[HN Gopher] YouTube disrupted in Pakistan as former PM Khan stre...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube disrupted in Pakistan as former PM Khan streams speech
Author : xbmcuser
Score : 162 points
Date : 2022-08-22 18:41 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (netblocks.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (netblocks.org)
| user3939382 wrote:
| The story I heard on this is that the US "asked" Khan to play
| ball on Ukraine/anti-Russia and he basically said no, came out
| with a statement like "Are we your slaves?"
| https://www.ibtimes.com/are-we-your-slaves-pakistans-khan-sl...
| and about 2 weeks later he was removed from office. There's no
| concrete evidence the US was connected to regime change here but
| it sure looks that way and it wouldn't be the first time.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| We will never know the truth. But it has to be said that the
| opposition parties that brought about the vote of no-confidence
| had tried to muster the strength to do so a year prior and
| failed. They had restarted to talk about a No-confidence vote
| months before the Ukraine/Russia war and had started to slowly
| form the alliance to do so [1].
|
| [1] Jan 13 https://www.dawn.com/news/1669107 The vote happened
| early April
| paxys wrote:
| Third world countries blame "US/CIA interference" for their
| domestic problems so often I wish we were really that competent
| in projecting power across the world.
|
| Do people really think western powers care that much about
| Imran Khan's opinion on Russia-Ukraine to pull off a regime
| change in one of the largest and most unstable countries (that
| too with nuclear weapons) in the world? It's a tactic for such
| politicians and countries to make themselves feel more
| important on the global stage, nothing more.
|
| Pakistan has always been run by its military. Politicians who
| get out of line quickly get deposed/exiled/assassinated. There
| is nothing new or surprising with the latest development.
| serial_dev wrote:
| It's because US interference is actually pretty common.
|
| Here is Wikipedia on this topic, which is actually one of the
| more "US intelligence friendly" sources out there: https://en
| .m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... This
| list is endless and shocking.
|
| Pakistan is a big and important country, so their position is
| actually important. Furthermore, for any empire, it's vital
| that it gets other smaller countries in line, even if the
| small country's position would be irrelevant.
|
| The way I see it is that most countries' leaders will always
| be both popular and unpopular in a significant portion of the
| country so it is always possible to frame a
| revolution/coup/insurgence as either a great thing or a bad
| thing.
|
| I don't know what happened in this case, and in complicated
| scenarios like these, there are always many factors and
| forces at play, but it's certainly not unreasonable to think
| that foreign powers gave a little push in order to see the
| outcome they wanted in the region.
| asdajksah2123 wrote:
| That's the propaganda Khan, who was extremely unpopular with
| both the army and the public, was pushing.
|
| The real reason his PM career was untenable was because (a) he
| pissed off the Pakistani military by threatening to
| unilaterally replace the military leader, whose support was the
| only reason he became PM in the first place, and (b) his party
| appointed some virtual unknown and definite incompetent (who
| was a friend of his wife's) as the leader of the Punjab
| province which has over 50% of the population of Pakistan.
|
| His latter action also angered members of his own party and
| members of his alliance that saw their own political careers
| threatened because he took such politically poor actions with
| half the country's population.
|
| Finally, what would have been astonishing is if Imran Khan (or
| anyone for that matter), would have completed his term. He
| would have been the first PM to do so in Pakistan's history.
|
| It really doesn't require a conspiracy theory centered around
| America to explain something that is the norm in Pakistan.
| waqasx wrote:
| That is completely untrue. His party has won all elections by
| landslide since he was removed in this regime change.
| [https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/asia/pakistan-imran-khan-
| anti...]
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| The elections you refer to had PTI winning 46% of the vote,
| while PMLN won 39% of the vote. This is far too small a
| difference to be characterized as a landslide, even if this
| difference resulted in a 15-5 seat split, given that the
| winning party has less than 50% of the votes.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Punjab_provincial_by-
| elec...
| kache_ wrote:
| This information is true
| renewiltord wrote:
| This is at least partly true. Pakistan is mostly ruled by the
| military so keeping them happy is important. That's the
| actual power centre there.
|
| Prime Ministers of Pakistan don't usually manage to serve out
| their term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_minist
| ers_of_Pak...
| isr wrote:
| I know this kind of reply may trigger a harsh response from
| HN mods, but this really needs to be said.
|
| You are lying through your teeth.
|
| The plain facts, in no particular order:
|
| 1. Imran Khan's party had much larger support in 2013
| elections, and that support was suppressed via election
| rigging. Its impossible to really say wether he would won an
| outright majority then (probably not), but who knows
|
| 2. In 2018, there was massive rigging to ensure that Imran
| Khan would NOT win an outright parliamentary majority. This
| was admitted to, PLAIN AS DAY, by one of the crooks who is
| currently "defence minister" (what a joke). He openly and
| plainly admitted that he was losing during the count in his
| constiuency, he picked up the phone and complained to the
| army chief, and lo and behold - the remaining count
| miracoulusly went in his favour.
|
| Multiple other examples like this. THE ONLY REASON that the
| previous opposition were complaining about rigging is
| because, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, they were handicapped
| in rigging in their own favour,in their own localities.
|
| 3. Imran Khan was extremely unpopular with the public?
|
| Complete hogwash. BEFORE HE EVEN MENTIONED THE US
| INVOLVEMENT, he held a number of political rallies, in the
| last week of his premiership. One such rally resulted in A
| MILLION PEOPLE coming to Islamabad.
|
| A MILLION NEW CELL PHONE NUMBERS were registered in the
| Islamabad area by telco's during that weekend
|
| So there goes your entire narrative that you were trying to
| falsely push.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _Khan, who was extremely unpopular with both the army and
| the public,_
|
| If everybody hates him, then censoring him is pointless. I
| don't know anything about any of these people or parties but
| what you're saying doesn't pass my sniff test.
| waqasx wrote:
| he is massively popular, which is the reason the govt isnt
| going towards elections. This WSJ articles sums it up
| pretty well: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ousted-pakistan-
| prime-minister-...
| asdajksah2123 wrote:
| Censoring him was dumb (this isn't the first time the
| succeeding govt censored him). They've really made a hash
| of it and allowed him to become a martyr.
|
| He was unpopular. Here's a poll from when the no-confidence
| vote passed (Bloomberg referencing Gallup Pakistan
| polling).
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-13/majority
| -...
|
| That being said, the only thing that matters isn't just
| overall support. The groups supporting also matter. And
| even though Khan had minority support, he has support among
| the extreme religious right of Pakistan, who are organized
| enough to shut down the country and motivated enough that
| they would do that even if it costs damage and lives.
| BeetleB wrote:
| The poll you cite doesn't support your earlier claim that
| he was "extremely unpopular". He may not have had over
| 50% of the public's support, but his support was near
| that level. By your own reference, 43% were upset at his
| removal.
| _em_ wrote:
| >>> who was extremely unpopular with both the army and the
| public
|
| Bro, if you want to lie, at least lie at something which
| can't be countered by other sources.
|
| Among all the leaders atm, khan is the most popular one. Ever
| since he was ousted, he has been calling rallies and people
| are coming out for him. He has pulled biggest crowd in
| pakistan history. All can be seen on YouTube.
|
| I can't even read rest of your comment given that I already
| know that either you are very disconnected from reality or
| you have some other motive to discredit khan.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Much like in Egypt (bye bye to the Muslim Brotherhood aligned
| democratically elected PM) the army in Pakistan get a lot of US
| $$$ "assistance".
| monetus wrote:
| Didn't morsi try to dissolve the judiciary?
| croes wrote:
| And now it's better in Egypt?
| daemoens wrote:
| Of course it isn't but dissolving the judiciary still
| wouldn't have been a good thing.
| int_19h wrote:
| It's not an uncommon thing for a justifiable uprising to
| end up in a place worse than before. It doesn't
| necessarily mean that it was instigated from the outside
| for that or some other purpose.
| guelo wrote:
| Not liking the results of democracy is not a justifiable
| uprising.
| int_19h wrote:
| It is when said democracy cracks down on human rights.
| guelo wrote:
| Not true but the judiciary did dissolve the democratically
| elected parliament. Who was more legitimate? Answer: the
| parliament
| alpha_squared wrote:
| Egyptian here, hello.
|
| Some pretty big quotes should surround "democratically".
| Also, the Muslim Brotherhood attempted to enact
| constitutional Sharia Law, something unfavorable even amongst
| the Muslim-majority populace. If we're going to cherry-pick
| Egypt as an example here, would be nice to provide the whole
| picture of what went down (which this comment certainly
| isn't).
| guelo wrote:
| It is not true that Morsi's government tried to enact
| Sharia law. Egyptian liberal's overblown fear of Islam
| resulted in something far worse, a military dictatorship
| for another 30 years.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| He was elected by mostly the poor and lower class - his
| agenda and political leanings was well known - the middle
| class and elites did not shed a tear when the army stepped
| in again.
| tenpies wrote:
| Khan is definitely not an American puppet, but I don't think
| the Biden administration has any grip on Pakistan at this time
| compared to before. In that region, Biden surrendered
| Afghanistan to the Taliban, but they also effectively
| surrendered Pakistan to China some time ago. Pakistan is much
| more aligned with the BRICS, although they will gladly
| entertain the US for funding/weapons without delivering
| anything.
|
| That said, if one is suspicious of American technology being
| weaponized for foreign policy, then Poland will be the place to
| watch next year. The Biden administration has every clearly
| told Poland they want a regime change. The EU is also on board.
| fatherzine wrote:
| US has plenty of power to enact regime change, ie destabilize
| entire countries and/or regions. What the US manifestly lacks
| is power to bring up a decent replacement regime to provide
| order around a set of resonant moral values. And so chaos
| slowly engulfs the world as the sun sets over the American
| Empire. Chaos age, until the next Empire.
| gautamdivgi wrote:
| How much sway does the US have in Pakistan today? They are
| aligned economically and militarily with China. It's an honest
| question. I know US bashing is popular but didn't Pakistan
| align with China to move out of the US sphere of influence?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| guelo wrote:
| At some point Pakistanis are going to have to open their eyes
| to how their politicians use the US as a convenient excuse to
| blame for all their problems.
| lifeplusplus wrote:
| not an excuse if it's probably true.. same thing happened
| when Iraq was invaded, Bush famously said you are either with
| us or against us
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Granted, at that point it was an open secret that the ISI
| had spent decades recruiting and funding armed and violent
| Islamic groups.
|
| The enemy of India is my friend, etc.
| lsllc wrote:
| Heh, "play ball" -- I see what you did there:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imran_Khan#Cricket_career
| [deleted]
| CommanderData wrote:
| It stinks of interference and that's a pretty big statement to
| make. No surprises if he's pissed off a few.
| ShivShankaran wrote:
| It was absolutely this. US funds the pakistan army and a high
| level meeting happened where they threatened to pull out funds
| if they didnt dispose off Khan.
|
| We have a saying that most countries have an army but in
| Pakistan the army has a country.
|
| Gaddafi was killed and his sons were murdered in front of him
| because he threatened petro dollar. before that he was given
| red carpet in france and even camped in sarcozy lawn.
|
| now Russia and China threaten the petro dollar and I am worried
| what the US is going to do.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Sitting in India (presumably) what evidence have you got for
| this?
| mercy_dude wrote:
| What does the commented being in India have to do with what
| he said? It is absolutely true Khan didn't want to cancel
| the Russia trip when it happened the day of the strike.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Direct funding of Pakistani military forces in recent years
| is indeed unsubstantiated, but occurred as recently as
| 2018.
|
| We still provide some significant funding to Pakistan for
| humanitarian and development (i.e. civilian) efforts. This
| information is widely available online.
|
| So GP is wrong to be so confident and absolute about their
| claim that we still fund the Pakistani army, but we do
| indeed give money to their government, and the Pakistani
| government is not independent of its army. It's a messy
| situation.
|
| Just trying to provide a bit of a more nuanced view before
| this heavy-handed comment you're replying to is dismissed
| outright.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > Gaddafi was killed and his sons were murdered in front of
| him because he threatened petro dollar. before that he was
| given red carpet in france and even camped in sarcozy lawn.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Libyan_financing_in_th.
| ..
|
| Sarkozy got rid of an inconvenient witness... (the former
| french president has been indicted for a series of financial
| crimes related to Libya since).
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Ukraine was actually pro-Pakistan on the Kashmir issue and sold
| them battle tanks. He needs to fire whoever in the Foreign
| Office advised him to do this.
| ShivShankaran wrote:
| is this true? I would like to read more about it.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan-Ukraine_relations
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/kanchangupta/status/149707149882
| 5...
| ShivShankaran wrote:
| thank you. Good to learn about something I never knew.
| Probably one of the reason why Indian-related subreddit
| were agaisnt ukraine but the reddit admins came down and
| deleted all subreddits that were critical of war, even
| the massively popular ones
| prvit wrote:
| > deleted all subreddits that were critical of war
|
| hmmmmm
|
| Or wait, are you confusing subreddits with threads and
| admins with subreddit mods? That's the only way your
| comment doesn't read as downright insane.
| ShivShankaran wrote:
| no, they outright deleted subreddits. Some of these
| subreddits were long criticized for having genocide
| material but reddit refused to remove them for "freedom
| of speech". When they put up a banner criticizing the
| war, reddit admins removed the subreddit outright.
|
| here is the time article about it
| https://time.com/6160519/reddit-international-hate-
| speech-ba...
|
| They refused to ban either subreddit for 2 years but a
| week after they criticized the war, they were both
| deleted.
| prvit wrote:
| And which war were these subreddits critical of?
| binnerhn01 wrote:
| mercy_dude wrote:
| Pakistan is a classic case of what moral bankruptcy looks like
| when you harbour terror just so you can hurt your neighbours. For
| decades, they allowed terror camps and bases because it would
| hurt India and in the process military was under supreme control
| of the state. All along, US supported them because a) they were
| always suspicious of India being a Russian ally and b) they
| somehow thought by some crazy logic that Pakistan is going to be
| their ally in war on terror.
|
| But then the snake they were growing in the backyard with the
| hope of hurting their neighbours started biting them. First the
| collapse in Afghanistan and then decade long war on terror
| followed by economic stagnation coupled with corruption at the
| military led the mass to basically become completely robbed.
|
| This is the populous that somehow thought India is their arch
| enemy and their leaders are all on their side because the state
| religion Islam was used as a tool. Ya I don't have much sympathy
| for them.
| throwawaylinux wrote:
| > military was under supreme control of the state
|
| Many would argue the military should be under supreme control
| of the state. Do you mean the state was under supreme control
| of the military (i.e., when Pakistan was under military rule)?
| helixfelix wrote:
| Lets not pretend that there is only a single guilty party here.
| No doubt pakistan tried to control mujahideen to fight their
| proxy wars. Just like Indian intelligence has funded the
| Balochistan insurgency inside Pakistan. This of course all
| started with US asking Pakistan to setup these mujahideen to
| counter Russia in 1980.
| mercy_dude wrote:
| This is a false equivalency. The extent to which Pakistan
| used its military apparatus to train militias and other
| terrorist organizations is unparalleled. There is a reason
| Osama Bin Laden found a safe heaven.
|
| This is the what aboutism that most politicians toy with when
| they want to fool the public. But like I said this is a
| populous that are truly detached and delusional. They brought
| it on themselves.
| getcrunk wrote:
| Really its unparalleled? Even by america.
| [deleted]
| dirtybird04 wrote:
| You're not wrong about things as they stand.
|
| However, you do conveniently leave out that it was the US
| toppling the Shah of Iran that resulted in a religious wave
| taking over the whole region. And it was the US, again, that
| armed and trained everyone in Afghanistan to the teeth to help
| them fight the commies. And it was the US, yet once again, that
| just bailed as soon as USSR collapsed, leaving a massive power
| vacuum in the Afghanistan, which led to the Taliban takeover.
|
| Pakistani army merely tried to use that power vacuum to their
| advantage. And it failed miserably, might I add. The army has
| gotten used to the boatload of USDs for being an war ally, but
| all the US hatred now is creating fractions within it.
|
| My point is, every country plays this game, and they all play
| it dirty. Why assign moral bankruptcy to a minor player while
| completely overlooking the major player that's stirring all the
| global shitstorms?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the US toppling the Shah of Iran that resulted in a
| religious wave taking over the whole region_
|
| If we're looking for a founding mistake, it's probably the
| British (and French) betraying the Hashemite king [1][2][3],
| thereby permitting Wahhabism to take hold. That and the
| absence of a Marshall Plan for the post-WWII de-colonised
| world.
|
| > _every country plays this game, and they all play it dirty_
|
| The Mujahideen plotted attacks on Soviet military targets in
| Afghanistan. They're analogous to the Taliban post invasion.
| To my knowledge, the U.S. wasn't knowingly supporting
| terrorism in _e.g._ Moscow the way the ISI has supported
| militants striking Bombay.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemites#World_War_I_and_
| the...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon-
| Hussein_Correspondence
| mercy_dude wrote:
| I don't think you understand geopolitics in that part of the
| world. Shia dominated Iran has very little influence on Sunni
| Pakistan. As far as I can recall, Pakistan always had their
| entire existence centred around anti-India perspective, the
| war they fought with India over Kashmir in 65 and then over
| Bangladesh in 71 predates the shah movement. Soms of their
| most fanatic military leaders were actually before the 71
| war.
|
| Every country plays games but not in a self destructive
| manner. If Pakistani leadership had any sense and if their
| people were not always fooled by thinking that their leaders
| are leading a jihad and protecting Islam, they would have
| realized focusing your entire foreign and economic policy
| based on the geopolitical rivalry over a piece of land that
| has less than 1% of total GDP is not a good cause.
|
| Just wait till they have a balance of payment problem. Their
| reserves are drying up too all because of these stupid
| economic policies. Instead of doing trade deals with your
| closest neighbour and one of the largest economic powers,
| they actively sabotage any economic influence. These people
| are really stupid.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| This commentary is pretending the US had any legit reasons for
| supporting the corruption and evilness beyond America's own
| immediate power hungry thinking.
| awaisraad wrote:
| awaisraad wrote:
| curious_cat_163 wrote:
| This is not the first time that the powers that be in Pakistan
| are trying to pull this gimmick. The last time they tried (and
| failed) resulted in a massive BGP blackhole:
|
| https://www.wired.com/2008/02/pakistans-accid/
|
| (edited)
| efitz wrote:
| I think the thing that makes me most sad about the internet is
| how susceptible it is to control and censorship.
|
| Back in the early 90s we were all about PGP and anonymous
| remailers and we've let the forces of government and big business
| slowly nullify every mitigation we've tried.
|
| As technologists we haven't used our positions on technical
| standards boards, etc., to force protocols that would preserve
| freedom by not providing the capabilities needed for control.
|
| So now I guess we're just supplicants on the internet we created.
| hackernewds wrote:
| If anything due to monopolies like YouTube, it's EASIER to
| restrict access. we have to begin decentralizing compute power
| neilv wrote:
| Even in the early '90s, there was already suspicion of
| remailers. (Not only among cypherpunks-types; for example, I
| vaguely recall some relatively mainstream outlet, maybe Michael
| O'Brien in SunExpert magazine, saying to be skeptical of new
| anon services.)
| spacemark wrote:
| I think you overestimate how much control we technologists
| actually have. Takes far more than a few seats on some
| standards boards.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| In the 90s, you had a few people on the internet, who knew all
| that stuff, but because the internet was "hard", they (we?)
| represented the majority of internet users.
|
| Now, they/we are all still here, knowing all the ways of
| private communications, protocols, etc. + all the new, better
| ways to communicate privately and securely.
|
| The only difference now is, that a few billions of "normal
| people" joined us online, and they don't know and don't care
| about all that, so the propaganda just moved from TV to
| facebook and youtube.
| ComplexSystems wrote:
| "...we've let the forces of government and big business slowly
| nullify every mitigation we've tried"
|
| Who is "we?" The Pakistani government is unilaterally doing
| this. Surely you don't mean the Pakistani people?
| malshe wrote:
| This WSJ article (no paywall) explains the current developments
| there. I had no idea things are so bad. The inflation is at 42%!
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/ousted-pakistan-prime-minister-...
| throwaways85989 wrote:
| They are also out of foreign currency like Sri Lanka. Which
| accelerates chinas problems, as pakistan is one of its debtors
| and will likely default on those credits.
| jessaustin wrote:
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| frank_nitti wrote:
| What do you mean? That seems to be quite literally what is
| happening?
|
| > Metrics corroborate reports of a disruption to YouTube in
| Pakistan on multiple internet providers; the incident comes
| as former PM Imran Khan live streams on the platform despite
| a ban by media regulator PEMRA
|
| > ... Access was restored after the speech concluded.
|
| PEMRA is the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority
|
| You may disagree with the notion of a "deep state" but how
| can you say that censorship of a populist is "not even
| remotely what happened" ?
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Corporate media are not the ones that are doing the
| censoring. It was at the direction of the government.
|
| jessaustin is trying to allude to it being the same thing
| that is happening to Trump. The circumstances are not
| remotely the same and it's disingenuous to do so.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I have no proof to back it up, but most politically
| sensitive subjects are likely monitored by various
| interested parties ( in old country, it is a job to troll
| internet forums[1] to sway public opinion one way or the
| other. Needless to say, even on HN I started to view some
| comments on political news as tainted. It is unfortunate.
|
| And HN is in a good position to being able to spot most
| attempts to derail threads and so on.
|
| [1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/01/undercover
| -rep...
| pessimizer wrote:
| And the dismissal in this case is purely content free,
| it's just a random insult, and then a successful
| flagkill. Oh... and snarky twitter tone.
|
| > in old country, it is a job to troll internet forums[1]
| to sway public opinion one way or the other.
|
| It's a job everywhere. Right now someone being paid to
| troll internet forums and comment sections to disrupt
| conversations about the food coloring used in Skittles.
| jessaustin wrote:
| _...successful flagkill..._
|
| Friendly reminder: users with enough internet points can
| attempt to rescue inappropriately killed comments by
| clicking on "vouch". I do it quite a bit, and at least 5%
| of the time I am rewarded by immediately seeing the
| [flagged] tag disappear!
| pessimizer wrote:
| I read the entire, extremely short article, and you must be
| talking about a different article. This one says that Imran
| Khan's speech was banned, many Pakistani ISPs blocked Youtube
| while he was giving it, and access was restored after the
| speech was over.
|
| So what did the article you're talking about say?
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| I mean, if you don't see the heavy implications that
| jessaustin is trying to make between what happened here and
| what is happening with Trump, then you may want to get your
| eyes checked.
|
| It's not what was said, it's what was heavily implied and
| alluded to. Or, you know, I'm just part of the "deep state"
| and trying to "disrupt conversations" that have nothing to
| do with the article.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Maybe comment on things people said, rather than putting
| words in their mouths.
|
| edit: and if jessaustin was trying to inject US party
| politics into Pakistan, you certainly jumped in right
| after them, literally denying the reality of what
| happened in Pakistan in order to defend something that
| you insist is not a good comparison. Who do you think
| you're convincing? You make it impossible to be on your
| side when you're so loose with the truth.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| jessaustin wrote:
| The difference is that YT tried to carry Khan and were
| censored for it, rather than directly censoring Khan
| themselves. Also, NetBlocks don't really care about the
| political angle, which is fine for them. That is a fairly
| small difference.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Khan wasn't president and never had a TV show.
| [deleted]
| jessaustin wrote:
| International cricket matches are typically televised in
| Pakistan. b^)
| selimthegrim wrote:
| This isn't 1992.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Militarizing this country and supporting it as much as the US did
| definitely already paid negative returns. The geopoliticists in
| Washington are not particularly competent. It certainly looks
| like their actions in this region are net negative.
|
| If they were a company, it would have folded from bad decision
| making.
| [deleted]
| cato_the_elder wrote:
| > This class of disruption can be worked around using VPN
| services, which are able to circumvent government internet
| censorship measures.
|
| Well, here's something for people who insist all VPN services are
| a "scam". VPNs play an important role by circumventing censorship
| in countries with more network level internet censorship.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| Are you in tech? People have specific reasons for VPN issues.
| What you're referring to is not something people have an issue
| with.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| That's.... not what people criticizing VPNs are referring to.
|
| VPN's privacy claims are a scam. Reselling their own internet
| connection works, but advertising it that way doesn't.
|
| The customer has no way of having any assurance of a privacy
| claim, and even past assurances can change at any time, and
| even if active monitoring or surveillance wasn't being done by
| the VPN provider, their data center, a third party along the
| way or the government, the VPN provider would still respond to
| a court order from the government undermining your privacy.
| Thats the part people call a scam.
|
| Changing your reported location has nothing to do with that.
| [deleted]
| jbirer wrote:
| The damage control by the Pakistani army is pretty crazy right
| now. Pakistan is on the verge of devolving into mass riots as
| Imran Khan has a massive fanbase.
| walrus01 wrote:
| For those people who haven't studied Pakistan extensively, the
| army has _always_ run things, the politicians are just the thin
| veneer of pretense at democracy as a public face.
|
| The Army and the military forces in general are the people who
| really control the country.
|
| Pakistan makes a public show of having a parliamentary
| democracy with elected MPs and such but it's all a farce.
|
| Doesn't particularly matter whether Bhutto, Zardari, Nawaz
| Sharif, Imran Khan or anyone else.
| namaria wrote:
| American programs of "war on drugs" and "war on terror" has
| done a great job of making sure most of their client states
| are run by beefed up security forces behind a thin veneer of
| democracy.
| walrus01 wrote:
| The US's involvement in Pakistan is much older and
| historical than the war on drugs/terror. They were flying
| U2s out of Peshawar in the 1960s. For a while, Chuck Yeager
| (yes, that Chuck Yeager) was the US military representative
| directly to the Pakistani military.
| johnyzee wrote:
| To be fair, they do have "a parliamentary democracy with
| elected MPs". It's just that those elected MPs have some
| fairly strict limits on what they are allowed to govern
| (anything that does not involve the military, which in
| Pakistan is not a lot).
|
| Of course it doesn't help that the elected MPs have almost
| exclusively belonged to the same class of robber barons,
| Imran Khan being one notable exception.
|
| Pakistan actually has a pretty vibrant and critical media, in
| contrast to (other) military dictatorships. They have a lot
| of great political satire (that, again, stops short of
| criticizing the military).
| skinnymuch wrote:
| So it stops short of criticizing the actual power? That
| does seem like it can be better than other countries, but
| it can only be so much if the actual power is u touchable.
| m00dy wrote:
| "the army has always run things"
|
| sounds like Turkia but like 40 years ago
| travisgriggs wrote:
| And Egypt. And a bunch of countries in Asia.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| When you have more guns than money, you get military
| dictatorship. When you have more money than guns, you get
| oligarchy.
| labster wrote:
| Sure, but if you have more holy books than guns or money,
| you get a theocracy.
| ShivShankaran wrote:
| >the army has always run things, the politicians are just the
| thin veneer of pretense at democracy as a public face.
|
| So a lot like the US with the Arms industry running
| everything. Even mass murder of children and kindergarten
| children doesnt change the arms industry.
|
| But look at the level of propaganda on reddit with it's
| director of content from NATO, cheering for russian/ukranian
| conflict.
|
| EU is going to feel the pain of having it's tongue up the US.
| quadrifoliate wrote:
| Well from time to time they make it pretty explicit too -
| like under Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, or Musharraf. About 30-odd
| of Pakistan's 75 years as an independent country have been
| _explicitly_ under military dictatorships.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| None of their civilian governments have lasted an entire
| term.
|
| Pretty damning.
| chamanbuga wrote:
| It certainly looks like this from the outside. The
| establishment has always kept control over Pakistan even when
| such social change was in the air. I expect the same to happen.
| Also I'm expecting IK to start dialling it back given the
| recent riots.
| edgyquant wrote:
| My hunch is that the real geopolitical upheaval of the next
| 50-100 years will be post-decolonization. A number of these
| nations were thrown together by a completely foreign power not
| just with an interest in splitting countries up or grouping
| them together but doing so in a way that prevents them becoming
| a peer level opponent.
| robocat wrote:
| > splitting countries up or grouping them together [] in a
| way that prevents them becoming a peer level opponent.
|
| Any links to research that shows (a) this was the intent, and
| (b) shows that it works?
|
| Aren't there plenty of counterexamples to that thesis (null
| hypothesis), of more homogeneous nations or island nations
| where countries haven't become "first world". Even the USA is
| rooted in non-homogeneous immigration.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > Even the USA is rooted in non-homogeneous immigration.
|
| USA used to be mostly Northern European and christian
| (protestant), black slaves who were moved there by force or
| pre European colonization inhabitants were never considered
| part of the foundations of US. US foundations were anything
| but non-homogeneous.
|
| Now after WWII, US attempted to replace the racial and
| religious identity at the heart of "americanship" with some
| idealistic identity based on american exceptionalism, the
| american dream and the cult of the american imagery (flag,
| eagle, colors...). No need to point out that this re-
| invention of "americanship" is slowly crumbling as we
| speak. Who knows what will remain of that cohesion in the
| next 50 years.
| Calavar wrote:
| You're applying a 21st century post-globalization lens to
| a 18th century world. Sure, today a German is welcome in
| France or the UK and seen as more or less equal. In the
| 1700s, there wasn't even a concept of equality for
| subcultures within a single country, let alone different
| cultures in different countries. See Scottish/English
| relations or Parisian/Occitan relations or Flemish/Dutch
| relations.
|
| The fact that people of Anglo-Saxon descent and people of
| Scots-Irish descent had an equal hand in the early US
| government was remarkable in and of itself, let alone the
| fact that the Catholic population in Maryland had equal
| rights under the law from day one.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > You're applying a 21st century post-globalization lens
| to a 18th century world.
|
| because we're discussing 20th/21st century geopolitics at
| first place? Of course I am. Pakistan or India didn't
| exist in the 18th century, in fact these are British
| constructs.
|
| > The fact that people of Anglo-Saxon descent and people
| of Scots-Irish descent had an equal hand in the early US
| government was remarkable in and of itself, let alone the
| fact that the Catholic population in Maryland had equal
| rights under the law from day one.
|
| Yes, fighting against the British empire certainly was an
| efficient motivator. But still black people and
| indigenous populations were still left out of what you
| consider a feat.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _still black people and indigenous populations were
| still left out of what you consider a feat_
|
| If we concede no feats have been achieved in human
| history for not being unblemishingly perfect, sure. Fine.
| We'll leave the term with religion (and madness).
| Whatever the next rung of achievement is, the highest one
| in realm of the possible, America's founding matches it.
| rayiner wrote:
| Remarkably ignorant post. Like saying that everyone in
| India/Pakistan/Bangladesh is homogenous because they're
| all subcontinental "brown" people. The conflict between
| whites on one hand and Asians/Latinos in modern America
| pales in comparison to the conflict that existed between
| different groups of northern european Christians at the
| time of the founding.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Not really a hypothesis that the British lumped unrelated
| and rival ethnicities in Africa together for a magnitude of
| reasons. Most of these were geopolitical to the interests
| of the metropole and almost none of these border decisions
| were (initially at least) designed to accurately represent
| cultural and ethnic identities the way America was
| colonized for example or the way Europe was shaped by
| feudalism and war.
|
| That's the "they weren't being actively malicious end" with
| the nation this thread is discussing having been the go to
| example of this being done. Pakistan only exists to be a
| thorn in Indias side
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| You're 100% right.
|
| Democracies are going to collapse in a lot of places because
| the people in these places never really wanted democracy or
| even cared much for it. They were just handed it down because
| the people the colonizers left in charge were born and bred
| within the colonizer's own political systems.
| rayiner wrote:
| Good example: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-
| of-post-colonial...
|
| Although I think it's not quite about "democracy." Many
| people don't want liberal democracy. They might be fine
| with non-liberal democracy: https://slate.com/news-and-
| politics/2016/08/shadi-hamid-on-i...
| [deleted]
| pphysch wrote:
| 50-100 years is quite a long time; it's already happening at
| an accelerating rate. Washington is rapidly losing its
| foothold in Latin America and SEA, France is losing West
| Africa. The West is in an unprecedented crisis right now and
| will be unable to compete with the next gen foreign policies
| coming out of China, Russia, and the many other "enemy
| states".
| ta8645 wrote:
| China is in the midst of a demographic collapse, and will
| be struggling with internal issues for decades, they're not
| going to be a threat. Russia is isolated and may lose most
| of their energy export revenues. They're not going to be a
| threat to anyone but their immediate neighbours.
|
| But globalization, that has been enabled by the American
| military, may be coming to an end. The US armed forces are
| retooling in a way less geared to policing global merchant
| shipping. This signals a likely return to more local trade,
| controlled by regional powers.
|
| We have been lucky to live in the richest, most prosperous
| era of human history. But the party seems to be winding
| down, and most of us and our heirs, will be living more
| modest lives, with reduced travel, diversity of goods,
| diet, and wealth.
| pphysch wrote:
| Yeah, that is Zeihan's narrative, very sparsely backed by
| holistic analysis.
| HappySweeney wrote:
| Could you elaborate on "next gen foreign policies"?
| jessaustin wrote:
| Not OP, but I would offer " _not_ sanctioning /embargoing
| a third of the world"...
| pphysch wrote:
| BRI, BRICS+, SCO, EAEU/"petroruble".
|
| the post-Washington Consensus
| daemoens wrote:
| The "post-Washingtion consensus" is too fragmented to
| have any real coordinated actions. BRICS is not some
| united force willing to work together. BRICS was meant
| for economies of similar scale to work together. China is
| already more than three times the size of the other 4
| combined.The only thing that aligns all 5 now is
| generally anti-americanism which isn't much of a unifying
| force. China and India continue to worsen ties and Russia
| has become a bit of a pariah. Brazil and South Africa are
| too far apart from the rest for any meaningful
| cooperation.
| daemoens wrote:
| What petroruble? Barely any countries are paying for gas
| in rubles, and the rest of the world certainly isn't.
| binnerhn01 wrote:
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Maybe he's been listening to Zaid Hamid too much.
| [deleted]
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Are you in Pakistan? What are things on the ground like?
|
| Arresting IK right now would be national harakiri. Surely
| they're not going to do that?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-22 23:00 UTC)