Buner falls without a fight

[jeypore]

MINGORA: The Swat Taliban have imposed a ban on display of weapons in market places, urban areas and even the Imamadheri centre, saying there is no need of taking arms if the Islamic Shariah has been enforced in letter and spirit.The decision was taken on the appeal of Tehrik Nifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi chief Maulana Sufi Mohammad, Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan said.

Muslim Khan told the media by phone that they took the weapons around for the sake of imposition of Shariah and have succeeded in achieving this goal.

‘The Taliban are ready for any cooperation in the quick implementation of the Nizam-i-Adl regulation,’ he added.

The spokesman welcomed the passage of NAR from the National Assembly and paid homage to President Asif Ali Zardari and legislators for their quick decision in this respect.

He hoped now the Islamic law would soon be implemented in letter and spirit.

He said the meeting of Tehrik Taliban shura would soon be called to devise a future line of action.

‘Weapons are an ornament of Pakhtuns, but now that Shariah has been enforced in Malakand, there will be no need of arms anymore,’ the Taliban spokesman said.

To another question he said, Jihad (holy war) would continue till the Day of Judgment, vowing to play their due role for supremacy of Islam and UmmahDAWN.COM | - NWFP | Taliban ban display of weapons in Swat

So, explain to me now, what is the continuation of the jihad is towards?

 

[S-2]

"The least you can do is decide where you stand, with Pakistan or with the Islamist terrorists?"

I'm sorry but you're wrong. From the perspective of the mensheviks, the best course of action is to remain the militants projected voice of reason. A banal, neutral mouthpiece that coats the most grave brutality into a subtle, sponge-softened punch that speads the blow peripherally across, rather than penetrating violently into the psyches of those still to be swayed against this beast.

By this, we are conditioned and innured to the creeping violence before us.

There's value to some by standing to the side and remaining officially undeclared yet with full sympathy to our enemy's narrative...and in fact they're often the militants' leading proponents.

 

[muse]

Certainly from the Menshaviks point of view - and the view of our Mod -- but not from the point of view of the Pakistani, not from my point of view - I want them to decide, to be forearmed, so they can in some way contribute to a Pakistan safe from Islamist terror.

The Longer they hesitate, the more the Islamist etrrorists and his islamist enablers will cause confusion among the Pakistanis for whom it must be almost like their whole world has turned upside down - and in reality it has.

We must rteject these Menshaviks and expose them for what they are, enablers.

 

[S-2]

"We must rteject these Menshaviks and expose them for what they are, enablers."

They are the useful fools of this counter-revolution and have a final role to play before their masters...but that comes later as part of the "victory celebration". Until then, part of their responsibility is to remain behind the cloak of verbal subterfuge and continue working the moral edges of the argument- much like wolves peeling off the young, old, and sick from the herd.

Except instead of killing their quarry, they will simply shift allegiances as a newly-infected minion.

What's left might be the most strong and resolute. However, you'll need to be such as the lines will be clear and drawn and you will find yourselves outnumbered.

I see it here. It reflects your state. I won't, sadly, call you a nation. I can't. You're not-even yet. I think that what emerges may be, though. You are very, very close to civil war and I openly wonder on whose side your army will toss it's hat.

More so than ever.

 

[SurvivoR]

More to the point, you can expect that some entity will be rigorous in their enforcement of said ban. Weapons, naturally, being the ultimate arbiter, the taliban know what the Pakistani state hasn't. Ornamental or not, it's time for all weapons to be taken out of the public's hands except for those invested by the state to make legalized violence.

I applaud what they've done. I only regret that this wasn't done by your nat'l gov't years ago to preclude the rising to power of such entities. This is intended to identify, rapidly, any potential threat to the new prevailing power. Nothing else.

Very clever but this is raw consolidation of power executed with a maestro's touch and in virtuoso style.

All hail the conquering heros of SWAT. Now it's on to Buner.

how about the guns in US. But i think all those shooting innocent people by somem crazy white men is accidental.

Coming to the topic. Only those are opposing this deal who's agents who were on rampage in Swat because their very agents have been neutralized by this bill.
even puppets like karzai has started barking i guess he is clinging to last straws but it is not going to soften US for his re-election.

 

[muse]

Except instead of killing their quarry, they will simply shift allegiances as a newly-infected minion

"Adapt" as an enabler has called this strategy - they are transparent and I did peg em early on.


I too see the very strong possiblity, that us why I am as insistent as I am that they take a stand - Pakistan is too big to fail? Possibly, but there much between success and failure, lebanon is still around, emasculated, but around. God Willing we will not let this be the fate of Pakistan and when we are finished, if there is even one, even if in far away places, by God, he will be the last.


.

 

[Sam Dhanraj]

So, explain to me now, what is the continuation of the jihad is towards?

Jeypore...its a hogwash that Taliban are going to stop at SWAT and there would be peace after this...

See this interview with Mullah Nazir and let people decide themselves what their Jihad is gearing towards...

Seems the channel has uploaded 3 parts and in the process of uploading other 3 as it says (1 of 6)..

YouTube - builtinhistory's Channel

I can never believe that they are going to stop at swat....or there would be no more AK's in public..

 

[S-2]

These mensheviks stand on the moral sidelines. Some stand also on the physical sidelines by virtue of their distant proximity.

That will become an issue over time. You and others will have to return to organize and take part in the resistance to these creatures. You may be too old to fight but your brain and leadership will be nonetheless valuable...provided it's also accessible. Brains can generate thoughts from remote distances. Whether they're conveyed with power is a separate matter. Leadersip is far more personal and demands an intimate touch. Whether political or military leadership that means being in P-stan.

Were I college-aged and unmarried I'd be finishing out the semester and heading home until this is resolved or I wouldn't call myself a Pakstani. As badly as Pakistan needs competent college-educated professionals, it has a higher need just now for fit, intelligent young men to wear the uniform of their nation as officers in it's armed forces.

THAT, unfortunately, is the best use of the talents of these young men

 

[muse]

There is no shortage of people who are opposed to the tyranny of the Islamist terrorist -- what they lack is the kind of PR network the enablers have provided the Islamist terrorist and focused, determined and sincere leadership.

This being a Defence forum, I thought it leaders will see the threat clearly and would want forum members united and focused on the enemy, but their interest is other, it is clear to me.

 

[muse]

Free for all?
Ejaz Haider



An article carried by The News (“An open letter to Gen Kayani”; April 14) by Harish Puri, a former Indian army colonel, raises a host of questions. (See The News International - No. 1 English Newspaper from Pakistan - Wednesday, April 15, 2009 daily_detail.asp?id=172290)

One question, up front, is obvious: would the free media of India have published similar advice to the Indian army chief by a Pakistani officer? The categorical answer is no.

Why?

There are several reasons. India has managed to develop, and credit is due her on that score, a sense of nationalism that not just binds its various institutions, civil and military, in the formation of the state but also draws its civil society into that nexus, at least those sections that matter in the initial evolution of such a consensus. This helps India in behaving as a unitary actor in formulating and pushing policies, especially those catalogued under the generic rubric of national security.

In theory, all states can do it. The issue of consensus has to do with the broader acceptance of those policies.

Please note that this consensus has a horrible flipside: it tends to develop internal structural constraints over time that can deny a state flexibility of response, but that is another topic; neither does this consensus in India involve, by any stretch, everyone who holds an Indian passport. But, to the extent of whether the state can express itself with one voice on most, if not all, issues, India has evolved such a consensus and is in the process of pulling in even those who currently remain on the periphery or are outside it.

To this end the state has used multiple means: relatively stable political institutions and processes; respect for the constitution; a sound higher judiciary; a professional military that accepts civilian supremacy; growing economic clout; an expanding middle class; and, lest anyone ignore the most important fact, ruthless coercion when necessary and against those groups that defy the Indian state.

That the Indian state has always been a hard-as-nails state compared to a much softer Pakistan is because it has been a democracy and has managed to develop a coercive majoritarian consensus for the exercise not just of its external sovereignty but, more importantly, its internal writ.

Therefore, if a Pakistani officer were to write an open letter to the Indian army chief on, say how that army should behave in Kashmir and inform him on how the Indian army should leave behind its memories of the 1962 debacle, it would be trashed by any Indian editor without a second thought.

The point is not to argue that we must emulate what an Indian editor would do but to raise some questions about why such an article should find place in a Pakistani newspaper.

First, is it important to debate the point and thrust of such an article, an exercise to determine whether printing it would serve any purpose — and by purpose let us assume here that we mean changing the institutional direction of the Pakistan Army which, as the article states, is supposed to be perfidious both in relation to its neighbours and internally?

This is an important question because institutional perfidy of Pakistan Army is exactly what the underlying message of this article is. The argument is clever, combine as it does the concerns of civil society in Pakistan about the Army’s role with India’s concern over the role of the Pakistan Army vis-à-vis itself.

This message the Indian colonel conveys by highlighting the fact that the Pakistan Army has been an irresponsible outfit both internally and externally. While it was defeated by India, that defeat came in the face of its brutalities in the erstwhile East Pakistan. But even as it (Pakistan Army) ruthlessly operated against the Bengalis, it has cowed in the face of the ferocious Taliban. It is interesting how he throws in bits about the Pakistan Army’s professionalism. This he does not to contradict his other negative assertions about the Pakistan Army but to strengthen the overall argument about the latter’s perfidy.

Deconstruct this discourse to see how he appeals to the liberal minds in Pakistan. Are we, as editors, required to do this exercise of deconstruction? I think we are.

As editors we can always say that newspapers can print all sorts of viewpoints. Fair enough. But can, or should, this general acceptance of all viewpoints prevent us from establishing certain standards both in terms of judging the quality of an article as well as the broader implications of printing it.

Let me be a little more specific.

To argue that newspapers must print everything, and here I am assuming that the quality of what is being printed is not disputed, implies that in our professional capacity we are only faithful to our craft; that nothing matters beyond that. Do we always act in and through such purity of form, even assuming that we can?

The answer is no. When General Pervez Musharraf (retd) sacked the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the media took up that cause and many of us acted more as citizens of Pakistan than “pure” journalists. Indeed, we used the power we wield as journalists in the service of what we thought was in the interest of civil society with us being members of that over and above our professional calling as journalists.

Drawing the personal-professional line, as I have often stated, is difficult even in societies that are not disjointed. In such a one as ours, it is almost impossible.

But then it also proves my point that purity of form is difficult to maintain and as editors we cannot dismiss the context in which we print something and, more importantly, afford to ignore the implications of what we print. Not just that, we keep crossing the line between being citizens and professional journalists.

In this specific case, we have another problem too. Could this article also find place in Jang or its contents run on GEO? While there is nothing to prevent the editors of The News from acting independently of sister organisations within their group, the question becomes pertinent in relation to broader policy.

It is difficult to accept being subjected to two extremes from the same conglomerate. For instance, while the article by the Indian colonel castigates the Pakistan Army for standing by and allowing Swat to go under, the group’s other media outlets have been congratulating the nation for the parliament having taken the correct decision on Swat.

Here we also get into another problem: how can we talk about democracy and civilian supremacy while goading the Army, even if indirectly, into violating the constitutional compact, given what the ANP has been insisting on and how the political actors have been behaving in relation to counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism efforts?

In fact, regardless of whether Charlie’s aunt and I accept that, much of the media has actually created the conditions under which Pakistanis reject the idea of a threat perception from the extremists and have decided, through parliament, to take a political course of action on Swat — surrender rather than fight it out.

The point is, none of these questions is being debated even as we, in the media, subject the nation to extremes. It is difficult to accept that our trade presupposes a free for all.

Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Certainly from the Menshaviks point of view - and the view of our Mod --

Fascinating - you continue dissembling without one iota of tangible instance to validate your conspiracy theory of 'hidden agenda and censorship' - indeed you have fallen flat on your face when asked to provide such.

From sarcasm you moved to personal attacks on me and others that disagreed with you - that really is the limit of your ability to engage in discourse in support of your convictions, especially when your falsehoods are patently called out.

I would say that continue with your diatribes - regurgitating falsehoods ad infinitum is not going to change this forums policy in support of your draconian ideas of stifling the voices of those who disagree with you - but I must again remind you to stick with the topic please.

 

[muse]

Go away! Reform yourself otherwise we don't have any basis to converse

 

[EyelessInGaza]

Free for all?
Ejaz Haider



An article carried by The News (“An open letter to Gen Kayani”; April 14) by Harish Puri, a former Indian army colonel, raises a host of questions. ......

One question, up front, is obvious: would the free media of India have published similar advice to the Indian army chief by a Pakistani officer? The categorical answer is no.

.....................

Without commenting on the core issues being discussed in this thread (yet), I'd disagree with the answer. Which actually is 'yes'.

I know; I was a journo in India. If a Pakistani officer (ex or otherwise) were to write a letter like that ( 'like that' = provocative, within a 'hot news' context) to the Indian COAS, I'd be singing and dancing my way to the presses.

 

[Hellfire]

Seems they have read some British history after all of devide and rule!

not only the British philosophy .... its as ancient as war itself

 

[Hellfire]

Now im really getting worried day by day......where is the army and ISI?

meeting the eternal threat from east who is out to destroy them since 1947. Now that is besides the point that the eternal threat could have done so in 1971 and throughtout 70s when it was a nuclear power and Pakistan was not even N of nuclear then!