; India and Saudi Arabia signed an extradition treaty in 2010. The most notable turnover involved a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based group implicated in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. While Pakistan is Saudi Arabia’s traditional ally, some see the recent drift towards India as a counter to Pakistan’s increasingly visible inability to handle its militant proxies. (The Wall Street Journal, October 23, 2012)
They’re both flakey.
What about America, the main country which propped, continues to prop, and aid Pakistan, despite its open pro-terrorism stance? Terminally flaky?
A relationship with Pakistan falls under the category of “necessary evil”. Most countries try to avoid dealing with the Muslim terrorist state.
No. Aiding and enabling evil (Pakistan) does not make the enabler any less evil.
> No. Aiding and enabling evil (Pakistan) does not make the
> enabler any less evil.
Unfortunately a lot of countries, including Australia, have relationships (military, sports, cultural) with terrorist Pakistan. I agree that Pakistan needs to be isolated.
Thanks bruinbirdman. This is a Saudi move to preempt any big moves by Iran; it also mirrors longterm moves by Israel; it also indicates that the Saudis want more influence in an up-and-coming power with a substantial fraction of the Earth’s human population; it also suggests the Saudis are picking a winner for the future.
Pakistan is Sunni and increasingly Salafist.
Saudi is looking at radicalising (and converting to Salafiism) the moslems of India. this is not anti-Pakistan
I used the term “necessary evil” as an observation, whether or not politicians use it to justify ideology or actions.
> What needs to happen is: pakistan is to be de-fanged of its nukes...
Hopefully in such a way that Pakistan is convinced that the nukes, now duds, still work.
And I am saying there is no such thing.
> [”necessary evil”] And I am saying there is no such thing.
Necessary Evil, also referred to as Plane #91, was the name of a B-29 Superfortress (B-29-45-MO 44-86291, Victor number 91) participating in the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_Evil_(aircraft)
Your point being?
That “necessary evil” as a term exists and is used in more than one way.
Only by slimy politicians who have sold their souls and people who buy into their narrative on pure face value.
> Only by slimy politicians who have sold their souls and
> people who buy into their narrative on pure face value.
So you’d call President Reagan a “slimy politician” because he used the term “necessary evil”? Here’s a news item:
Budget deficits ‘necessary evil’, Reagan asserts
I would just dismiss that as mere play of words. Nothing else. If something is necessary it can’t be evil. And if it is truly evil don’t do it an call it “necessary”. By the way a “budget deficit” while unsavoury is not “evil”. There’s nothing evil about a budget deficit. The evil we are discussing here is allying with rogue regime and calling it necessary.
Nice try on your part to duck behind Reagan’s word. You got anymore straws to toss?
Heh, admit it: you insulted President Reagan. If you can’t then there’s no point in discussing this issue here. Now go ahead, have the last word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.