This. Seriously, I've seen their opinion on the matter change at least six times in the week since the raid.

Noone asked them then and noone will be asking them in future.

And if they get too loud about it they will finish like student protesters in Iran recently. Or the ones in Tunisia.

So what you are saying is that those people may not have agreed to those violent tactics, even if their cries of protest agianst it arent heard. But then that would make them the opposite of what you said they were. 

Wherever American military aid goes, violence normally follows it and increases tenfold in the region. Look at Pre 9/11, Pakistan was much more stable. They still sufferd the odd sectarian violence but nothing like we have been seeing for the last decade. But when the Bush Administration pretty much forced Pakistan to either be with them or against them (rather then not take sides), Pakistan pretty much had no choice at the time since the America public was shellshocked from the 9/11 attacks and the would go with whatever the Government wanted to do and there were rumours the Bush Administration threatened to destroy Pakistans nuclear stockplie if they didn't help them take on the Taliban.  They've paid a tremendous price joining the so called war on terror. Thousands of it's soldiers and citizens killed in war and terrorism.

However as we all know, the Taliban is the baby of the Pakistani secret service the ISI. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US and her key allies in that war (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) funded and supported the worst elements of the Afghan Mujahadeen i.e the most fundamentalist Islamists who would later on turn against the US (a term the CIA coined blow back). Once the war was over, Aghanistan was left to fend for itself and descended into civil war. Pakistan would nuture the Taliban who in turn would eventually take over 90% of Afghanistan and mostly stabilise it. Pakistan now had a majority secure western flank thanks to their Taliban allies and could concentrate on India more and provide further support to the Kashmiri militants who were harrassing Indian security forces and eating into Indian coffers. Pakistan (who the US no longer needed the services of once the Soviets left Afghnistan) recieved a lot of support from India's giant Asian rival China who were happy to see India spending away on securing it's part of Kashmir.

After 9/11 and the Talibans refusal to hand over Bin Laden without proof led to the invasion, routing of the Taliban and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan it was only a matter of time before a major insurgency would start to take hold as well as political will and public support waning. Pakistan is indeed most likley playing a double game such is the nature of the corrupt world we live in where geo political realities and Machiavellian political schools of thought dominate the world wide political landscape. Reason? Just in case the insurgency cannot be defeated and a political settlement has to be reached with the enemy and it looks increasingly likely this will have to be the case. History attests to this in many guerilla campaigns most recently Iraq. By putting their eggs in many baskets Pakistan has taken the safer option of coming out at the end of it with at least something rather then all or nothing. Even so the public and the politicians are divided. It is likely the secular politicians want to root out the extremists as does the top Army brass but most of Pakistans (Islamic) population is poor, illiterate and susceptible to Islamists parties views (who are very popular and anit American) and rougue elements within the ISI are probably the one's most likely to be helping the Taliban while at the same time the ISI is having to help out the CIA.

If someone said what you just said to me, that Pakistan was at peace or even stable before the US arrived then I would need context and if that context should be anything like a statement of terror planners of Pakistan living unchecked while they exported strikes at the western world, then I would know a person saying what you just said might either be just another relativistic nihilist if they lived in any western country or an extremist if they lived in the middle east.

Noam tried pulling the same stunt back in 1990, I get it, we are supposed to check ourselves but ideas like America putting Saddam in power or causing sectarian violence in the Middle East or in some way elevating it are both nihilistic if spoken by any person who enjoys a democracy and historically false.

No one has said Pakistan was at peace or stable before 9/11  so not sure where you got that from. Also from your statement I presume you mean to say Pakistan was not at peace or stable at all pre 9/11. First of all Pakistan like a lot of countries around the world suffered the odd act of violence, in their case sectarian violence.  This is true and I mentioned this. I also accurately claimed before Pakistan was forced to join the so called War on Terror it was much more stable then it is now. Far more stable then it is now and furthermore Osama Bin Laden wasn't living in Pakistan then. These are the facts. Look for any news articles pre 9/11 and you will be very hard pressed to find the corporate elitist Western media accusing Pakistan of anything even though it was supporting the vicious Taliban (along with US favourite Saudi Arabia- the number one leading sponsor of spreading the teachings of violent jihadism).

dude that is so wrong on so many level 0_o come on man I expect better from you

It is fair to say that my statement might have been incoherent, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. So if you'll have me I'll give it a second shot:

If a person were to say to me that Pakistan was not harboring those that would send civilian air planes into civilian buildings before 2002 then I would have to buy that person a tin foil hat to go with their card board sign.

If a respondant cant get that he intends to say "radicalist muslim groups are crazy enough to use them", then anyone responding without citing the correction or progressing the conversation with the spirit of the sentence in mind and involving the identity of those muslims being radicalists should expect better of themselves first.

It's a kind of hypocracy when someone responds like this, it's of course offensive in a dodgey way to say he may be a bigot or worse psychophant, but don't think because you claim a high ground that you're actually immune to nitpicking, if anything any immorality  is seen much more clearly.

;)

wait what? Use your brain a bit more next time before trying to act smart why won't ya? makes people look stupid if not ;) fact of the matter is this, when you read something like this, you can either A go with the exact meaning, B go with what you hope/think it is. Either way using such sentences is just out right wrong and causes unneeded problems and can be very offensive. Hence why I said what I did. I don't know him that well but I have seen his posts to know he is not a bad poster but he needs to be careful about what he says, as do everyone. Especially regarding topics like this. He is more than welcome to point out if I make such an error as well.

and my goodness, you use the term high ground and you say this? geez hypocrit much? I never meant any harm by what I said and if HE felt so he can take it up with me personally and I will be more than happy to explain my words, no problem whatsoever. Not sure why you have your panties in a bunch over this tho? get off your high horse and stop reading into things too much. Maybe next time practice what you preach, don't 'assume' things. It's kinda sad and amusing at the same time lol

;)