TERRORISM: Why Pakistan is not called its victim?

Why is it that the foreign media never describes Pakistan as a victim of terrorism, even though it had more attacks than the rest of the world put together and even its President and Prime Minister narrowly escaped concerted assassination attempts? This is not without reason.
Pakistan has been suffering from terrorism since 1980s, when Russia, in collusion with India and its puppet regime in Kabul, sponsored terrorist attacks that were the largest in the world at that time, according to America’s CIA. It was in retaliation for Pakistan’s support to the mujahideen, who were fighting against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
Simultaneously, Pakistan had sectarian terrorism that arose as a result of the proxy war being fought on its soil by some countries of West Asia. In late 1980s, India sponsored terrorist attacks all over the country in a reaction to the freedom struggle that had started in the Occupied Kashmir.
Then came a spate of terrorist attacks after the American occupation of Afghanistan in 2001. These attacks continue and their number is more than the total terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda and its remnants all over the world.
Whenever the foreign media mentions the victims of terrorism, it starts with the U.S., Spain and England and then stops after adding Turkey, Egypt and a few others. However, it never includes Pakistan among them. Even the Western leaders, who otherwise praise it profusely for its help in “the war against terror,” don’t mention the obvious fact.
Why is it so? The reason is logical. If they describe Pakistan as a victim of terrorism, they cannot call it a source of terrorism at the same time. They must have it as a scapegoat and that is possible only by ignoring the fact that Pakistan itself is the victim of terrorist attacks.