You could have said the same thing about most any national government and I would have agreed :)

The only reason for the ;) was because of a syllogism there and an ironic twist believe it or not not geared at you, taking advantage or mocking someone for their ignorance or oversight is doubly as shameful. You seem to be a person with many assumptions to make[ such as that I write to appear smart. Could it be that I just saw you're post as offensive and had to comment back? If you mean my prose gives that impression then you're wrong again if you say that was my intention, it's a practice of mine to use the right words for the right idea and in a meaningful way, again that this is a practice should impress you on my inexperience.

I can't see where I made an assumption of you, even in the last paragraph I relied on the content of your post and only painted out the reality versus your presumption. But if you want to use the I'm rubber your glue argument then, I'll have to leave you at your best.

--- Edit

Okay here's an example "Sir that I have a grievances with, could you elaborate? Do you mean all Muslims or just radicalists?"

Someone else answered the question in a leading way and got the answer they would have gotten. But you didn't even ask for clarity and here is where the assumption began.

Pakistan should just shut up. Who are they to warn or even ask America?

What on earth are you on about? You really aren't making much sense.

Are you saying Pakistan was harbouring Osama Bin Laden before 2002 or are you talking about something I wasn't discussing but you for some reason brought up? Don't try and act all clever just speak straight up please.

Syllogisms work that way, and I gave you the best example anyone could. Since the thread is about Pakistan I believe I've also stayed on topic. Clever, I wouldn't bother writing if the goal was to be clever or if I did it would have been tongue in cheek.

---Edit

I see, you should read the 9/11 Commission report on Pakistan, you may find it interesting and if you have then there's nothing more to talk about.

Well, they are basically an unpopular corrupt government clinging to power, only sticking around because the alternatives are distatseful to basically the entire rest of the world.

The main alternative is Musharraf-style dictatorship, but the military is just as cozy with the Taliban as the Pakistan People's Party is, and the alternative to the PPP or the Military is the Taliban itself, so yeah.

Though you have to understand that a lot of it is that none of the Pakistanis want to see Afghanistan fall to the Indians, and they all support the idea of having terrorists wage proxy wars against India and Indian interests.

Wow your a difficult one aren't you?

I'm looking through the 9/11 Commission report and there's not a single heading or sub heading dedicated to Pakistan. Since your so sure of yourself could you locate the exact page and if your not sure then at least point me in the right direction. I'm very interested to see if Pakistan was harbouring Bin Laden pre 9/11 for in your own worlds 'strikes against the Western world'. I don't believe you but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in 2003 in Pakistan through a joint effort of the ISI and American forces.

There are reasons like him, like bin Laden and so on. Now if you can't find that mans name at all in whatever your reading then your not reading the 9/11 com report.

That's not the same as saying Pakistan was harbouring them pre 9/11 which is what you said. They were in hiding after the invasion of Afghanistan which is post 9/11. Like practically every single senior figures of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and a lot of them fled to Pakistan and hid there nothing new about that and not what we were discussing. What a wasted exercise this has been.