Tweet
A while back on this forum before the Pakistani elections of 2013, when the PTI party and Imran Khan were brought up, some interesting discussion took place.
On one hand, people labeled Imran Khan as a evil individual who had designs for Afghanistan, serving Pakistan's strategic depth policy in regards to Afghanistan, and then in the same breath, Imran Khan was mocked as a weak and ineffective person who would not be able to live up to his pledges of ending Pakistan support for the US-NATO war in Afghanistan. He was all talk, and nothing else.
While there might have been some genuine analysis, most of the thinking was ideologically driven because the PFers making such "educated" opinions were in favor of the US-NATO war for stability as a hedge against Pakistan's interference.
The absurdity of such thinking involves saying Imran Khan is both powerful and weak at the same time, and in the same breath. Which thinking does one pick for the sake of convenience or ideological reasons. How are such two ideas ever reconciled without a person realizing how stupid they are?
How can those PFers who support the US-NATO war which is made possible by Pakistan NATO supply routes truly claim to be Anti-Pakistan?
If one is opposed to Imran Khan because he is ending Pakistan support for the US-NATO war, then how could one prior to that be anti-Pakistan? A Pro-War person would be in favor of Pakistan support for the US-NATO war in Afghanistan, right?
This mental confusion has never been brought up for some reason by those very people who support the US-NATO war. It is central to any discussion about Pakistan interference in Afghanistan.
Giving NATO supply lines to Afghanistan is clear interference.
On one hand, people labeled Imran Khan as a evil individual who had designs for Afghanistan, serving Pakistan's strategic depth policy in regards to Afghanistan, and then in the same breath, Imran Khan was mocked as a weak and ineffective person who would not be able to live up to his pledges of ending Pakistan support for the US-NATO war in Afghanistan. He was all talk, and nothing else.
While there might have been some genuine analysis, most of the thinking was ideologically driven because the PFers making such "educated" opinions were in favor of the US-NATO war for stability as a hedge against Pakistan's interference.
The absurdity of such thinking involves saying Imran Khan is both powerful and weak at the same time, and in the same breath. Which thinking does one pick for the sake of convenience or ideological reasons. How are such two ideas ever reconciled without a person realizing how stupid they are?
How can those PFers who support the US-NATO war which is made possible by Pakistan NATO supply routes truly claim to be Anti-Pakistan?
If one is opposed to Imran Khan because he is ending Pakistan support for the US-NATO war, then how could one prior to that be anti-Pakistan? A Pro-War person would be in favor of Pakistan support for the US-NATO war in Afghanistan, right?
This mental confusion has never been brought up for some reason by those very people who support the US-NATO war. It is central to any discussion about Pakistan interference in Afghanistan.
Giving NATO supply lines to Afghanistan is clear interference.
Comment