-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pakistan is next country being set up for war, China not pleased
- Thread starter ROFL
- Start date
- Status
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Cyrillus said:
That bastard Jonas Hodges!!!
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
xbhaskarx said:
Doesn't China have troops amassed on the Line of Control?
Jeels said:
Here is the article in question:
http://articles.economictimes.india...an-s-ambassador-pakistan-china-pakistan-media
1. Can you specify which parts are hyperbole?
2. The article is mostly quotes, was anyone misquoted?
3. After reading the above story your biggest problem with it was that one of the sources was the Times of India? Really?
4. Did you even bother reading the article before posting your original comment or was it a kneejerk "I have been indoctrinated to mistrust any news story from India" response?
no he's a 9/11 truther ScholarZenith said:
:lol
The US can't afford to start up any more wars, they will hit the debt ceiling almost instantly and shit will go down. Also, their troops are spread out so far at this point. These kinds of article writers seem to think the US has a monolithic amount of weapons and troops that can be deployed in any country at any moment. But what can you say, when dealing with a 9/11 truther. They always believe the US government to have some unlimited level of power.
The end is hilarious:
"Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obamas bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden."
This, basically. This article reads like some fantasy land bullshit that Chavez would say to get people riled up about an "imminent US attack on Venezuela"PhoenixDark said:
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
I really don't see the U.S. and Pakistan as "allies". I see the U.S. as an intermediary between Pakistan and India, and supply and fund Pakistan's military.
Escape Goat
Member
Before posting...check your source. K thx bye.
Clockblockers
Member
I hate to ask, but are there any people that actually believe this?
astroturfing
Member
America isn't crazy enough to attack a nuclear power.
Zenith said:
I realize this is not the ideal forum for posting controversial political articles in, but I'm in this industry so I felt like it. In other more serious e-mail lists and forums it's common practice to work by the caveat lector principle in order to be open to all sources of information, leaving it up to the reader to judge / filter the content for themselves.
Saying 'caveat lector' is not a means of "jettisoning all responsibility", it's an invitation to potentially mature people to make up their own minds, disregard it as bunkum, whatever. Personally I like to explore information from all kinds of sources, even if it might come from right wing 'nuts' (I happen to be of the hard left persuasion like Tarpley), blatantly biased news sources or people, all sorts.
I'm not irate at all yet, I'm perfectly happy to go along with the predictable banter as if unfolds, it's obviously going to be par for the course and I'm pretty thick-skinned.
I don't actually consider Tarpley to be a crackpot. I've been aware of his stuff for a long time, and I happen to agree with a lot of his opinions and sometimes find his analysis to be pretty eye-opening. His tendency of hyperbole does tend to irritate me at times, but my opinion is that this is an extremely well informed person.
Continue..
xbhaskarx said:
I'm going to be honest with you, I simply read Times of India and scoffed. Likewise, I would not trust any Pakistani reporting on India and would consider it to have bias by default, so I hope you don't think I am being one sided here.
It's what they call each other publicly in speeches. Let's not forget that it was India that sided with the soviets and the US and Pakistan that worked together to create the Taliban and stop the Soviets from moving into South Asia. The US and Pakistan are historically allies, no way around it.
Witchfinder General
punched Wheelchair Mike
The US attacking Pakistan? Yeah, not going to happen. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and even with a surface-level only understanding of the region's history will know that it's not going to fucking happen.
The US will not attack Pakistan for a myriad of reasons, but I don't think because "they are a nuclear power" is high on that list.
If anything, securing their nukes would be something that may prompt us to attack them.
Pakistan does not have the capability to deliver a nuclear weapon to the US. At the most, they could strike US bases in Iraq or Afghanistan, but then they would be nuking a fellow Muslim country.
If anything, securing their nukes would be something that may prompt us to attack them.
Pakistan does not have the capability to deliver a nuclear weapon to the US. At the most, they could strike US bases in Iraq or Afghanistan, but then they would be nuking a fellow Muslim country.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Proof that if you can write something interesting, people will believe you.
DeathIsTheEnd
Member
Nobody needs to debunk anything. That article does not have sufficient evidence to produce the conclusion it has done so.
I seriously hope you don't believe what it says. Seriously.
I seriously hope you don't believe what it says. Seriously.
ROFL said:
It's interesting to compare this thread to the one where Zapages lost his posting privileges...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=406321
- Both threads involve articles posted from laughable fringe conspiracy theorist sources.
- Zapages posted a story about how Mossad is running TTP, you posted a story about the CIA/Mossad/RAW running TTP.
- Zapages maintained a (disingenuous) "not my opinion just passing along info" line, you're doing the same, while admitting you're a fan of this nutjob.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Yes, because all of the Middle East gets along because of religious similarities. Doesn't take away from your point, but I thought that last line a bit silly.Rubenov said:
elrechazado
Banned
worthy of a highly articulate articleROFL said:
Alt outed. Hi zapagesxbhaskarx said:
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
gcubed said:
OH SHIT.
polyh3dron
Banned
loool or should I say ROFLJason's Ultimatum said:
TacticalFox88 said:
Don't you think that given Pakistan's highly religious population, cultural and historical similarities with Afghanistan and Iraq, they would be hesitant to drop a nuke in any of those countries just to target the US?
Pakistani missiles are not that accurate; they may miss their mark. Even without missing, nuclear fallout would affect innocent fellow Muslims.
Nuking largely homogeneous Hindu India is one thing, but launching a nuke against US troops located WITHIN any other state, moreover "friendly" ones is totally different.
If you think Pakistan would ever launch a nuclear weapon against a country other than India just to attack US forces then please enlighten me with your scenario.
Edit: Think of it as nuking fellow SUNNI states if it makes a difference. That shit matters.
SouthernDragon
Member
The content you post is all we know of you as a person. If you post articles like this, expect ridicule.
Is the political relationship and situation between China, Pakistan, India, and the United States of great import? Yes. Is it in flux due to the rising influence of China, the rising tensions between Pakistan and India as nuclear states, and American military in Pakistan? Yes. However, this is not the best article to start a discussion about this.
This article draws on a lot of conjecture and misinterpretation to present a paranoid view, skewing reliable sources in order to give it the weight of authority. Example: "U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban." The U.S. has plans in case it goes to war against Canada. The U.S. has plans for almost every contingency, it doesn't mean it will act on them, or that there is a notable probability that they will act on it.
This article relies on the "Gish Gallop", where it inundates the reader/skeptic with half-truths to the point that debunking the article would take a response 10 times as long that not nearly half the original audience is likely to read. It's very effective as it robs everyone of time and makes the response overly long.
P.S. There has to be a filter to the opinions and articles you read. Saying you're open to anything means nothing; we have to process and discern between information/opinions worth noting and those not worth noting. There are certain positions or histories that can give us a shortcut, letting us know that this person or source is safely ignored. The man's beliefs give me, and other posters, great reason to ignore his opinion.
P.P.S NeoGAF is actually a pretty solid and serious forum when it comes to political, scientific, religious, and social matter, so I laugh at your dismissal of the very forum you post on. Does it have its wacky threads? Yeah, but at its best NeoGAF has very illuminating and insightful discussions... when presented with the right starting material. This isn't it.
Is the political relationship and situation between China, Pakistan, India, and the United States of great import? Yes. Is it in flux due to the rising influence of China, the rising tensions between Pakistan and India as nuclear states, and American military in Pakistan? Yes. However, this is not the best article to start a discussion about this.
This article draws on a lot of conjecture and misinterpretation to present a paranoid view, skewing reliable sources in order to give it the weight of authority. Example: "U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban." The U.S. has plans in case it goes to war against Canada. The U.S. has plans for almost every contingency, it doesn't mean it will act on them, or that there is a notable probability that they will act on it.
This article relies on the "Gish Gallop", where it inundates the reader/skeptic with half-truths to the point that debunking the article would take a response 10 times as long that not nearly half the original audience is likely to read. It's very effective as it robs everyone of time and makes the response overly long.
P.S. There has to be a filter to the opinions and articles you read. Saying you're open to anything means nothing; we have to process and discern between information/opinions worth noting and those not worth noting. There are certain positions or histories that can give us a shortcut, letting us know that this person or source is safely ignored. The man's beliefs give me, and other posters, great reason to ignore his opinion.
P.P.S NeoGAF is actually a pretty solid and serious forum when it comes to political, scientific, religious, and social matter, so I laugh at your dismissal of the very forum you post on. Does it have its wacky threads? Yeah, but at its best NeoGAF has very illuminating and insightful discussions... when presented with the right starting material. This isn't it.
xbhaskarx said:
Hah, weird. No I'm not him sorry.
I have to respond to your last remark though. I do agree with the overall the thrust of this article, but it's always up to any reader to make of it what they will. "Pick truth out of nonsense" if you will - if YOU happen to think it's a load nonsense, which I don't.
SouthernDragon
Member
Again, you are responsible for the content you post.
Oh damn.
gcubed said:
elrechazao said:
Oh damn.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Plus i somehow doubt Zapages would use Primordial Man as a nickname for anything.xbhaskarx said:
FlightOfHeaven said:
Trying not to keep get sucked into tangents, since the more I respond the more the abuse is going to pile on, lol.. But I'm going to respond to just this last one. Obviously I'm expecting ridicule, I think I said as much a few times already, no? So have at it, by all means..
You may think GAF is a 'serious' forum but that's a matter of degree, personal opinion, and perhaps age. I've been a member for a good while and yes there are a lot of VERY smart people here.. if I was "dismissing" the forum I wouldn't have posted here.
SouthernDragon
Member
It's almost like you didn't say anything in that last post or have tried to establish the credentials or reasoning behind the article.
Well, other GAFfers have done what you've done, and it didn't go well for them. Good luck.
Well, other GAFfers have done what you've done, and it didn't go well for them. Good luck.
ElectricBlue187
Member
well it IS about Pakistan so it COULD be Zapages but you're right this guy seems too coherent
thesoapster
Member
In this case, it is just hyperbowl.
elrechazado
Banned
FlightOfHeaven said:
yeah, this is pretty much the definition of trolling. Post article with nothing to say about it other than yell at people who deservedly mock the article, then say "lol u mad, I don't really believe what I was sayin lol"
balladofwindfishes
Member
I remember seeing on a TV show that outside of China, China is pretty terrible at war. Nobody can invade them, but once they send soldier's outside of their country against a "real" army, they fall pretty fast.
I'm not sure if that's still true (or ever was), but it's something I've always kept in the back of my mind.
I'm not sure if that's still true (or ever was), but it's something I've always kept in the back of my mind.
They're only 60 years old. I think they had stalemates in the Korean War and their little Vietnam War. They conquered Tibet and Uighurstan/Xinjiang though.balladofwindfishes said:
It's kind of hard to judge it in historical Chinese terms, since they always co-opted whatever was conquered into the definition of "China," including the sprawling Mongolian empire, Manchuria, and even today with places like Yunnan, Xinjiang, China's Inner Mongolia and Tibet. China's about the size of Europe; there were always kingdoms within China that were fighting amongst each other. What most consider to be most of modern China today did lose to Japan, Britain and France under the Qing dynasty, but those were against invasions, and a weak Qing dynasty against growing colonial powers.
- Status