Peshawar school attackers mostly Pakistan nationals: DG ISPR!

[insight-out]

It is not hard to find people in Pakistan who would be willing to commit such odious crimes, given the right mix of threats, incentives and manipulation. The country is full of ignorant, poor folks who can be manipulated into commiting such horrible acts.

What I have always wondered is who are the operational leaders of these groups. You have to be highly motivated, and have some leadership skills to get your group to commit such acts. Who are these people, and what motivates them?

Then you have the people behind the group leaders. Who are the financiers? These explosives and guns and ammunition cost a lot of money. You have lodging and feeding all the operatives, transportation, fuel, etc. And of course training. All the operatives must have some sort of training, which also costs money. You have to pay for the material used for training, and the trainer himself.

Which brings us to the question, who are the trainers? As we have seen time and time again, some of these operations are executed in a highly professional manner that would be the envy of many special forces around the world. Case in point, the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team. A lot of planning, strategy, operational tactics and intelligence gathering goes into executing these operations. And who are the weapons/explosives experts - the technicians.

Who are the people putting all of this together? Someone must play the role of a CEO i.e. one who oversees the entire operation or operations. He would be the one to network with key people responsible for different functions of the operation, including:
- Material (weapons, etc) suppliers
- Local law enforcement
- Foreign groups who can supply personnel for training or operatives
- "Real estate agents" who can arrange housing and training facilities
- "Employment agents"/ human traffickers who can supply a steady stream of young people willing to die
- Intelligence gatherers
The CEO has to put together all the operations and is probably responsible for a specific region.

It is obvious that these terrorist attacks are not simply a disenfranchised group of people run amok, angry at every one or simply wanting to die for the 72 virgins. Nay, a lot of work goes into this.

Who are the people behind the pawns?

 

[Armstrong]

I was pointing out the fallacy of the examples you gave earlier, about anti rape protests and antwi wall street protests. The difference being that nobody supports the other side - rapists or wall street screw ups.

But now you are bringing a different example that is irrelevant to the original point, which was about the protests for or against a specific incident at a particular time. Pro and anti gay rights protests will happen until the whole country has laws in place, and it ceases to be apolitical hot potato. That is how laws get made in democracies, though protests and demonstrations by people who passionately believe in something.

But nobody there would hold rallies in support of criminals who bomb abolition centers or churches accepting homosexuality. But in Pakistan, there were several rallies praising the killers:

So your new example doesn't really hold up.

Also, tell me this - how many rallies were held in Pakistan in support of the cartoonists? You are asking me for empirical evidence - of course I don't have any at hand, and am willing to be enlightened - can you please show me news of rallies in Pakistan protesting for freedom of speech and the right to insult any person, including prophets? If you can find me even one such rally where Pakistanis argue that Frenchpeople have every right to disrespect a prophet and not be killed for it, then I shall research empirically to see how many people support the right to blaspheme and how many support the killers.

Until then, I shall go with my educated guess rather than empirical evidence.

There were no fallacy in the examples for the examples were to impress upon the reader that all protests die down not that some protests are held for and against the same issue.

The other example was relevant because contentious issues in a society are hotly debated as you just admitted; Gay rights is a contentious issue in the US whereas the question of where Freedom starts or ends is a contentious issue in Pakistan !

There would be no rallies held in Pakistan supporting the cartoonists or the right to insult any person including prophets just as there would be no or very little protests happening in the EU supporting a Holocaust denier or having the right to pass homophobic, antisemetic or racists comments - Each society has its own red-lines and sensitivities to things ! Which is precisely why you may occasionally see some White Supremacist organization in the EU or earlier on in the US carrying a Neo-Nazi rally while you will never see a rally in Pakistan being held about insulting Blacks - Because of different sensitivities; its a non issue for us just as whether someone can or cannot insult religion is a non issue for them !

So far are protests rallies against fanaticism is concerned; there have been plenty of them with the most recent ones being after the APS Massacre when the whole of Pakistan took to the streets for many days and the momentum gained from that galvanized public opinion for the Operation including Intelligence led Operations being conducting in our cities.

So far as the rallies supporting terrorists are concerned; it happens in all societies and its an aberration. Didn't the Hindu Mahasabha announced only recently that they wanted to open a Temple dedicated to Godse or how they'd like to take out rallies in support of them or how the Bravery day was observed in Maharashtra or how a documentary eulogizing the man is in the makings ?

Hindu Mahasabha plans bike rally for Nathuram Godse - The Times of India

Godse eulogy disrupts Rajya Sabha, government says no question of support | Business Standard News

Protest in Rajya Sabha over eulogising Gandhi's killer Godse - The Times of India

Just as people opposed the above and extolled the above; people opposed and extolled what happened in Pakistan !

 

[Jungibaaz]

Of course I do not blame ISI alone. Although ISI under leadership of ZIA did help form Mujahideen to fight "Afghan Jihad" against Soviet Union. There is no denying it as USA, Saudia at the time funded it as well:
THE ABC'S OF JIHAD IN AFGHANISTAN * Courtesy, USA

My criticism of ISI is legitimate as their job was to defend Pakistan's interests against foreign powers, NOT playing in the hands of foreign powers for $$$.

What they were doing at the time seemed well within the interests of Pakistan. Though Zia's internal policies, radicalisation starting with the army, to government institutions and society at large was most definitely a crime. But if you and I went back to that time, without the gift of foresight, I am sure the implications of what was being done would not occur to you, nor could you predict the turn of events from the late 80''s to the early 90's. I am quite certain that although you may have felt uncomfortable as a liberal with the use of ideology in this way, it would not seem to you against the interests of Pakistan, had you and I have been there now.

That is actually a sensible policy for mods to follow - I have myself suggested that previously, that mods should not moderate discussions they actively participate in.

Aye it is. It helps avoid all sorts of unnecessary crap. Though I've been guilty of it once in a while where I've already moderated and cannot hold myself from being provoked by another member's brazen stupidity.

 

[Armstrong]

This good terrorist bad terrorist, Afghan, Pakistani Taliban, pre and post-9/11 you're oversimplifying.
To blame like that is to miss out key details and definitive elements of the story. A few facts, questions rather for you to consider before making your judgement:

What is the difference between the TTP and Afghan Taliban, and some sub factions?
What is the difference between the Afghan Taliban post-9/11 and 90's era?
What was the political landscape of Afghanistan at the time, right from the exit of the Soviets, carrying into the Njibullah government, and the two civil wars? I can tell you that people ruled Kabul once that made Taliban look like fairies and saints.
Origins of the taliban in 1994 and the reasons for their widespread support and successful campaign.
Who are the Northern Alliance and what is their significance in post Soviet Afghanistan and whom do they represent and who do they hold grudges with?
Ethnic and sectarian colours to the conflict, right from the civil war, till today? The time of the soviet invasion, seeds were sown once again of an old divide between people, triggered between mistrust and betrayal between opposing factions and tribes.
How did the US' change the conflict?
How did the presence of foreign troops once again, change the entire equation not just over there, but in Pakistan too.

Answer even half of these questions adequately and you would not so confidently blame the ISI, trust me.

Add to the equation the hostile attitude that Afghanistan took with respect to Pakistan since day one whether it was refusing to recognize the Durand line and instead calling everything uptil Jhelum in Punjab and pretty much the whole of Baluchistan as their own to hosting every single separatists insurgency that threatened Pakistan since the country's inception to the present one.

 

[Norwegian]

What they were doing at the time seemed well within the interests of Pakistan. Though Zia's internal policies, radicalisation starting with the army, to government institutions and society at large was most definitely a crime. But if you and I went back to that time, without the gift of foresight, I am sure the implications of what was being done would not occur to you, nor could you predict the turn of events from the late 80''s to the early 90's. I am quite certain that although you may have felt uncomfortable as a liberal with the use of ideology in this way, it would not seem to you against the interests of Pakistan, had you and I have been there now.

Well, under ZIA's regime there was not much freedom of press as it is today. I am sure if internet was available back then, there would be many sensible Pakistanis who would have pointed out that Islamization under ZIA would destroy entire fabric of Pakistani society. What's done is done. Now is the time to remove this cancer from our society. Remnants of Zia like Nawaz, Altaf must be eliminated from Pakistan!

 

[Jungibaaz]

Add to the equation the hostile attitude that Afghanistan took with respect to Pakistan since day one whether it was refusing to recognize the Durand line and instead calling everything uptil Jhelum in Punjab and pretty much the whole of Baluchistan as their own to hosting every single separatists insurgency that threatened Pakistan since the country's inception to the present one.

Yes, you're right. This another thing for all to consider before blaming Pak's policies in Afghanistan. It is not by choice we become involved with Afghanistan and it's troubles, the modern day example yet again proves this, war starts there, spills over with no trouble at all and no reduction in potency.

Well, under ZIA's regime there was not much freedom of press as it is today. I am sure if internet was available back then, there would be many sensible Pakistanis who would have pointed out that Islamization under ZIA would destroy entire fabric of Pakistani society. What's done is done. Now is the time to remove this cancer from our society. Remnants of Zia like Nawaz, Altaf must be eliminated from Pakistan!

Pakistanis must change their ways as individuals, it's the need of the hour, the simplest of changes is and the most soft spoken is often the most profound. Corruption, backwardness and extremism is the main issue we face as a country, it's one thing for war and power shortages to hurt the economy.... but these issues tear at the very fabric of Pakistani society.

 

[Armstrong]

Yes, you're right. This another thing for all to consider before blaming Pak's policies in Afghanistan. It is not by choice we become involved with Afghanistan and it's troubles, the modern day example yet again proves this, war starts there, spills over with no trouble at all and no reduction in potency.

I don't know why people come up with an ideological raison detre for the meddling in Afghanistan or supporting the Taliban when the meddling was done by Bhutto - if an allegedly whiskey drinking socialists can be an islamists than I dunno what else to think of - and Nasirullah Babur - who was no Zia - at first and then later under Benazir's Government - who wasn't Zia or anything like it either !

It was just a policy decision to solve a mess of a situation.

 

[Porus]

Well, under ZIA's regime there was not much freedom of press as it is today. I am sure if internet was available back then, there would be many sensible Pakistanis who would have pointed out that Islamization under ZIA would destroy entire fabric of Pakistani society. What's done is done. Now is the time to remove this cancer from our society. Remnants of Zia like Nawaz, Altaf must be eliminated from Pakistan!

People like Abdul Wali Khan had warned the army and said that the fire Pakistan is playing with will one day burn down our own houses. But he and his father are anyway playing the roles of evil monsters in mutala e Paksitan.

 

[Norwegian]

Add to the equation the hostile attitude that Afghanistan took with respect to Pakistan since day one whether it was refusing to recognize the Durand line and instead calling everything uptil Jhelum in Punjab and pretty much the whole of Baluchistan as their own to hosting every single separatists insurgency that threatened Pakistan since the country's inception to the present one.

Well there is a BIG reason why Pashtuns do not recognize this imaginary Durand Line. Pakistan inherited this line from the British Raj which IMPOSED this line on Afghans as a bufferzone:
Durand Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Armstrong]

Well there is a BIG reason why Pashtuns do not recognize this imaginary Durand Line. Pakistan inherited this line from the British Raj which IMPOSED this line on Afghans as a bufferzone:
Durand Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pashtuns are fine with this line; Afghans are not !

This 'imposed' line isn't any different than quite a few borders in the world that came about as a result of Treaty Obligations. If the Afghans want to claim our Pashtun territory on the based of shared ethnicity - We've got more than twice the Pashtuns then the rest of the world combined.....by that logic most of Afghanistan should become ours.

 

[Norwegian]

Pashtuns are fine with this line; Afghans are not !

This 'imposed' line isn't any different than quite a few borders in the world that came about as a result of Treaty Obligations. If the Afghans want to claim our Pashtun territory on the based of shared ethnicity - We've got more than twice the Pashtuns then the rest of the world combined.....by that logic most of Afghanistan should become ours.

Read the article I quoted above. Most Pashtun politicians do not even recognize this Durand Line! Its impossible to close an imaginary border also explains why Pakistan failed to seal Pak-Afghan border after Soviet invasion.

 

[Armstrong]

Read the article I quoted above. Most Pashtun politicians do not even recognize this Durand Line!

On our side they do at most they want soft borders; on the Afghan side neither Pashtuns nor non Pashtuns can give up their infatuation with a Loy or Greater Afghanistan !

 

[janon]

i think part of the reason is that iran is an exclusive country which has a long history and cultural heritage i.e. they're all part of one ethnic group which is persian they have common dress food language norms etc whereas in Pakistan it's the exact opposite and all these different ethnicities were made to join together and forced to live with each other whether or not it was of their own will so the concept of nationalism becomes very difficult.
...

I think you hit the nail on the head there. The Iranians have had a self identity as Persians for millenia, long before islam began. But other Arab countries in the middle east do not have a well defined identity, although there have been civilizations for millenia in those places. Most modern arab nation states were drawn up on maps by colonialists. Iranians do not need religion to have a self identity, because they already have an ethnic, cultural, linguistic and historic idea of themselves.

Pakistan similarly was formed very recently, and it could not bank on ethnicity or language or culture or history to define themselves - either there were several of those, or they were shared by Indians, from whom Pakistanis were trying to form a distinct identity in the first place. The only possible solution seemed to agree that religion would hold everybody together. That was not to be, as events of 1971 showed - language and culture and the right to self determination were a stronger pull.

After 1971 there was a lot of soul searching, and once again the powers that be decided to hammer religious indentity as a unifying factor. (Pakistan ka matlab kya? ...) Hence many Pakistanis today believe that they are Pakistanis only because they are muslims. Or that they are muslims first, Pakistanis next. I think that was the mistake that the rulers (Zia and co) committed, trying to emphasize religious identity rather than nationalism.

If you look at India in the same period, there was a furious (and succesful) effort to forge a nationalistic identity, emphasizing unity in diversity. Most school assemblies in the morning sing songs to the idea of unity in diversity, Doordarshan (the only TV channel we had back then) would frequently play these songs, and so on. So even though a Tamilian and Bihari are as different as chalk and cheese, both agree to be loyal to the idea of India.

If India had done the same mistake, of trying to forge an identity by religion or ethnicity instead of allegience to the sovereignity of the country, we would have been in the same predicament today. For this, I am grateful to all those "secular" politicians of that time who are the targets of the ire of so many nationalistic Indians on this forum.

 

[Musafir117]

Yeah sure ISI supported terrorist Afghan Taliban until 9/11 happened and they started a war against the same people who were previously "good terrorists". In response TTP was born

Your whole crap about creation and funding Taliban by ISI nothing but lake of knowledge, you seriously need to spend few hours to understand the facts related with post Russian invasion/Russian Invasion/Pak,USA,SA alliance/Mujahideen Groups. You and few other PTI wale are great hypocrites I saw in this forum, you guys chose and pick according the vision that suit you and put away national Interests. Your leader is the best example of it a useless Dharna which cost billions of damage in Economy and waste of funds your own party ended up gain nothing but shame.

You could make the thread subject with other heading but you chose the word " Pakistani " with intention nothing but invite indian members to defame whole Army whole Pakistan, if you have problem with some army individual or a particular era discuss it and stop defaming Entire ISI.PERIOD.

 

[Norwegian]

they're all part of one ethnic group which is persian

Not quite true. There are more ethnicities in Iran than Pakistan:

Your whole crap about creation and funding Taliban by ISI nothing but lake of knowledge, you seriously need to spend few hours to understand the facts related with post Russian invasion/Russian Invasion/Pak,USA,SA alliance/Mujahideen Groups. You and few other PTI wale are great hypocrites I saw in this forum, you guys chose and pick according the vision that suit you and put away national Interests. Your leader is the best example of it a useless Dharna which cost billions of damage in Economy and waste of funds your own party ended up gain nothing but shame.

Funding Mujahideen to fight against Soviet Union in the name of ISLAM was NEVER is NOT will NEVER be our national interest! Got it? And what has PTI to do with this thread? Pakistan lost more under that civilian dictator Nooray's leadership than under PTI's 126 day dharna.

You could make the thread subject with other heading but you chose the word " Pakistani " with intention nothing but invite indian members to defame whole Army whole Pakistan, if you have problem with some army individual or a particular era discuss it and stop defaming Entire ISI.PERIOD.

DG ISPR used the word "Pakistani". Blame him, not me