What's new

Acts of Terrorism in pakistan I

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes you are right you have me figured out........:disagree:
It's all a conspiracy on my part to defame you and your religion.

He is not from a relegion that warns to be wary of consipracies.:cheesy:
 
. .
Well of course you have to call them terrorist now. Why are you making this seem like a complicated issue? When these people were funded and supported by the CIA and ISI, they were fighting an invasion by the Soviets into a sovereign nation, Afghanistan. What are they doing now? They are kidnapping and murdering innocent people and creating mayhem. .


Such short memory's.........The afghan govt "invited" the russians into afghanistan and the mujahdeen where classed as terrorist by the afghan govt.

"kidnapping and murdering innocent people and creating mayhem" are you talking about mushy
kidnapping people and sending them to guantanamo bay for money or murdering innocent people in masjids and madrassas?


Why are you having trouble making the distinction? If they had at least limited their actions to attacking the "occupation" of Afghanistan by NATO, I could understand your argument and your sympathy for them, but these people are deliberately killing innocent people! Their actions will destabilize the state and, if allowed to continue for a prolonged period of time, completely evaporate any economic gains we have made.

If the president was elected then i would totally agree with you,but it is not and coming from the lal masjid angle on things they where trying to overthrow a dictator....its easy making excuse's to fit your own agenda.
 
.
Anyways, we can keep harping upon the exact numbers and the exact terms used, but it will serve no purpose. What matters is if the idea was communicated or not. And i think, it was.

Conclusion being, the situation in Kashmir, is sucking the lifeblood out of Pakistan, and actually helping India. Go ahead, keep up your obsession of liberating it. Our gain, your loss.


yeah of course it is:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
.
Ok here is the battleplan for insurgenicies that I created in a thread in the army section based on one from a tv program I saw:

1) Objectives to include long term political goals as well as short term military strategies

2) Civil support from the local population to win hearts and minds

3) Build up of military forces and political wings

4) Attrition Phase of wearing down the enemy

5) Transition of guerilla fighting to conventional warfare

6) Takeover phase politically by the guerillas or destruction of ideology by counter forces.

So in the context of what is going on right now:

1) The long term political goal of the militants is the establishment of A taliban like regime in Pakistan and the short term goals would be securing a base in the tribal areas from which to enforce this.

2) the requirement of civil support can and has been met considerably and the militants have links to many madrassas for recruits and amongst the local tribes. This will have been reinforced by the lal masjid episode as many students came from NWFP.

3) The militant forces are considerably built up and well equiped from conflicts in Afghanistan. There is also the illegal black market at Dera Adam Khel which they also get weapons. As for political wings there are again the madrassas and Mullahs.

4) Attrition phase of the battleplan appears to be well under way.

5) The program I saw actually reffered to the Afghan war during the Soviet invasion and commented how there was no transition to conventional tactics.

6) Takeover phase politically would lead to a Taliban regime in Pakistan and heres to hoping that does not happen.

During my visit last year to Pakistan a bomb went off in Hangu in a market and when the army sent in some forces to prevent the usual sectarian violence I was shocked to see about a platoons worth of men in two Hino 5 tonners all without ballistic protection of any kind.

I have commented before also on how a photo in Jason Burkes book Al Qaeda shows a pakistani soldier in Waziristan wearing a steel helmet used by the British in WW2 and armed with a AK 47.
Other photos of the troops being sent in at the moment show them driving around in open topped pick up trucks.

This has given me the impression that Pakistani forces are woefully ill equiped to deal with this Jihad.

History tells us the tribals always win....so whats the point messing about with them.
There weakness is money,just buy them out.
 
.
History tells us the tribals always win....so whats the point messing about with them.
There weakness is money,just buy them out.

oH please the super human pathan tribe, you can be in that dream land, Every major army has come there literally raped them and left when they finished their business. 10 or 20 people shooting at an army of 100's...lol. Give me a gun and i can kill them unless they have iron chest...
 
.
oH please the super human pathan tribe, you can be in that dream land, Every major army has come there literally raped them and left when they finished their business....

Hahaha..Every major army?what like the russians and british army.

"literally raped them and left when they finished their business..." is that not what the pathaans did to india?




10 or 20 people shooting at an army of 100's...lol....

Is that not what they did to the british and russians and won.





Give me a gun and i can kill them unless they have iron chest...

How i wish i could see you in NWFP and then see how much of a hero you where.
 
.
Such short memory's.........The afghan govt "invited" the russians into afghanistan and the mujahdeen where classed as terrorist by the afghan govt.

You are correct. They were "invited" by an Afghan government. Pakistan had its own concerns and reasons, correct or not, for supporting the "militants" (from now on I have made a personal decision to not sully the word "Jihad" by calling these low life's "Mujahideen"). But we are discussing this from the perspective of Pakistan are we not? These militants were used to neutralize/bog down a possible existential threat to Pakistan. To that end they served their purpose. Now, from the Pakistani perspective again, the "dogs we trained have gone mad"; now they pose an existential threat to us, and this threat needs to be dealt with, just as the Soviet threat was dealt with.

"kidnapping and murdering innocent people and creating mayhem" are you talking about mushy
kidnapping people and sending them to guantanamo bay for money or murdering innocent people in masjids and madrassas?

If the president was elected then i would totally agree with you,but it is not and coming from the lal masjid angle on things they where trying to overthrow a dictator....its easy making excuse's to fit your own agenda.

Stop the circular arguments already. If you want to talk about Musharrafs "detentions" and "extraditions", start a seperate thread. Using that sort of logic, Musharraf should do absolutely nothing to any criminal in Pakistan, because people will always bring up some excess or the other that his government has committed. If you think about it, almost every government in the world has been accused of some sort of excess or miscarriage of justice against its population. Should they all let every criminal go free because some group or the other says that they have no "standing" to enforce the law?

Analyze each situation and each crime on its own merits. Whatever Musharaf may have done (and please provide evidence to support your charges against him on this new thread you open), has no bearing on the criminality or legality of the current actions of the militants; the fact that we supported them before has no bearing on, and is not a valid reason for, whether we should let them continue to propagate hate, violence and mayhem in Pakistan.

This is not about Musharraf being elected, this is about terrorists blowing up and killing innocent people; this is about terrorists and bigots forcing and threatening people to adopt a POV or ideology. Elected or not, he has to stop these people and bring them to justice.

Its ironic that you rant about Musharraf being unelected, and then have no problems sympathizing with people who are not only themselves UNELECTED, but are forcing unarmed civilians to close their businesses and threatening them with material and physical harm. And as far as I remember, the "terrorist bradran" never advocated "democracy", they never agitated for democratic rule; all I remember them doing is criminal acts such as kidnapping and threatening people, closing down businesses, assaulting civilians and LEA's... Where in all of these activities do you see any "democratic struggle"?

Hypocrites, all of these Mullah supporters. They have no problems ranting against "unelected moderates", but can barely hide their glee when "unelected Mullah thugs" try to force their interpretation of Islam on others.

Give me a Musharraf or Ataturk over an Ayatollah, Mullah Omar or Saudi Maulvi any day.
 
.
Wanted to clarify this

the fact that we supported them before has no bearing on, and is not a valid reason for, whether we should let them continue to propagate hate, violence and mayhem in Pakistan.

The United States and the Pakistan do bear responsibility for not planning for the aftermath of the Afghan war. There was no plan for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and no plan for rehabilitating the militants once the fighting was over. The United States in fact seems to suffer from a chronic condition of this "lack of long term planning" as is evident from the mess in Iraq, but thats a different discussion.

Now if you want to approach the issue from that perspective, I'll admit that the current situation is a result of policy failures on the part of the Pakistani government; it is a result of the neglect that the tribal areas have suffered, in proportion to the other provinces (though it can also be argued that by demanding and retaining autonomy from Pakistan, the Tribals also caused their own misfortune; similar to the Sardari system in Baluchistan), and we can have a discussion on what, if anything, the Pakistani government could have done, or can do, to alleviate the situation.

Nonetheless, a lack of development is still no excuse for the kind of violence we have been seeing. That any such argument is false, can also be demonstrated by the fact that the people committing the violence have no interest in development. How do we know this? Well these people proselytize the same brand of Islam, and call themselves by the same name, as the Taliban regime (RIP) of Afghanistan. Like the Afghan regime, they are focused more on burning symbols of development, modernization and tolerance, than actually encouraging it. So why should we expect any different a result than what they did in Afghanistan?
So "a lack of development", or lack of "democracy" is not the issue that concerns these militants; they thrive on that. They are terrorists, anarchists and criminals.
 
.
You are correct. They were "invited" by an Afghan government. Pakistan had its own concerns and reasons, correct or not, for supporting the "militants" (from now on I have made a personal decision to not sully the word "Jihad" by calling these low life's "Mujahideen"). But we are discussing this from the perspective of Pakistan are we not? These militants were used to neutralize/bog down a possible existential threat to Pakistan. To that end they served their purpose. Now, from the Pakistani perspective again, the "dogs we trained have gone mad"; now they pose an existential threat to us, and this threat needs to be dealt with, just as the Soviet threat was dealt with..

Fair enough,i agree with most of what you have to say.



Stop the circular arguments already. If you want to talk about Musharrafs "detentions" and "extraditions", start a seperate thread. ..

How word's make such a massive effect on how you judge a story.

Fundamentalist.....orthodox
Sniper.......sharpshooter
kidnapped........extraordinary rendition
Collateral damage......innocent deaths
Decapitation strike....assassination
Shock and awe.....blitzkrieg
security contractor.....mercenary
Surgical strike.......some sort of beneficial medical procedure..lol




Using that sort of logic, Musharraf should do absolutely nothing to any criminal in Pakistan, because people will always bring up some excess or the other that his government has committed. If you think about it, almost every government in the world has been accused of some sort of excess or miscarriage of justice against its population. Should they all let every criminal go free because some group or the other says that they have no "standing" to enforce the law? ..

Mushy was not elected but seized power,he has no authority to ask others to follow the law if he has not himself....



Analyze each situation and each crime on its own merits. Whatever Musharaf may have done (and please provide evidence to support your charges against him on this new thread you open), has no bearing on the criminality or legality of the current actions of the militants; the fact that we supported them before has no bearing on, and is not a valid reason for, whether we should let them continue to propagate hate, violence and mayhem in Pakistan...

Yes i agree if it is a crime arrest the person and put them infront of a court,but do not go around attacking masjids,we all know they could have a peaceful outcome to lal masjid "drama" and not got into all this bombings.
Mushy refused .



This is not about Musharraf being elected, this is about terrorists blowing up and killing innocent people; this is about terrorists and bigots forcing and threatening people to adopt a POV or ideology. Elected or not, he has to stop these people and bring them to justice.

Its ironic that you rant about Musharraf being unelected, and then have no problems sympathizing with people who are not only themselves UNELECTED, but are forcing unarmed civilians to close their businesses and threatening them with material and physical harm. And as far as I remember, the "terrorist bradran" never advocated "democracy", they never agitated for democratic rule; all I remember them doing is criminal acts such as kidnapping and threatening people, closing down businesses, assaulting civilians and LEA's... Where in all of these activities do you see any "democratic struggle"?
Hypocrites, all of these Mullah supporters. They have no problems ranting against "unelected moderates", but can barely hide their glee when "unelected Mullah thugs" try to force their interpretation of Islam on others. ...

So you think that the army had nothing to do with bringing the MMA "unelected Mullah thugs" together and giving them control of NWFP/ Baluchistan?
It is really simple do you want a pakistan that allows alcohol/homosexuality/promotion of single mothers/call girls ect ect or a islamic pakistan that follows the sharia.



Give me a Musharraf or Ataturk over an Ayatollah, Mullah Omar or Saudi Maulvi any day.

One of the greatest islamic hero's in modern times is Mullah Omar.
To compare busharaff or attadog to him is insulting.
 
.
Agnostic looks like his feet in Ataturk's boots. What kind of openness he loking for will not get place in Pakistani muslim society, Insha Allah. As muslims its the duty of every Pakistani and muslims any where to try honestly to make and spend their life as Islam wants. Only this way they will be successful in this world and hereafter. Under the cover of suicide bombings and killings of innocent people, nobody can be allowed to accuse Islam or Islamic values or malign those honest and selfless people who are really working for Upholding the cause of Islam, whether they are working through MMA or any of the other non political Islamic groupings.
 
.
Fair enough,i agree with most of what you have to say..


Though im not a big fan of Agnostic but this comment of his i also agree


How word's make such a massive effect on how you judge a story.

Fundamentalist.....orthodox
Sniper.......sharpshooter
kidnapped........extraordinary rendition
Collateral damage......innocent deaths
Decapitation strike....assassination
Shock and awe.....blitzkrieg
security contractor.....mercenary
Surgical strike.......some sort of beneficial medical procedure..lol..

we Dabong this cant be justified.





Mushy was not elected but seized power,he has no authority to ask others to follow the law if he has not himself....

Yes i agree if it is a crime arrest the person and put them infront of a court,but do not go around attacking masjids,we all know they could have a peaceful outcome to lal masjid "drama" and not got into all this bombings.
Mushy refused ..

Musharraf could not have seized power if the political thugs including members from PPP and Muslim League both N and other factions and not to forget MMA, had helped him ammend the constitution.

So dont blam him alone its the same old cycle political parties lack will and commitment if they had shown unity he would not have been in power.

Even if he did get power it would have no support from the world.





So you think that the army had nothing to do with bringing the MMA "unelected Mullah thugs" together and giving them control of NWFP/ Baluchistan?
It is really simple do you want a pakistan that allows alcohol/homosexuality/promotion of single mothers/call girls ect ect or a islamic pakistan that follows the sharia..


yes indeed they brough MMA in,

Rest we want Sharia but the true sharia not the version made up by the so-called political religiouse leaders.
their version is not the correct representative of sharia and Islam.
the immoral activities well how can a true Muslim would like that.

But my question is why everyone jump over these issue inside Pakistan, its strange that many Muslims abroad are in these practices.

Im sure many of the Pakistani Muslims on this forum living abroad do drink, have dates with women, so how can they have the moral justification to talk about sharia
(Dabong im not talking about im talking about whom i know they do all this :)]



One of the greatest islamic hero's in modern times is Mullah Omar.
To compare busharaff or attadog to him is insulting.

Mullah Umer could be said true hero but not in the present circum stance but in the early days of Taliban movment when the movement was started by Young Mullah Umer against the atrocities by the warlords at that time .

Afterwards the movement truned into a political drive.

Do u any of you know that how Umer started the Taliban movement what was that incident that had led to this movement.???
 
.
Agnostic looks like his feet in Ataturk's boots. What kind of openness he loking for will not get place in Pakistani muslim society, Insha Allah. As muslims its the duty of every Pakistani and muslims any where to try honestly to make and spend their life as Islam wants. Only this way they will be successful in this world and hereafter. Under the cover of suicide bombings and killings of innocent people, nobody can be allowed to accuse Islam or Islamic values or malign those honest and selfless people who are really working for Upholding the cause of Islam, whether they are working through MMA or any of the other non political Islamic groupings.



Brother dont bother much about Agnostic

according to my information he is not Muslim :)

[Sorry Agnostic but thats the truth u know that also).

Rest brother about Islamic values yes i agree no one is defing these on part of Muslims.
while the non-Muslims well they dont have any concern with Islam rather they are the ones at top to malign Islam.

MMA is doing nothing for the Islamic cause not even the so-called OIC.

Brother we need to be honest and than work togather
 
.
Musharraf could not have seized power if the political thugs including members from PPP and Muslim League both N and other factions and not to forget MMA, had helped him ammend the constitution.

So dont blam him alone its the same old cycle political parties lack will and commitment if they had shown unity he would not have been in power.

Even if he did get power it would have no support from the world..

I totally agree with your point.








yes indeed they brough MMA in,

Rest we want Sharia but the true sharia not the version made up by the so-called political religiouse leaders.
their version is not the correct representative of sharia and Islam.
the immoral activities well how can a true Muslim would like that..


I want sharia in pakistan,but to get it we have to have an democratic welfare state.
Sharia from my understanding if i can give an example is pray time,make it law that evey public place/business must close during prayer time,but let the people choose if they want to pray or not.


But my question is why everyone jump over these issue inside Pakistan, its strange that many Muslims abroad are in these practices.

Im sure many of the Pakistani Muslims on this forum living abroad do drink, have dates with women, so how can they have the moral justification to talk about sharia
(Dabong im not talking about im talking about whom i know they do all this :)]..

If it is a afghan or saudi style sharia then i am totally against as it is not islamic.
I live in the UK so when i talk of sharia i am bound to have more liberal interpretation.





Mullah Umer could be said true hero but not in the present circum stance but in the early days of Taliban movment when the movement was started by Young Mullah Umer against the atrocities by the warlords at that time .

Afterwards the movement truned into a political drive

Do u any of you know that how Umer started the Taliban movement what was that incident that had led to this movement.???


In 1994, there was a serious failure of the Pakistani cotton crop, which threatened to bring its textile industry to a standstill. Asif Zardari, the husband of Mrs.Benazir Bhutto, the then Prime Minister, flew into Turkmenistan and entered into a contract for the purchase of a large quantity of cotton. The Turkmenistan authorities wanted to send the cotton to Iran and from there ship it to Karachi.

Zardari did not agree to it. Instead, he asked them to send the cotton by road via Afghanistan. He had the contract for the road transport of the cotton awarded to a Pakistani crony of his based in Hong Kong. The first two cotton convoys from Turkmenistan were looted by Mujahideen groups operating in the Herat area of Afghanistan.
Zardari thereupon sent Maj.Gen. (retd) Nasirullah Babbar, Benazir Bhutto's Interior Minister, and Pervez Musharraf to Afghanistan to provide protection to the cotton convoys. They asked Mulla Mohammad Omar, who subsequently became the Amir of the Taliban, to collect a large number of students (Talibs) from the madrasas of Pakistan and constitute them into a force for the protection of the cotton convoys. Thus, was the Taliban born.

Babbar and Musharraf, who had heard of the exploits of Amjad Farooqi in Kabul in 1992, asked him to help Mulla Omar in organising this convoy protection force. He did so. Babbar himself travelled with the first convoy after this arrangement came into force and Amjad Farooqi and his boys escorted it.
A few months later, Mulla Omar deputed Amjad Farooqi to raid Herat and capture it with the help of his boys. He did so without difficulty, to the pleasant surprise of many, including the ISI. Thus, from a cotton convoy protection force, the Taliban became the ruler of Kandahar and Herat and other areas. Assisted by Amjad Farooqi and his associates, it started gradually extending its administrative control to other areas.
 
.
Brother dont bother much about Agnostic

according to my information he is not Muslim :)

[Sorry Agnostic but thats the truth u know that also).

So you are going to start that whole load of crap on this forum now are you? Once again, who made you God almighty to judge someones faith? Please do share your "information" with us.

On second thought, share your "information" with us on my intro thread, since it's not related to the subject of this thread.

Peace sister
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom