Kyusuibu Honbu
BANNED
Wasn't he the same person who said backwardness is Gandhi gift to India.
whatever, i'd hate to be this guy's opponent in a debate.
whatever, i'd hate to be this guy's opponent in a debate.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There is nothing to comment on a puerile rant from a perenially humorless git like Hitchens.
People who quote and revel in his bloviations are no different than stormfront junkies. Just because his brand of hatred is politically sanctioned by the western media does not make it any less venomous than the Nazi propaganda.
And, yes, the substance of the article does not merit a reply because it consists of self-serving generalizations and stereotypes which are the bread-and-butter of self-righteous hate mongers. Hitchens know his audience and, like a pusher serving up his junkies, he dishes up the requisite bile to satisfy their addiction.
Wasn't he the same person who said backwardness is Gandhi gift to India.
whatever, i'd hate to be this guy's opponent in a debate.
Another ad hominem attack, shooting the messenger.
Non sequitur. Attacking Pakistan is the point of his rant. If you don't like the messenger you have to do a more thorough job of disemboweling him in print to discredit him - and doing that to Hitchens, the only Western reporter willing to engage in fist-fights with the now-discredited Syrian regime's stooges link, isn't easy because through this and other journalistic escapades he has gained great credibility over the years: he is fearless, often right, willing to threaten the powerful, and is apparently incorruptible.And what exactly has Hitchens offered in his rant, other than 'ad hominems' against Pakistan?...why should his rant be countered with anything else but a rant and 'ad hominems'?
He feels he doesn't need to, based on the current situation and his own judgment. You can do that when you write for Vanity Fair.Did he build a case based on credible evidence to prove Pakistani complicity in sheltering and supporting OBL and/or AQ? No.
Can you be specific, or do you expect everyone to be satisfied with empty blather?the usual propaganda and hysteria tactics a failed argument, failed strategy, failed psy-ops on Pakistan.
Can you be specific, or do you expect everyone to be satisfied with empty blather?
the usual propaganda and hysteria tactics
a failed argument, failed strategy, failed psy-ops on Pakistan. Perhaps the Americans would be best served in securing their own nuclear arsenal first, given the number of blunders in the past decade.
Our nuclear stockpile is safe and secure, so what these arm-chair analysts opine --for cheap publicity and attention --holds little sway.
But you're not combating it. Vanity Fair is a "pop" publication, not a scholarly or even a journalistic one. I've pointed out before that Pakistan has forfeited the benefit of the doubt, being judged guilty in popular eyes. Thus, you are going to have to work to change people's minds.well based on this over-used, simplistic rhetoric like that of Mr. Hitchens we can see quite lucidly where the ''empty blather'' as you oh-so-eloquently put it is originating from -
Probably it is hysteria and propaganda, but pakistani leadership suffer from "low credibility" problem.(bit like the boy who cried wolf).
I remember the comical ali, the iraqi information minister, who was famous for lying to camera with a straight face.
Here is a partial list of lies.
1. Denied nuclear proliferation. - Caught Mr Khan.
2. Denied Kasab is pakistani national - agreed later
3. Denied kargil fighters are govt soldiers - Accepted later
4. Denied that Osama is in pakistan - accepted later
Another ad hominem attack, shooting the messenger.
Don't you think it would be good for Pakistan if that changed?